tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3967196907553497212024-03-27T08:22:52.752-04:00The Utter Meaninglessness of EverythingWhere humankind's search for meaning hits a brick wallDPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-59648638952762894112011-12-24T13:38:00.006-05:002011-12-24T15:24:31.253-05:00On Buddhism and MisappropriationFor some reason, Buddhism, in America, has become a very unpopular religion. I find this highly interesting. I can't say that I know a lot about it. I know some of the basic tenets such as the Golden Mean and the eight-fold path and I'm also aware of some of it's more mystical elements involving reincarnation and hungry ghosts and things of that nature. At first glance it seems odd that it would be viewed so unfavorably. It's not like Buddhists as preaching violent jihad or anything like that. I had a university professor who swore that the Mongols lost their warlike nature when they adopted Buddhism and I am inclined to agree with him.<br /><br />The problem to my mind is that the majority of contact that most have with Buddhism in America comes in two forms. The first are Buddhist immigrants from southeast Asia who form faith communities here and build temples and so on. These people are some of the friendliest, hard-working people you will ever meet. The second form are, for lack of a better term, are well-to-do progressives who have taken (misappropriated?) some of the more secular aspects of Buddhism, ignored or rejected the importance of faith communities, and make claims about "being spiritual without being religious." This is a rough divide and there are many who do not easily fit into either category, but for the purposes of this post, it will suffice. <br /><br />The second group, I submit, is responsible for Buddhism's bad reputation. And to a certain extent, I can sympathize with that view. If someone was born in Thailand, a majority Buddhist country, and was raised a Buddhist and subsequently rejected the faith of his/her upbringing and claimed to be Mormon, how would that person be viewed by others in their community? Let's say this person has never gone to a single Mormon church meeting, has never been associated with any other Mormons and dismissed things like the First Vision and historicity of the Book of Mormon as superstitious nonsense. Rather they have only embraced the idea of free agency and eternal progression, although only in a limited, secular sense because other well-to-do, educated progressives had spoken favorably of it. Would we consider this person Mormon? Even with an expansive, inclusive definition of what constitutes a Mormon, this person would be on the outside looking in. You can't convert from Buddhist to cultural Mormon. And how would other community members view this person? Rather unfavorably, I'm afraid. Those well-to-do progressives attempt to define themselves as Buddhist come across as insincere as though they are covering their atheism with a veneer of intensely self-gratifying and self-centered spirituality. I personally find it tough to stomach and very insulting to Buddhists who havw fully embraced their faith and their faith communities.<br /><br />Take the parable of the raft across the river. Quasi-Buddhists (and others...I have heard several former Mormons allude to it as a justification of rejecting Mormomsim) have taken a deep, profound insight of Zen Buddhism and made it into an incredibly self-centered, hubristic idea. In a nutshell, the parable of the raft asks one to imagine being on a dangerous riverbank, with no bridge and no boat, and with safety on the other side. The proper way forward is to build a raft and sail to the other side. Once there, having crossed the river, you no longer need the raft, so you should abandon it and move on. One meaning of the parable is that a religious idea can only get you so far, but at a certain point, you need to abanon it and move on. Some see this interpretation as profound and it could be if our life journey was done in solitude. But what of those around us? I live in a community with friends and family. We are all on this journey together. What of those who don't know how to build rafts? Do we abandon them so we can focus on ourself? What about those who built poorly-constructed rafts and are now floundering in the middle of the river? Do we let them drown because our way forward is more important then their safety? There are many ways to build rafts that help you cross the river. And until everyone has crossed the river, it is immoral and callous to abandon your friends and family there. Maybe you don't like the raft you crossed in; that's fine. Switch it for another that is equally as useful. But I think it hubristic to claim that you've outgrown your first raft or you no longer have a need for it. And for anyone who uses this parable as a justification for abandoning a religious heritage, you don't sound profound, you sound selfish and uncaring of those you left behind.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-53751163835268142422010-01-23T23:34:00.003-05:002010-01-26T12:10:39.081-05:00On Rejecting MormonismI received some rather surprising news today. A person whom I had been quite friendly with for many years apparently <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=defriend">“defriended”</a> me on Facebook sometime in the recent past and today requested that I become a friend today. It’s probably a testament to my utter lack of social prowess that I never noticed she was gone in the first place, so I thought that she may have just let her account go inactive and then reopen another. It’s Facebook and it happens. No big deal. So I accepted her friend request.<br /><br />The first thing that jumped out at me was that she was back in a relationship with her ex-husband. Call me a non-romantic, but I’m not so keen on rekindling relationships that already have a history of implosion. Life’s hard enough without having to relive our failures. One strike and you’re out. (Well, one divorce and you’re out, at any rate).<br /><br />But what also stuck out was her religious preference which was the only other (for lack of a better word) trait that was listed on her profile page. I decided to investigate a little further and when I read some of her postings, I realized that she had gone from an ardent supporter of Mormonism to being an ardent supporter of agnosticism/atheism. Being a person who is rather lukewarm in matters religious or spiritual, I find religious ardor to be mystifying. I don’t get worked up about much of anything, but to me spirituality is such a gut-wrenching, difficult thing to deal with that I prefer to limit sharing my inner turmoil and angst to myself and persons whom I look up to as spiritual counselors (whom do not have to be members of the religious group with which I identify.)<br /><br />It caused me to reflect on making such a public pronouncement of faith. I can only assume that she felt it necessary to cut out the people in her life that reflected her old ways. Religious conversion definitely means ending old relationships and beginning new ones. But it is odd that someone like me who had such an infinitesimal impact on her life would merit such a symbolic ending of friendship. This is especially true given that I hadn’t spoken to her in almost three years and hadn’t emailed her for the same amount of time.<br /><br />All of these thoughts led me to the main point of this post and why I cannot turn my back on Mormonism. As I don’t care to elaborate on my personal beliefs (which are, and will remain, completely private) and my current connection with the Mormon Church, I will say that I have respect for the members of the Mormon Church. When I look back on my life and I recall the interactions that I’ve had with all the people that I met through Church and related activities, I can’t help but feel it was a good thing to have experienced it. I’m genuinely grateful that I got the opportunity to meet such good people. They are not perfect by a long shot. They have so many failings that I could list them here and never reach the end.<br /><br />When I look back on the relationship I had developed with my agnostic friend, I have to credit the church for facilitating a lot of the initial meeting. I met her for the first time at an Institute of Religion. I danced with her many times at church dances. I enjoyed her company at numerous activities that members of the church planned and staged. I remember with fondness preparing for and singing a duet with her at a talent show. I can say that the church gave me opportunities to get to know someone whom I probably would never have met otherwise. It gave me the opportunity to get to know and experience the best qualities of another person. She is a tremendously talented individual and a very special woman. I will always think warmly of the many conversations we had with one another and the time we spent together.<br /><br />Maybe there is no God and maybe there is no way to prove whether He exists. All I can talk about is what I know and what I don’t understand. I don’t understand the need people have to publicly cut ties with their cultural and religious past. I may not be a particularly devout member of my religion, but it is a part of who I am and it is a defining part of some of the relationships that I have with others. Call it unfortunate if you like, but I don’t think it’s possible to sever the religious aspect of your life and not impact the relationships that are connected to it. If I were to sever my connection to the Mormon church, its people and its history, life would go on. I would still get up and go on with life. But I can’t sever the relationships that I have built with it. Even as I sit here now and type this, there are ideas and cultural practices of Mormonism that I simply can’t agree with and that I simply can’t believe in. But deeper than those ideas, deeper than those cultural practices are the relationships that I’ve been blessed with. And to me, complete and utter rejection of Mormonism would be a rejection of those relationships. And that’s something I am not willing to do.<br /><br />Last year I read “The Brothers Karamazov” as part of my goal to read the great books of literature. It was an astoundingly good novel, even if it was lengthy (it actually becomes a page-turner that you can’t put down by the time you get to page 300 hundred or so.) The best part of the whole novel is when Elder Zossima tells Alyosha to love the world, every being, every creature with his whole soul. Later on, Alyosha experiences this transcendental love. It is poignant and moving scene that acts as counterbalance to the more famous chapters of “Rebellion” and “The Grand Inquisitor.”<br /><br />The person who conquers this world will be the person who can embrace and love all of it, even with all its horror, tragedy and cruelty. Anyone can love the beautiful and hate the ugly, but who among us can take that painful, yet liberating next step and love it all? I cannot turn my back on Mormonism because I can’t cut myself off from my heritage, from my culture and from my friends. Does it make me a hypocrite if I don’t happen to fit a certain type of membership profile, the often maligned “Peter Priesthood?” Does it make me a hypocrite if every day of my life I struggle with hope, faith and charity and fail?<br /><br />Faith that does not require a struggle against itself is no faith at all. And yet, every day I struggle.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-20764938959603812372009-12-01T14:23:00.002-05:002009-12-01T14:27:07.204-05:00On My Long HiatusIt has been quite some time since I posted anything on my blog. I have a couple of articles sitting in draft stages, but they are nowhere near being ready to be released. I have been working on other projects (in particular, a novel that I am writing) and I haven't had the time to spend thinking and writing about Mormonism, philosophy and law. I am still undecided if I want to split this blog into two and have one devoted to religion and another devoted to law and philosophy, but as I am naturally lazy, I get the feeling it's going to stay the way it is.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com4158tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-43216979481910257982008-09-29T19:35:00.006-04:002008-09-29T20:20:33.395-04:00A Response to Richard DutcherRichard Dutcher, the father of Mormon cinema, wrote an article for the Provo Daily Herald and shared <a href="http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/217694/">his parting words regarding Mormon cinema</a>. One particular quote seemed to jump out at me and although I have little or nothing to say in response to the issues raised by Mr. Dutcher, I felt that this particular idea needed a rebuttal of some sort. <br /><br />Mr. Dutcher implored Mormons to "put the moronic comedies behind [them]. If [they]'re going to make comedies, at least make them funny. Perhaps [they] should leave the mockery of Mormons to the anti-Mormons. They've had a lot more experience and, frankly, they do a better job."<br /><br />While reading Washington Irving's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Legend-Sleepy-Hollow-Other-Stories/dp/037575721X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222731921&sr=1-1">The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent</a>, I happened upon a few short stories regarding traditional Christmas celebrations in Yorkshire, England that are rather lighthearted in nature. At the conclusion of the final story, Mr. Irving makes the following observation.<br /><br /><blockquote>But enough of Christmas and its gambols; it is time for me to pause in this garrulity. Methinks I hear the questions asked by my graver readers, "To what purpose is all this? how is the world to be made wiser by this talk?" Alas! is there not wisdom enough extant for the instruction of the world? And if not, are there not thousands of abler pens laboring for its improvement? It is so much pleasanter to please than to instruct--to play the companion rather than the preceptor. What, after all, is the mite of wisdom that I could throw into the mass of knowledge! or how am I sure that my sagest deductions may be safe guides for the opinions of others? But in writing to amuse, if I fail the only evil is in my own disappointment. If, however, I can by any lucky chance, in these days of evil, rub<br />out one wrinkle from the brow of care or beguile the heavy heart of one moment of sorrow; if I can now and then penetrate through the gathering film of misanthropy, prompt a benevolent view of human nature, and make my reader more in good-humor with his fellow-beings and himself--surely, surely, I shall not then have written entirely in vain.</blockquote> Life is too short to be fed a constant diet of 'serious' movies. Sure, we all like to watch a serious, thought-provoking drama sometimes. But for all the bad things that go on in the world, people sometimes have to step back and have a good laugh at themselves. Every once in a while people need brainless, meaningless fodder to put life into perspective. To argue otherwise, as Mr. Dutcher did, makes one come across sounding like a Puritan or a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Downer">Debbie Downer</a>.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-27390979026346518292008-08-03T23:14:00.001-04:002008-08-03T23:19:10.391-04:00On Alma 30-34Sometimes when we read the Bible or the Book of Mormon because the books are separated by chapter and verse we have a tendency to read each chapter independent of the other chapters around them. This occurred to me suddenly today while our Sunday School class discussed Alma 32-34. Last week we discussed Korihor and Alma 30.<br /><br />In the past, whenever I read Alma 30, I couldn’t help but wonder why Alma gave a few passing answers, but didn’t really respond to any of Korihor’s allegations. I think that for many people, the refutations are less than satisfactory. The major points that Korihor raises are the following:<br /><br />1. Leaders of the church teach Christ and the atonement to get money from their congregations.<br /><br />2. No one can know of things to come and be sure of them.<br /><br />3. There is no atonement and each person fares according to his own strength and genius.<br /><br />Alma basically testifies that these things are not true and gives a few examples, but he doesn’t really examine any of these above points in detail. Further on, Korihor admits that he knew the truth all along, but that he was deceived by the devil.<br /><br />I don’t think that Mormon (or Joseph Smith, depending on your view of who wrote the Book of Mormon. The level of insight either way indicates a prophetic calling of the writer of the chapters regardless of who the actual author is.) was arguing that all atheists have met angels of light or that despite knowing the truth they cling to atheistic teachings because of their appeal to the ‘carnal’ mind. I think that he was trying to clearly establish that the three ideas above are in opposition to the true plan of God.<br /><br />In Alma 32-34, however, we see a detailed response to Korihor’s teachings. These chapters act as a rebuttal to the false teachings of Korihor. Alma 32 starts out with a group of indigent individuals who have been prohibited from worshiping in their place of worship even though they built it. Alma teaches them that worship doesn’t occur in a holy sanctuary alone. True worship occurs in a believer’s heart. And it is a response to Korihor’s first point.<br /><br />One thing that impresses me about the Mormon church is that, temple worship excepted, you can participate to your heart’s content without contributing one red cent. You can go to Sunday worship services, you can send your kids to weekly activities and you can go to church socials all for free. Of course, if no one contributed any money, none of these could occur. But the church doesn’t require you to donate anything to enjoy almost all the benefits that it offers.<br /><br />Also in Alma 32, we get the much-maligned parable of the seed. Although it is written as an invitation to accept Christ into your life, I see it as a response to Korihor’s second argument that you cannot know of things to come and be sure of them.<br /><br />Alma goes through the steps that one can do to come to a knowledge of religious truths. It is not a scientific test in that it is capable of repetition regardless of who attempts. It is a discourse on how faith under the right conditions can transform into knowledge. Those who have gone through this transformative religious journey know that Christ lives, not through the scientific method, but through the feelings and spiritual experiences they have encountered. Spiritual experiences aren’t merely good feelings, they are feelings that begin to expand your understanding of the world and fill your soul with happiness. Anyone who has had a spiritual experience could not misidentify it as mere emotion. Spiritual experiences are too transcendental to be limited to mere human emotion. And through these spiritual experiences, our faith is slowly replaced with knowledge. And so Alma is able to answer Korihor’s allegation that you can’t know of things to come and be sure of them. Alma teaches that you can know that Christ will come because seeking Christ causes the spiritual experiences discussed above.<br /><br />Korihor’s third argument is that the atonement is not necessary and that to teach people that they are fallen causes them to seek religious instruction which allows the leaders of the Church to get money in exchange for those teachings. He thinks that people fare according to their own strength and genius. This argument is the one that tries to cut down the fundamental pillar of Judeo-Christianity.<br /><br />The key tenant of Christianity is that we are all equal before God. As humans, we all have imperfections and weaknesses. God is not a respecter of persons, not so much in that He ignores our individuality and winks at our sins, but in that He has provided a way for everyone regardless of what their particular weakness or imperfection may be to become like Him. The atonement is just another way of saying that, whoever we may be as an individual, as a human being we are in the same boat as all of our fellow human beings.<br /><br />The one who teaches that a person fares according to his own strength and genius teaches something that is very harmful. I won’t discuss the obvious form of this idea, but I will discuss a more subtle form of it. Among the laity in the Mormon church, there is an idea that unless you did everything you can do, you won’t achieve the highest level available. I don’t like this idea because it is in clear contradiction to the teachings of the scriptures and the prophets. It also requires a self-knowledge beyond that of a mere mortal. Can any one really envision judgment day where a wise and just God in pronouncing judgment on some poor soul would say, “Sorry Brother Jones. Your entrance into the celestial kingdom is denied. Although your record is exemplary, I find that you could have been a little bit more diligent in being kind to other people. In particular, there was an instance where you donated $20 to a charitable cause when $25 was the best that you could do. You didn’t repent of that adequately. Best of luck to you in the terrestrial kingdom. Next, please.”<br /><br />Alma 34:15 says that salvation comes to all who believe in Christ. It says nothing about whether your actions will enable you to obtain salvation. And who are those that believe in Christ? People who believe in Christ seek him. Christ invitation to “come and see” in John 1 remains. And those who seek Christ repent of their sins. They do good works to feel his Spirit, not to curry favor in the afterlife. They desire everyone to feel the interconnectedness that blesses those who have the Holy Ghost within them.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-78587787737450695742008-07-20T21:10:00.004-04:002014-04-25T12:57:32.941-04:00On Contract Law and Disney's "The Little Mermaid"I recently had the opportunity of watching Disney’s “The Little Mermaid” after having not seen it for years. Although it was still a touching coming-of-age story with a great soundtrack and a host of memorable supporting characters, I noticed that there were some glaring plot holes that anyone with a contract law background would have noticed.<br /><br />For those who have yet to see the movie, I will give you a brief synopsis. King Triton is King of the Sea with several daughters, the youngest of which is a precocious sixteen-year old who has a penchant for getting into difficult situations. Her name is Ariel. Her partner in crime is a flounder aptly named Flounder. After showing a complete disregard for her father’s rules (and missing her musical debut), her father assigns Sebastian, the royal composer, to keep an eye on her. Sebastian ends up being completely hopeless at the task and before long Ariel is back at the surface where she becomes enamored with a human prince named Eric.<br /><br />Her father discovers her infatuation with the human prince and his daughter’s love for ‘surface’ things and in his anger destroys her collection of artifacts from dry land. Not surprisingly, this act, rather than endearing her to her father, drives her to seek help from Ursula, the Sea Witch. While there she signs a contract trading her voice for her legs. To make the trade permanent, Ariel has to have Eric fall in love with her and give her the “kiss of true love.” If she fails to do so, she will belong to Ursula. And thus begins a legal plot hole so large you could drive a truck through it.<br /><br />Ursula and her henchmen (hench eels?) do whatever they can to stop Ariel from kissing the prince. The eels knock over a rowboat when Ariel and Eric are about to kiss and Ursula disguises her self as a princess and bewitches Eric. Right before Ariel and Eric attempt a second kiss, Ariel transforms back into a mermaid and Ursula grabs her and dives back into the ocean in a bid to take Ariel back to her lair.<br /><br />En route, they meet Triton. Ursula pulls out the contract and Triton tries to destroy it with his trident. He is unable to do so and Ursula taunts him by saying that the contract is binding and legal. Triton sacrifices himself by agreeing to shoulder Ariel’s legal obligations.<br /><br />Really??<br /><br />First of all, Ariel is a minor and all contracts, as I’m sure that several video rental stores have eventually found out to their chagrin, signed by minors are voidable. All Ariel had to do was repudiate the contract. There is no way that Ursula could have enforced that contract. On turning eighteen, I’m sure that Ariel could have ratified the contract and been liable under it, but there is nothing in the movie to indicate that in the three days from when she signed the contract to when its legality was challenged that she turned eighteen. Part of the reason that contracts with minors are voidable is because teenagers make foolish decisions like Ariel did and sign away their freedom in the proverbial deal with the devil.<br /><br />Second, Ursula had a duty of good faith and fair dealing, something that is implicit in every contract. Even an evil villain is not exempt from it. Ursula had an obligation to allow Ariel to act unimpeded in her quest to win over Prince Eric. Ursula failed to do this because she and her agents set up obstacles precluding Ariel from fulfilling the terms of the contract. It was her eels that tipped over the row boat right before Eric and Ariel were about to kiss. And Ursula herself bewitched the Prince to stop Ariel from kissing him. I’m just surprised that she took off after Eric and Ursula instead of looking for a competent legal adviser to help her examine her legal options at that point. The movie wouldn’t have been quite as endearing, but it would have a lot more education to the vast hordes of American children who watch it. But I digress; in any case, Ariel would have been released from fulfilling her obligations because Ursula significantly breached her duty of good faith under the contract. Furthermore, even if Ariel was in breach of her contract, Ursula would not have been able to get specific performance of her contract. It is a legal maxim that he who seeks equity must seek to do equity. Ursula had unclean hands and therefore she would have only been entitled to monetary damages.<br /><br />Lastly, as King of the Sea, Triton could have declared the contract void ab initio because it was contrary to public policy. In the same way that courts hesitate to enforce contracts between criminals, Triton could have decided that it was bad public policy to allow penalty clauses in contracts that require the defaulting party to be turned into a diminutive sea creature and become a possession. I certainly can’t see any value in allowing such provisions to be enforceable, but then again, I’m not a merperson, and I don’t necessary understand the Law of the Sea.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-37192774879032193892008-05-01T21:06:00.004-04:002009-08-15T10:50:00.968-04:00The Original Epilogue of the Harry Potter SeriesI have a friend who knows someone who works for Scholastic and apparently the last Harry Potter book was to have a different epilogue then the one they actually published. Through sheer tenacity and good luck, the original has fallen into my hands. Without further adieu, here is the original epilogue:<br /><br />Harry awoke to a sharp pounding on the door that matched the pounding in his head. For a few moments, he felt disoriented and unsure of where he was exactly. The worn blue sofa on which he lay, as well as the low metal table in front of him, was littered with empty Butterbeer and Firewhiskey bottles. Harry was cognizant of a peculiar fragrance emitting from an ashtray in which lay the remains of some bitter herb. From the matching smell of his breath, Harry surmised that he must have enjoyed the mallowsweet the night before. The annoying pounding on the door hadn’t ceased, so Harry started to search the worn-out pockets of his dirty, beer-stained robes for his wand. “Just a second,” he called out weakly as he picked up the wand from the floor where it had fallen. “Alohomora!” he said, surprising himself that he could do such a dexterous wand flick considering the state he was in. <br /><br />The door swung open to reveal Neville. “Thanks. I forgot my key again,” he said breathlessly as he entered the room. “Of course, it would be a lot easier if you just let me Apparate here at will. I mean, I know you like your privacy and all, but I just thought that—well, you know—that because this is my house—don’t get angry again Harry, I’m just telling you how I feel—I think I should be allowed to Apparate into it.” <br /><br />“C’mon Neville,” Harry said, rubbing his forehead. He hadn’t felt a pain like this for the past nineteen years. Not since before he had destroyed the Horcrux that had been attached to his soul and killed Lord Voldemort. The difference between his current pain and the prior pain, however, was that instead of being privy to the thoughts of an evil wizard, all he could remember was a haze of smoke, alcohol and Romilda Vane. “I’m saved your life enough times. I think you should try to be a little bit more grateful. Besides, you have to remember I was the one who helped you get your cushy little job up at Hogwarts—some friend you are. But…I’m only going to stay for a few days longer. You know the situation between Ginny and me.”<br /> <br />Neville frowned slightly and hesitated before answering with a shrug. “Well Harry, a few more days should be okay. But I’m going back up to Hogwarts soon and I’ve already promised Viktor Krum and his wife that it would be okay for them to stay here while he does some work for the Ministry.”<br /> <br />Harry scowled at the mention of the word Ministry. “I don’t know why those folks at the Ministry are so willing to employ foreigners when they don’t mind letting go of loads of us English wizards,” he muttered darkly. “By the way, Neville, were you up before Romilda left? I didn’t hear her leave.”<br /> <br />“She must have left right after I did. Which reminds me…” Neville’s voiced trailed off a bit. Harry could tell that Neville was uncomfortable and was deciding whether voicing his complaint would be worth it or not. “Harry, I know this might sound insignificant to you, but—uh—in the future could you ask you female friends not to leave their, uh,…the truth is Harry that it’s a bit disconcerting to wake up and find a strange witch’s underclothes strewn about the bathroom. Not that Romilda is strange mind you,” he said, his face looking as though he thought that Harry was growing increasingly hostile to his suggestion.<br /> <br />Harry snorted. “You’re as bad as Ginny, sometimes. All you do is nag, nag, nag. But—and I’m only doing this because I like you—I’ll tell her not to do it anymore. Besides, I don’t think she’ll be coming by much longer. I don’t fancy her as much as I used to anymore—it’s probably a good time to move on anyways. Well, I’ll help you clean up this mess a bit before I pop down to Knockturn Alley for a pint. I don’t want you telling people that I’m a deadbeat.” Harry stood up, his legs unsteady and his head still pounding. “My head’s killing me. I think I’ll need a bit of mallowsweet to get me started though. You have any left?”<br /> <br />Neville shook his head. “I’m shouldn’t really be giving you any. I’ve heard rumors that the Department of Magical Law Enforcement is planning an anti-mallowsweet campaign. Plus I’m worried that if Headmistress McGonagall found out that I had the second year students grow it for you, I’d get the sack.”<br /> <br />“McGonagall, McGonagall,” Harry sneered sarcastically. “You’re starting to sound like a broken Howler. Don’t worry about it. I’ll just clean without it. Evanesco!!” The empty bottles and ashtray vanished. “This used to be a lot easier before they liberated all the House Elves. At the rates those elves charge for their services these days, you’d be flat broke in a month. Anyways, I’m off Neville. I’ll be back in time for dinner. And for goodness sake, when I get home, make sure that you don’t burn it all again. There’s nothing worse than carbonized shepherd’s pie.” Neville nodded slowly as Harry pushed passed him and out onto the street. <br /><br /><br />Knockturn Alley had changed significantly since Harry had first stumbled upon it before his second year at Hogwarts. Long gone were the stores that sold Dark Arts paraphernalia; Borgin & Burkes, the last holdout, had recently been turned into an upscale health club for well-healed wizarding families and most of the other businesses similarly catered to a more wealthy demographic. Despite the redevelopment, a few of the original non-Dark Arts businesses had managed to survive. Close to the end of the alley, tucked in between a Twilfit & Tatting’s Custom Robe Outfitters and a new Wagstaff’s Wands Outlet, the new American wand manufacturer, was Harry’s favorite pub, the Toe and Slug. Although he had long been a patron of the Leaky Cauldron for many years, certain bad events had pushed Harry into seeking out a new establishment for his business. And since he had moved out from Grimmauld Place, the Toe and Slug sometimes seemed like the only home he had. As he pulled the old door open, the smell of old Firewhiskey filled his nostrils. Relishing the opportunity to indulge his favorite beverage, Harry eagerly entered.<br /> <br />The pub looked even more rundown on the inside than it did on the outside. A few motley wizards sat at a dilapidated table covered with pewter jugs and half-eaten food, close to a small fireplace in the corner, intent on a game of gobstones. An old hag was slumped over in a wooden chair close to the wall, her snores sounding like a Hungarian Horntail clearing its throat. Behind the bar stood Stan Shunpike casually flipping through the pages of the Daily Prophet. Not far from where he stood, a red-haired man sat quietly sipping from a mug of butterbeer that sat in front of him.<br /> <br />“Hey Ron!” Harry called.<br /><br />Ronald Weasley gave his head a slight nod to acknowledge his friend. “Hey Harry!”<br /><br />“How’re Hermione and the kids?” Harry asked as he sat on the stool next to Ron.<br /> <br />“They're doing all right. Hugo is starting at Hogwarts in a couple of weeks. I’m supposed to pick up a thing or two for him today, but I got distracted as usual.”<br /> <br />Harry smiled. “I know what you mean. Let’s just hope that Hermione doesn’t find out how you spend most of you day.”<br /> <br />“She probably already knows what I do most days. She doesn’t mind as long as I stay out of trouble. She’d be happy if I found work, but I watch the kids while she spends her day at the Department of Magical Law Enforcement—speaking of which, you still using mallowsweet? You’d better get rid of it. Hermione told me that they’re thinking about a crackdown. Seems they want to change the rules so that you can only use it with a centaur’s permission.” Harry nodded glumly, but didn’t reply. He considered asking Firenze for help, but wondered if the old centaur was too much of a straight arrow to help him out. Harry’s thoughts were interrupted by an arrogant voice behind him.<br /><br />“Potter and Weasley,” it said. “I thought I could smell your peculiar odor from outside.” Harry and Ron turned around to see a blond, though balding, wizard standing behind them, his hands on his hips, his upper lip twisted into a sneer. The room was tense for a moment before he broke out into a chuckle. “Was I really that much of a jerk at school?”<br /><br />Harry gave Draco Malfoy a good-natured pat on the back as he sat down. “We can’t really blame you. We were all immature back then and kids can be so nasty to each other,” he said, he said with a shrug. “Although a round of butterbeers would help make Ron and I feel better,” he added with a sly smile. Malfoy nodded at Stan and soon the filled glasses sat in front of them.<br /> <br />“A toast,” Malfoy said, raising his mug, “A toast—you too Stan, lift a glass—to the two best Aurors ever laid off the Ministry.” They clinked their mugs together and each of them took a long draught of the beer.<br /> <br />Ron smacked his lips after the cool liquid had drained down his throat. “Not bad—though I prefer Firewhiskey. It’s got more of a kick to it. Let’s have a round of that Stan!”<br /><br />A few hours, and several pints, later, Harry and his friends found themselves more than a little tipsy. Though his friends appeared to be in high spirits, with each drink, Harry found his mood growing darker and darker. “Wait a second,” he said, interrupting Malfoy’s refutation of Ron’s theory that the Chudley Cannons were due for a turn around that year. “Ron, Malfoy, you know where I went wrong.” He paused to belch. “I shouldn’t have killed Voldemort so young. You just can’t do something that famous when you’re young. While he was alive, I was the Boy Who Lived. After he was gone I became the Man Who Nobody Cared About. He defined me—he made me a hero—he made me somebody. At age seventeen you fight evil and conquer it—then what? You got sixty years to try and match that. And what happens? You get sixty years to sit around and think about how great the first twenty were. Sixty years of hell.” Ron and Malfoy exchanged uncomfortable glances at each other, but said nothing. Neither of them dared say anything when Harry’s mood turned sour. Harry was completely oblivious to them as he continued his slurred rant. “Sure some people still wave and nod at me, but who really cares about Harry Potter these days? You work hard for fifteen years, putting your neck on the line every day fighting the Dark Arts and then what? The Ministry decides that the Dark Arts aren’t as much as a threat as they used to be and with wizards clamoring for reducing taxes and cutting costs, what choice do they have? You’re out saving the world one day and the next day your boss comes and tells you that there’s an overabundance of Aurors and that the older, more expensive ones are being let go. Of course, they thank you for your service with a shiny plaque and hand you a few galleons to tide you over until your next job.”<br /><br />“Harry—“ Ron began, but Harry cut him off.<br /><br />“Next thing you know, you’re stuck at home every day with nothing but Firewhiskey and bad memories for company, trying to get along with a wife who feels you’ve invaded her space and who can’t understand what you’re going through.” He took a long hard swill from mug of Butterbeer, finished the last of it. He slammed the mug down and attempted to stand. As he stood up, his legs gave way and he would have fallen if Stan hadn’t cast a levitating spell right on him that moment. “Thanks Stan,” he said weakly before the half-fermented contents of his stomach ended up on the floor.<br /><br />His friends stood up beside him. “We’ll take over from here, Stan,” Ron said, grabbing a napkin from the bar to wipe Harry’s face. “We’ll get him home.” Both he and Malfoy grabbed one of Harry’s arms as the three of them stumbled out of the bar and out into the glitzy façade that was Knockturn Alley.<br /><br /><br />A few days later, Harry stood waiting impatiently on Platform 9 ¾. The platform itself was swarming with kids, wizards, witches, owls, luggage and a house elf or two. He looked at his watch, then up at the platform clock and then scanned the crowd once again for any sign of his wife or children. Ginny’s late as usual, he thought with a frown. If she didn’t get there soon, James and Albus wouldn’t make the train. He scratched his neck. He hadn’t done any shaving charms in the past few days and his facial hair had become long enough that it was starting to get itchy.<br /><br />As he stood there, fighting the urge to pace back and forth, he heard a voice cry out from behind him. “Uncle Harry!” He turned to see his niece, Rose running towards him, with Ron, Hermione and Hugo close behind. He scooped Rose up and gave her a big hug.<br /><br />“How are you?” he said as he put her down.<br /><br />She looked up at him, her brown eyes twinkling. “Sad. Hugo’s going to Hogwarts and Mum and Da’ won’t let me go with ‘im.”<br /><br />“You’ll get to go soon enough. Hello, Ron, Hugo…Hermione.” He said the last name in a neutral voice. Hermione looked at him coolly, but said nothing. Ever since she had run into him and Hannah Abbott in a compromising situation at the Leaky Cauldron a couple of years back, she had been decidedly less then friendly. Harry surmised that she hadn’t said anything to Ron about the whole mess, but it always made meetings with her uncomfortable.<br /><br />“Waiting on Ginny?” Ron asked.<br /><br />“Yeah,” Harry replied. “Just want to say goodbye to my boys before they go to Hogwarts. I haven’t seen them in a few months. Ginny and I get into big arguments if I go over to Grimmauld Place—I’d rather our kids not see that—and Ginny won’t let them visit over at Neville’s, so this is one of my few opportunities.” He glanced down at his watch again before looking at Ron and Hermione’s oldest. “So what house do you think you’ll be sorted into?”<br /><br />“I hope I’m put in Gryffindor, you know, like you and Mum and Dad.”<br /><br />Harry nodded. “I guess you’ll find out tonight.” He looked up and saw Ginny struggling to bring three children with their luggage along the platform. “There she is.”<br /><br />“We’ll get going then,” Ron said. “You probably want to be alone with them.” He beckoned for his family to follow him and they were soon lost in the crowd.<br /><br />Ginny was huffing and her face was flushed from the effort of marshalling three children by herself. Her face maintained a measure of her good looks, but the birth of three children had been less than kind to her body. Her red hair was hastily tied up in a pony tail and a few stray wisps of hair had managed to escape in her hurry. “How are you Harry?” she managed to say between breaths.<br /><br />“Fine,” he replied, a little more curt than he intended. He turned his attention on the two boys and girl that stood in front of him. “How are you doing? Are you nervous, Albus?” His oldest son nodded. “I was nervous the first time I went. I didn’t even know how to get onto the right platform, but your Nana Weasley helped me out.” His son nodded once again, but remained silent. Harry had found it increasingly difficult to talk to his son and his estrangement from his wife didn’t help the situation.<br /><br />Ginny broke the awkward silence. “He’s worried about which house he’ll be sorted into. He doesn’t want be put in Slytherin.”<br /><br />“No son of mine is going to be in Slytherin.” Harry said, wagging his index finger in his son’s face. “If word comes back to me that the Sorting Hat has put you into that nasty house, there’ll be hell to pay at Hogwarts. That stupid hat almost put me in Slytherin. Sure there are a couple exceptions, but for the most part, kids in Slytherin are a bunch of sniveling—“<br /><br />“Harry!” his wife’s voice rang out. “Albus is already worried enough as it is. Have a heart!”<br /><br />Harry gave his wife a hard look and kept quiet for a moment. “Well,” he said, in a low voice, as if the words were being pulled out of him. “Good luck, son. You’ll be fine whatever house you end up in.” He glanced at his wife to see if the answer was acceptable to her. “Run along, kids. I need to say a few things to your mother in private before I leave.” Harry’s children slowly moved down the platform seemingly lost as to where exactly they should go.<br /><br />“Well, Harry?” Ginny asked. “Where have you been staying?”<br /><br />“I’m over at Neville’s. It’s been great catching up with him after all these years,” Harry replied. “And now that he’s headed back up to Hogwarts, I’ve got the place all to myself.”<br /><br />Ginny winced, as if Harry had kicked her in the shins. “I hoped that it wouldn’t have to have come to this, but I’ve been down to speak to my solicitor and I think it might be better if we make this separation more permanent.”<br /><br />Although he was not surprised by his wife’s feelings, Harry wasn’t sure how to respond. At some levels, it was exactly what he wanted, but it still didn’t stop the intense feeling of loss he had whenever he thought of the possibility of divorce. “Let’s not cross that bridge until we come to it. I’m just trying to work some things out and I need some more time to do that.”<br /><br />“We can’t wait forever, Harry,” Ginny said. “Albus and James need a father in their life. We’ve—I’ve—been waiting for years. I don’t think we can wait much longer.”<br /><br />Harry paused and looked around at the crowded platform, as if he had just noticed the throng around them for the first time. “This isn’t the best place or time to discuss this…” He hesitated for a moment before adding, “I’ll stop by later tonight. Say goodbye to the kids for me.” Ginny’s mouth twisted, but she said nothing as Harry slowly turned and walked away.<br /><br />As he trudged down the platform, a solitary figure in a solitary world, he reached up, almost unconsciously, and gingerly touched the scar on his forehead. It didn’t hurt like it used to, but it had never completely healed. And much like the emotional scars that marred his psyche from which he could not escape, Harry felt his scar made him a marked man, doomed to wander the world, with his only success years behind him and nothing but emptiness and hurt in his future.<br /><br />Despite his feelings of hopelessness, or maybe because of them, Harry smiled in spite of himself, and once more touched his scar.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-61442996741867958512008-02-28T16:31:00.001-05:002008-02-28T16:34:41.810-05:00On TithingGrowing up, I had always planned on serving a mission. As part of the plan, I realized that based upon my family’s precarious financial situation, I would have to work for a year to finance my mission instead of going to college. After graduating from high school, I started looking for a job, but as a person with low skills and low productivity, the only avenues of employment that appeared open to me were door-to-door sales, telemarketing and fast food restaurant work. After two months of fruitless searching, I saw an advertisement for an office job working as an audit clerk. I wasn’t exactly sure what an audit clerk would do, but I felt that it couldn’t be that difficult a job. I applied and, surprisingly, I was called in for an interview. <br /><br />Apparently, the job to which I applied had a high turn-over rate, so the company had turned to a temp agency to filter out the undesirables before interviewing people for the job. I passed the first interview and was set for another interview with the company the next day. At the interview, for whatever reason, I didn’t connect with the supervisor for the position. After the interview, I spoke with the lady from the temp agency who told me that she thought they had made a mistake and that she would arrange for me to have another interview with the other supervisor who had been away on vacation.<br /><br />A few days later, I got another phone call from the temp agency. The lady had managed to snag me another interview with the other interviewer. This interview went much better and within a few days, I was sitting at a desk with a stack of old invoices, offer letters and other assorted documents. My supervisor and her assistant explained that I was to go through the invoices and make sure that we had been charged the right amount based on the offer letters that we had received. In addition to my lowly salary of $7.67 an hour with no paid lunch, I would also be paid 2% of whatever overpayments I found as an added incentive. Not exactly an edge-of-your-seat type of job, but I was happy to be working in an office than to have to work in the other fields of employment that were open to me.<br /><br />After laboriously poring over the invoices for a day and a half, I had found a mistake or two and handed in the invoices and other papers to my supervisor’s assistant for her to check. Needless to say, I had done a horrible job and easily missed about 99.9% of the errors. I was crushed (and worried that I might find myself out of a job at the end of the day). The first few weeks were very precarious and not much fun.<br /><br />Early on, I had decided that I would pay my tithing on whatever I would make. And I kept that promise. After getting paid, I would save 80% of the money I made, pay 10% as tithing and keep the other 10% as payment to myself. Even though I only took home about $500 every two weeks after taxes, in the mid-Nineties, it seemed like a lot.<br /><br />In addition to my hourly wage, I was also paid the 2% bonus every quarter. Although when I first started the job, I was horribly unqualified for it, I ended up becoming one of the senior members of the department because of good job performance. I even had my own office before I left, which is pretty good considering many of my co-workers who had been there longer were stuck on out on the ‘floor’. Over the course of 15 months, I had saved the company almost a million dollars, and received 2% of that amount.<br /><br />I was easily able to pay the whole cost of my mission and other attendant costs (clothing, dental work, etc.) Not only was I able to pay for my mission expense, I also was able to purchase several thousand dollars worth of guitar equipment, take a trip to Florida to visit relatives and amusement parks and generally have a really good time just going out with my friends and family. Living at home helped to minimize expenses, but I did contribute what I could to my family. Even after my mission, I had enough money saved to pay for the first year of college and to pay for a trip down to Australia to visit one of my companions. <br /><br />The biggest reward for faithfully paying my tithing was that when I was out in the mission field, in my last area, I met a lady whom I will refer to as Minnie (not her real name). The other Elders in the area I was in were teaching the discussions, but she hadn’t been progressing for a couple of months. One night, one of the ward missionaries invited the four Elders and some of their investigators over to have a picnic outside. While at the picnic, I had an opportunity to sit and talk to Minnie.<br /><br />I asked her how the discussions were going and how she felt about the church. She told me that she thought the church was good, but was unsure about God and the Atonement. I asked if there was anything else she was concerned about and she said tithing. For whatever reason, I felt that it was her main concern. I shared my experience with her and we spoke for about an hour about tithing, the Church, God and the Atonement. To this day, I can’t remember much of what I said, but I do remember that I spoke Japanese better that night then I had ever spoken it before (or probably since). I felt very good, very calm and very connected to Minnie. I truly felt as though she were my sister.<br /><br />The next week at church, she came to me and told me that she was grateful that we had had our talk. She told me that she had been feeling like a ship in a storm and that she was conflicted about what she had been taught, but that after our conversation, she felt as though the waters had calmed and that she was ready to change her life and join the Church.<br /><br />Several months after I came home from Japan, I got a postcard from Sister Minnie informing me that she was going on a mission to Temple Square. After her mission, she married a returned Japanese missionary in the Tokyo temple. I believe that they have one child. I not sure because her email address doesn't work anymore and I have otherwise lost contact with her and her husband.<br /><br />This is not usually the type of story that I would post, but for some reason, the last few days I have felt that I should put it on my blog.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-1292887909724906042008-02-12T17:29:00.000-05:002008-02-12T17:46:00.355-05:00On John Locke, Natural Law and ReadingIn law school, I presented a paper on jurisprudence, fundamental rights and the Supreme Court of the United States to my seminar on law, history and philosophy. As part of my research into such intellectually-stimulating realms of natural law and legal positivism, I would often come across writers who had examined the natural law espoused by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government and compared it to his arguments in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Essay-Concerning-Understanding-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140434828/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202855495&sr=1-1">An Essay Concerning Human Understanding</a> against innate ideas. Most of these writers were puzzled by the apparent contradiction between the two concepts. <br /><br />As opposed to the rationalists who thought that humankind was born with certain innate ideas, Locke thought that humans were born with no ideas at all and that only through sensory experience could they gain ideas and structure them into increasing mixed and complex ideas. Many have probably heard this referred to as the <i>tabla rasa</i>. Natural law is a theory of jurisprudence that holds that law is a body of rules found in nature that are independent from the customs and mores of mankind. To the extent that man-made laws conflict with this natural set of laws, the man-made laws were unjust. In recent memory, the most famous declaration of natural law was when Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously quoted Augustine in his “<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/popular_requests/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf">Letter from a Birmingham Jail</a>” and stated that one had a moral responsibility to disobey an unjust law, albeit nonviolently.<br /><br />Returning to the apparent Lockean contradiction of <i>tabla rasa</i> and natural law, it appears that Locke is saying on the one hand, that all ideas and knowledge come from experience, and are not innately existent in humans, but on the other hand, to be arguing that there is a system of laws that are self-evident to all humankind. It quickly became apparent to me that there was no contradiction and that those who thought otherwise had not bothered to read what Locke had actually wrote. (Although to be fair, I must admit that Locke’s Essay is a difficult read. It’s not because it is abstruse, but because it is so dense and wordy.)<br /><br />Further adding to the apparent contradiction was that Locke was dismissive of the earlier philosophical work of the Scholastics, chief of whom was St. Thomas Aquinas who championed natural law. Locke was especially dismissive of their work as it related to their attempts to posit real essences in objects. Locke felt that objects only had real essences in our ideas, not within the object itself. Locke argued that universal terms such as ‘man’ or ‘dog’ only applied to <i>groups</i> of objects and not to any one specific man or any one specific dog. The human mind ordered objects and combined simple ideas into complex ones. But this did not mean that he thought that natural law was somehow a real essence of the world.<br /><br />To properly frame Locke’s arguments, however, you have to look at the intellectual climate of his time. Instead of calling branches of knowledge by their modern names, philosophers of the time referred to natural philosophy, which later became science, and natural religion, which later become teleological theology. It is no surprise, therefore, that a theory of jurisprudence would be labeled ‘natural’ law. Philosophers looked to the general success of natural philosophy in uncovering laws about the physical nature of the universe and optimistically extended those methods and conclusions to other scholarly endeavors.<br /><br />In this light, it is easy to see that Locke thought that people were not born with an innate notion of gravity or planetary movement, that through experience (and application of reason, <i>viz.</i>, the scientific method) they would come to understand the law of gravity or the law of planetary movement. These laws of physics existed outside of the human mind, yet they were discoverable by it. Applying this rationale to the law and human rights, Locke felt that through experience and the use of reason, people could arrive at an undisputed notion of what the natural law was. If there was any disagreement over what the law should be, it was because of flaws within human’s minds and the general complexity involving 'complex ideas' (as he defined it), not because law was a man-made creation.<br /><br />Moral of this post: Before you discourse on a writer’s ideas, make sure that you have actually read what the writer had written <i>before</i> commenting on those ideas. Otherwise you come across as a lazy scholar.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-14636451531722363512008-01-24T21:37:00.001-05:002008-01-24T21:57:53.702-05:00On the Offensiveness of ChristWhen reading the New Testament, one thing that becomes apparent is that Christ was offensive. For whatever reason, people were genuinely offended by him. And it wasn't just the Pharisees either. For all that is written about living a Christ-like life, apparently people tend to omit the foregoing. It certainly seems intuitive that being offensive is not a sign of being a true Christian. But to deny the offensiveness of Christ is to ignore an important aspect of his divinity. For those who acknowledge that Christ was offensive, they interpret his actions as a reformer exposing hypocrisy and false teachings. But even this viewpoint is flawed.<br /><br />As Soren Kierkegaard points out in his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Christianity-Kierkegaards-Writings-Vol/dp/0691020639/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201228607&sr=8-1">Practice in Christianity</a>, there is an unusual incident involving Jesus and two followers of John the Baptist. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2011;&version=9;">Matthew 11:6</a>, John the Baptist sends two followers to Jesus to ask if Jesus is the one they are waiting for or if there is another. Instead of giving an unequivocal, “I’m the one you’re waiting for”, Jesus gives a very curious answer. Instead he answers with:<br /><br /><blockquote>“Go and shew John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”</blockquote><br />All of the above seem to be signs that Jesus is the Christ, but what he says next, as Kierkegaard aptly points out, seems non sequitur. <blockquote>“And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (The New International Version says: Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me.) </blockquote> The logical answer would be that because of the miracles and the teaching, Jesus is the Messiah. But instead of the logical answer, we are left with ‘Blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.’ How is it that on seeing miracles performed and the gospel preached, someone could be offended? I admit to struggling with what Christ seems to be saying.<br /><br />But, as usual, Kierkegaard makes an interesting insight into the nature of God and the nature of faith. You can’t know that God exists through rational argument. There is no ‘If p, then q; p, therefore q” when it comes to God. It’s a matter of faith, pure and simple. To me, it seems that it is irrational to believe in God or to not believe in God. It’s irrational to believe in God because there is (seemingly) no empirically verifiable evidence. But when someone is confronted with empirical evidence, there is no unavoidable conclusion. Jesus didn’t say, “You saw me do this, therefore believe,” he says, “Blessed is he that is not offended.” You can’t know God through science. You can only know God through faith. Such a fideistic answer may be unsatisfactory to ‘hard fact’-types, but that’s where we have to leave it at this point.<br /><br />On further reflection, however, it seems that the New International Version provides an interesting nuance because it talks about falling away on account of Jesus. I’m sure that most people arrogantly assume that if they had encountered Christ, they would have known who he was. But it seems that appearances can be deceiving. It seems that humans don’t make religious decisions based on the evidence. It appears that humans make religious decisions about the truth based on the speaker. On pure appearances, Jesus was an uneducated carpenter. In <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%204;&version=9;">Luke 4</a>, Jesus returns to his hometown of Nazareth, reads what is now known as Isaiah Chapter 61, and tells the people that the scripture was fulfilled because of him. They became offended and tried to kill him, but for whatever reason, Jesus managed to avoid this fate. They failed to understand who Christ was because instead of listening to the message, they focused on the messenger.<br /><br /> But what is about Christ and Christianity that is so offensive? Kierkegaard thinks its because the miracles and the teachings don’t build faith, they bring people to the point where ‘faith can come into existence.’ When faced with a miracle, people are discomfited because they see Jesus, all they see is a regular human being. If by the miracle, he is claiming to be divine and you do not believe him to be divine, it leads to the conclusion that he is lying and therein lies the offense. We have a certain worldview and we reject any information that does not comport to that worldview. We become offended by the things that we can not easily account for. <br /><br />A true believer will reject any theory that appears to show God as unmerciful or uncaring. An atheist rejects all miracles as misunderstandings at best, and outright falsifications at worst. But they are doing the exact same thing. They are rejecting information about the world, not because it is false, but because it does easily fit into their view of what the world is. When a fundamentalist summarily rejects evolution because it does not allow for God’s intervention, they are no worse than the atheist who rejects God because the evidence for Him is not in the form the atheist wants it to be. They are both deciding which evidence to accept and which evidence to reject. And because the beliefs of the other make both the fundamentalist and the atheist uncomfortable, they are offended.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-54160731918228083592007-11-19T16:11:00.001-05:002007-11-20T18:41:57.884-05:00On Choice and EmpowermentA person can only take so much of the existential angst that one encounters from reading blogs relating to Mormonism. If anything ever showed that Kierkegaard’s concept of anxiety was a valid theory, it surely must have been demonstrated by the anxiety that Mormonism brings and its accompanying dizziness. This anxiety is a direct result of the freedom to choose that Mormons believe that they have been given from God. It is a power so great that even God himself cannot interfere with it. Even those who leave the Mormon church itself are forever influenced (tainted?) by this idea of choice and freedom. Dr. Viktor E. Frankl called choice of attitude the last of the human freedoms. Regardless of what others try to do to take away our freedoms and our dignity, we always have the power to choose how to respond to the taking away. Short of killing us, no one can completely take away our freedom to choose. But for all of our power to choose, how are we to know that we made the right choice? That we made the best choice? And this is the desire to know and the uncertainty that leads to angst. Despite the advances of science and technology, we don’t know what the future holds. If there has been any failure of the scientific method, it is that it only allows for predictions of the future and not knowledge of the future. <br /><br />I have to admit that I am confused at the use of the word ‘empowerment’ that I encounter in my readings, as though someone is withholding the power to choose. If we have the freedom to choose, what does the word ‘empowerment’ mean? What does it signify? I submit that it is a meaningless buzzword. It is a subterfuge, an artifice and a ruse. People use it to give the illusion of benefice. If I say that I am empowered, what I am saying? Someone has to grant the power or authority to me so that I am empowered. If I accept the empowerment, does it not mean that the person or group who granted it to me had the power in the first place? But how does another person or group give me the power to choose if I already have that power?DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-35646050548631927722007-11-02T19:31:00.001-04:002008-02-25T09:18:33.728-05:00On Truth and Conspiracy Theories of IgnoranceRecently, I’ve been reading <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Conjectures-Refutations-Scientific-Knowledge-Routledge/dp/0415285941/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/002-1195231-8592857?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194046490&sr=8-3">Karl Popper’s “Conjectures and Refutations”</a>. I’ve read a couple of his books before and like the other ones, this one is written clearly and concisely. An interesting point that he raises makes me realize that for all the back and forth that occurs, Mormons and ex-Mormons are cut from the same silk. They may disagree about the truthfulness of the church, but they do fall prey to what Popper describes as the “truth is manifest” doctrine. The idea states that when a person encounters the truth, it is manifestly true, that is to say, any person who encounters the truth, by virtue of their humanity, is able to tell that they have encountered the truth. Popper terms this an optimistic epistemology. And it’s easy to see how it influences both Mormons and ex-Mormons. <br /><br />Mormons believe that when one hears the gospel, that person recognizes the truth and joins. Ex-Mormons believe that when someone encounters the arguments against the truthfulness of the church, they can’t help but admit that the church is not true. Nothing strange here. <br /><br />But the strangeness comes out when people don’t respond in the way you would expect them to when faced with the manifest truth. In order to explain this dissonance, people invent conspiracy theories. This idea is especially prevalent among ex-Mormons, who I gather don’t seem to realize that a lot of their ideas are conspiracy theories, with little basis in fact or logic. Take Lyndon Lambert, an excommunicant, who informs us of his particular conspiracy theory on the Book of Mormon. The original quote can be found <a href="http://equalitysblog.typepad.com/equality_time/2007/10/lyndon-lamborn-.html">here</a>. <br /><br />12. Did you at one time believe in the literal historicity of events and characters in the Bible and Book of Mormon? What are your feelings on those subjects now? Yes, I totally believed. Now I think that people that still believe in the historicity of the book fall into one of three categories:<br /><br />a. They have not examined the evidence.<br /><br />b. They are incapable, intellectually, to grasp the conclusivity of the evidence. It is truly overwhelming.<br /><br />c. They cannot be objective while examining the evidence. Ironically, it is a combination of fear and false pride (and perhaps mind control) that blocks the neural receptors and prevents normal objective evaluation of the data. <br /><br />Everyone of these categories is a conspiracy theory of ignorance: <br /><br />1) They haven’t examined the evidence. Because the evidence is manifestly true, anyone who did so, unless they fell into the latter two categories, would be convinced by the ‘conclusivity of the evidence’ <br /><br />2) People believe because they are idiots. Only an idiot could see all the evidence and not know that it is manifestly true; <br /><br />3) They are falling prey to their emotions and ominous rumblings of mind control. (Plus, Mr. Lamborn's theory of emotions blocking neural receptors preventing objective evaluation is novel. He seems to know an awful lot about neurobiology, even though he's an aeronautical engineer, when the links between emotions and the brain are still the subject of intense debate and study. I wonder which scientific studies he is relying on that allow him to so confidently state why Mormons can't see the manifest truth?) <br /><br />It doesn’t seem to cross his mind that the truth isn’t as apparent as he thinks it is and that the evidence isn’t quite as cut and dried. <br /><br />A lot of ex-Mormons talk about the how the church conceals the evidence or forces the members not to view it. Why do they think this? Because a lot of people aren’t leaving the church, at least, not in the numbers the ex-Mormons would expect if the members had access to the same information that they had. So they have to invent a conspiracy theory to explain their (wrong) idea that the falseness of the truth is manifest. The answer: the church is concealing the information from its members or warning them against using the Internet to look for it. Why would the church do this? Obviously, because its truth claims are manifestly false, anyone with access to it would leave the church. The conspiracy theorists take it a step further. They say, "The GAs talk about Internet pornography now, but it’s only a matter of time until they start decrying other things on the Internet." (Regardless of the fact that the church has consistently spoke out against pornography for years and years prior to the advent of the Internet). But this is hardly true. Anyone with a computer has access to any information, no matter how unfriendly to the church, and the church has no way to monitor it. The church can excommunicate the speaker, but they can’t silence her and they can't deafen the hearer. <br /><br />My point is this: Let's look for the truth and not rely on conspiracy theories to explain cognitive dissonance. It's been said that people could go to heaven if they used only half of the energy they use to go to hell. Maybe if people spent more time trying to understand the truth and less time inventing fanciful conspiracy theories, humankind might actually progress.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-22471929192864349692007-10-31T18:12:00.000-04:002007-10-31T18:15:33.215-04:00On Mormon MenMormon men are downtrodden. In General Conference, they are typically labeled as pornography-consuming, abusive slobs who need to do a lot better if they want to curry God’s favor. Women never get this from male General Authorities, and when they are encouraged to do things different or better by a female General Authority, they start getting existential angst over what it means to be a Mormon woman and a feminist. Mormon men aren’t given the option to do the same. I’d like to see a male General Authority get up and tell women to repent of their nagging and getting angry over things that their husband had no way of knowing a priori that it was hurtful. <br /><br />I wish that the Church would stress the choices and opportunities available to men, that they don’t have to be tied down to a wife and family, that they can accomplish their goals with money left over in the bank every month. Instead of regaling them with tales of supposed joy over the ability to bless and baptize their own children and watch them grow up, it should present the whole picture and present male role models who have succeeded in business and the arts without the unnecessary baggage of a family. <br /><br />When will men get their fair place in the Mormon church? One day middle-aged single Mormon men will not be viewed with suspicion by their fellow church-goers as someone inferior for their self-imposed marital status (as men in the church are culturally empowered to be the proposers of marriage, after all). One day Mormon men will be viewed as more important than just a glorified income producer. One day they'll be seen as more than a bunch of potential house-movers. I’m sure it’s only time before the Mormon church moves past its misandric past and moves towards a new, enlightened future.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-79393881119367671172007-10-03T13:51:00.000-04:002007-10-03T13:52:27.990-04:00On the Effects of ReformI remember a newspaper article that came out when Pope Benedict was chosen as Pope and the writer of the article was talking to his friend who happened to be a lapsed Catholic. The friend said that the Catholic Church should have voted in a more liberal Pope. When the writer asked his friend if he would go back to church if a more liberal Pope had been chosen, the friend replied no. The writer asked the friend why exactly the Catholic Church should have chosen a liberal Pope if it made no difference to lapsed members such as himself. It raises an interesting question. If the Church were to change certain aspects (e.g. ordaining women, ‘faithful’ history, etc.), how many ex-members would come back? If none, what difference would any reform make?DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-59490486841484859212007-09-12T15:03:00.000-04:002007-09-12T15:04:50.275-04:00On Religion and CommunityHere’s an interesting <a href="http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1181">article</a> that I recently read. It’s an older article, written about thirty years ago that really encapsulates the feeling that we as Christians feel when confronted with information that may not necessarily comport to our previously-held beliefs. The part that really stuck out in my opinion is the following quote: <br /><br />“One thing that brought me back to the church was asking simply: What are the alternatives to the church? Where are the communities that sanction the pursuit of meaning and truth as a legitimate enterprise? that have material and personal resources to assist in this search? that provide regular occasions for confession of failures? that renew and inspire? that provide a setting where children are nurtured? where family members can be buried? where births can be celebrated? where social issues can be debated? There are a number of institutions that deal with one or several of these questions, but historically the church has demonstrated its ability to energize all of these activities.” <br /><br />Perhaps sometimes when we get embroiled in historical and theological debates, we miss aspects of our religion that are authentic, inspiring and good. Instead of sending forty thousand monks up in arms about an inch or two of cowl, maybe we should focus on the aspects of our culture and beliefs that bind us more tightly together and develop our community. Can there be any wrong in that?DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-26151690820899403632007-09-10T10:52:00.000-04:002007-09-11T14:13:25.578-04:00On Tal Bachman<span style="font-style:italic;">Disclaimer: The following is an ad hominem attack on Tal Bachman. If you are Mr. Bachman, or one of his small number of ever dwindling fans, I suggest that you not read this post. I will try to be objective, but be forewarned; I do not have a lot of good things to say about this pretentious, washed-up has-been. </span> <br /><br />I don’t like Tal Bachman. I’ve read a lot of his posts, and if they are any reflection of who he really is, he must really be one pathetic son of a bitch. Am writing this because he left Mormondom? No, I can’t really say that I’m sad to see him go. Some of the nicest, coolest, warm-hearted, generous individuals I know have left the Mormon church and I have yet to launch a single ad hominem attack on them. In fact, we continue to be good friends regardless of varying religious choices. Membership in an organization is no arbiter when it comes to friendship. With that in mind, let me turn my attention to Mr. Bachman. His singular claim to fame is that he wrote and sang a hit song, “She’s So High.” As a one-hit wonder, he’s in the same category as the illustrious Right Said Fred, Vanilla Ice and Lou Bega (of Mambo No. 5 fame). I’m surprised he hasn’t starred on the Surreal Life yet. Maybe he’s holding out for a spot on Dancing with the ‘Stars’. Marie Osmond made it, why not him?<br /><br />He has written a voluminous amount of material regarding his thoughts on Mormonism. I’m not sure if he intends to sound like a pretentious, holier-than-thou, pseudo-intellectual, but everything he writes is pretentious, holier-than-thou or pseudo-intellectual. Take a blog post he published a few months ago in May. He criticizes the Mormon conception of heaven and hell, but he makes himself sound like a self-satisfied jerk in the following quote (which can be found <a href="http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_talbachman_section3.html#pub_1682534211">here</a>) <br /><br />“I think heaven isn't a place we go to after we die; I think it is a place we can live in everyday, if we are determined to, and perhaps, if we have a bit of luck. I think it is something we create and find here on earth...and right now. Heaven can be right now...<br /><br />“I feel sad sometimes when I think of how long I lived always thinking of heaven as another place, and another time. I was too often blind to all the beauty right before me, because I was too often straining so hard to see something far, far off in the distance - which, it turns out, there is no reason to believe is even there, at least in the way I thought.<br /><br />“I submit that true heaven isn't crazy stories, or distant stars, or strange names and strange clothes and strange spouses. I think it is something that we all have, within us, the power to create and experience, at least to some extent, right here and right now...”<br /><br />Yeah, whatever, buddy. And with three paragraphs, he assigns those who don’t share his easy rockstar lifestyle to a hell worse than any that God proposed. What happens to those sorry souls, who, for whatever reason, don’t have ‘a bit of luck’? What happens to them? Mr. Bachman would consign them to misery and woe because they are not determined enough, I guess. Or chastise them for hoping for some kind of better existence in the next life? And what is the basis for Mr. Bachman’s faith in humankind? He claims there is no reason to believe in heaven. I agree, at least as far as objective evidence is concerned. But what evidence does he have the mankind can make a heaven here on earth? His own Shangri-La lifestyle, where his biggest complaints are that nobody in the record industry wants to hear his music? He wants to argue both sides of the fence. He has to have a reason for the distant heaven, but offers no reasons for the heaven ‘within’. <br /><br />Other posts focus on his inability to talk to females in the past because of his worry about temptation. Obviously this is the Mormon church’s fault. The most common complaint I hear about this church is that it stultifies relationships between members of the opposite sex who happen to be married to other people. It would be completely illogical to assume that Mr. Bachman stultifies himself. Maybe someone should tell him that just because he feels ‘tempted’, it is highly unlikely that the person he is talking to feels the same way. When I talk to women at work or at school, I usually don’t get the impression that they are chomping at the bit to go to bed with me, regardless of how naturally charming I am. It must be a rockstar complex to think like that. Maybe Mr. Bachman should evaluate how he internalized the teachings of the Mormon church, rather than make unwarranted generalizations about the impact those teachings have on the general membership.<br /><br />I think most of my invection comes from the colossal waste of time it was to read what he had written and the colossal waste of time writing this post represents. I don’t usually like (or write) ad hominem attacks, but when someone practically begs for it, can I be anything but obliging?DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com4794tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-59374494976973155342007-08-29T12:30:00.000-04:002007-09-04T14:22:41.821-04:00On IronyAlanis Morrisette’s song “Ironic” from her album “Jagged Little Pill” is ironic in that every situation mentioned is not the least bit ironic, at least not in the way the term is used by prescriptivists. Irony can be properly defined as discrepancy between the expected result and actual results. Having read lots of blogs of current and former Mormons, one thing (well, several things, but this post is labeled “On Irony” after all) caught my attention. A lot of former Mormons state ad naseum that the reason they left the Mormon church was their perceived incongruity between the teachings of the church and the ‘empirical evidence.’ That’s all fine and dandy with me. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts, I believe that religion boils down to pure choice and that any post hoc rationalization of that choice is inherently unjustifiable whether you stay or go. The emphasis on science and empiricism is remarkable because rather than reject the teachings they find unjustified, they embark on a path that is different from what one would suspect. For instance, several former Mormons brag about their inhibitions and ability to drink alcohol, coffee and tea. They also loudly proclaim that their lives are much better now they don’t spend Sunday stuck in a three-hour block meeting. The irony is this: scientific studies show that religious groups that abstain from tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea and illegal drugs tend to have longer life spans than those who don’t abstain from those substances. A lot of people would assume that observant Mormons have, on average, the longest life spans in the United States. They would be completely wrong, however. In actuality, that title belongs to the Seventh Day Adventists, who in addition to forsaking the aforesaid substances, also do not consume meat. As far as church-going is concerned, there are scientific studies that suggest that regularly going to church can increase your life span. The irony of all this, therefore, is why would people who claim to swayed by scientific arguments jettison the beliefs that appear to be scientifically justified?DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-38990349071930756152007-08-23T16:33:00.000-04:002007-08-24T10:31:07.873-04:00On Chocolat by Joanne HarrisI hate this book. Sure, it's not the worst novel of all time, but I'm not sure what other people like about it. Joanne Harris trots out every stereotypical archetype known to English literature. Witch with heart of gold (Vianne). Check. Hardworking, misunderstood handsome vagabond (Roux). Check. Evil father-figure (Father Reynaud). Check. Abusive husband (Mr. Musgrave). Check. Abused wife (Mrs. Musgrave). Check. Free-spirited old lady (Armande). Check. Bigoted, materialistic daughter (Caroline). Check. There's nothing wrong with using archetypes, but she could have at least tried to make them somewhat more deep and substantial.<br /><br />Plus, there is no suspense in the plot whatsoever. Is Vianne going to triumph in the end? Of course she is. Anybody who reads the first fifteen pages knows that. So why does Ms. Harris make us read an additional 290 pages when we already know how it's going to end? There is no suspense and I had no real interest in what happened next.<br /><br />For the life of me, I'm not sure why this book garnered so much praise. If you want to read about chocolate and feel hungry, I suggest a desert cookbook instead of this predictable tripe.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-10848677520777060182007-07-16T12:11:00.000-04:002007-07-16T12:20:41.082-04:00On Protesting Dick CheneyIn April, there was a big to-do at BYU about Dick Cheney being the Commencement speaker. Nothing could be a bigger waste of time than protesting against Dick Cheney for the following reasons:<br /><br />a) He's a vice-president<br />b) Nobody really cares what he does or says<br />c) Protesting a domestic politician is so 1960s<br />d) Did I mention that he is a vice president?<br /><br />I suspect that the real reason for the protest was for BYU students to show that they can rebel against the university establishment. I guess that when you live in Provo, Utah, you just don't have much else to do or think about.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-2230996345025021992007-07-12T11:23:00.000-04:002007-08-23T16:39:02.863-04:00On the Three NephitesI’ve often wondered why urban legends flourish the way they do. I think it’s because the stories play upon some of our deepest fears and desires. One of the most popular urban legends among Mormons relate to the Three Nephites. Mormons believe that the Three Nephites are three disciples that asked Jesus if they could stay on Earth until his Second Coming. Needless to say, many rumors and legends have sprung up regarding the whereabouts and the doings of these three individuals. By far, the best anecdote that I have ever heard about the Three Nephites comes from a friend of mine back home. While serving his mission in France, he had risen to the level of district leader. One morning, the sister missionaries in his district came to meeting late. They excitedly told the district that one of the sister missionaries had gotten a flat tire and two gentlemen who were distinctly 'Lamanite'-looking came from out of nowhere and helped her to fix the flat tire. After being helped, the two men apparently vanished. One of the sister missionaries got it into her mind that they had been helped by the Three Nephites. My friend summed up her story perfectly however. “Sister Smith, you’re saying that you got a flat tire and that the Three Nephites came and fixed it for you, except that there were only two of them and they were Lamanites?”DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-27237475004644830572007-07-09T15:18:00.000-04:002007-08-23T16:42:52.202-04:00Against Acronym MormonismTalk about disillusionment. I think that I am disillusioned with the disillusioned. I thought that at last, I might have found a group of people with an open mind who really want to discuss the important issues. I found to my dismay that this is simply not the case. Consequently, it is hard to take anyone seriously who refers to themselves using an acronym or a prefix. This post deals with what I term “acronym Mormonism” (hardly surprising considering the title of this post). There is a subset within the Mormon Church who labels themselves NOMs or Cultural Mormons or “Cultural Hall” Mormons (What the hell is a Cultural Hall anyways? Is it supposed to be akin to a Cultural Center?). These people claim to disbelieve traditional Mormon doctrine and claims, yet, for one reason or another, desire to remain socially connected to the Mormon Church (or its members) on their own terms. There is a group of people who have left the Mormon Church and consider themselves “Ex-Mormon” or “Post-Mormon”. The distinction between NOMs, TBM (“True Believing Mormons”) and the “Posties”, of course, are absolutely meaningless. This is because all of their beliefs are completely fundamentally irrational and therefore any distinction between them is meaningless. <br /><br />Let’s start with assumptions. First, in order to qualify as a NOM, apparently you have to prefer the scientific method as the means for ascertaining truth to other methods of ascertaining. (All of this assumes, of course, that the ‘truth’ exists and that it can be ascertained. Although that is important topic and worthy of discussion, I’m won’t deal with it here.) NOMs consider ‘objective’ evidence as superior to “subjective” evidence. I find it rather odd that a person would consider a religious experience as a lesser basis for believing in a religion than empirical evidence. Religion is built on the strength of the absurd. Belief in kinetic molecular theory is unlikely to prompt people to radically alter their lives (although it may have a radical impact on a person’s life). Belief in a personal God who is intimately involved in your daily life can have that effect. I also find the fetish that NOMs have with history odd. I don’t believe there is anything even remotely approaching “objective” history for the simple reason that history cannot be verified. We can look at what people in the time period have written and we can use inductive reasoning to establish theories on motivations and meaning, but unlike a field such as chemistry or physics, we ourselves cannot reproduce what happened and experience first hand what happened. We are totally dependent on our sources with all of their biases and shortcomings. The NOM and Postie argument that the Mormon Church is stifling ‘true’ history is ridiculous. I agree that the Church may prefer ‘faithful’ history to New Mormon History, but then again, I’m sure that a lot of private organizations would prefer an interpretation of events that favors them. (Does that make an organization manipulative, evil, and censorious or is it merely a rational self-interested organization? Does an organization have an obligation to lay out both sides of a controversy? If so, what is the basis for this ethical standard and what are its implications?) To believe any history (or inductive argument), you must make a leap of faith. With a nod to Giambattista Vico, history is nothing more than the interpretation of human events and language. The interpretation you choose to interpret implies a choice.<br /><br />This, of course, fails to take into the real leaning of NOMs and Posties. The preference for the objective over the subjective is really code for preference for the naturalistic over the supernatural. But this reliance on the naturalistic is misplaced. Nobody believes in a religion because it has been empirically verified to him. A religion that demanded such would be devoid of the mystical and the spiritual. Even with hard evidence that every single claim of the Mormon Church was true would not lead to an increase in converts. People believe in religions based upon their own mystical or spiritual experiences, not uncontroverted scientific evidence. <br /><br />The second objection would be that although religious experiences exist, empirical evidence to the contrary should invalidate those experiences or at least lead one to be suspect as to the nature of those religious experiences. This is a difficult argument to refute. The difficulty of second objection, however, is that is assigns religious experience or passion a lower significance in religion without justification. Why exactly is empirical “objective” evidence preferable to “subjective” personal experiences?<br /><br /> These arguments are in no way exhaustive, but they do represent my views that all belief or knowledge implies a choice, a choice, which when fully investigated, is not based on reason, but on passion.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-37394079741242547532007-06-15T10:32:00.000-04:002007-07-05T10:50:57.468-04:00The Phone NaziI thought I would be a little less polemic today and share something that happened to me five or six years ago.<br /><br />During my junior year at University, one of the clubs that I belonged to decided that it would hold a dance with an international theme. They eventually settled on calling the event “Springtime in Paris.” As the theme for the dance was to be Parisian in nature, it was decided amongst a group of my friends that prior to going to the dance, we would patronize a local French restaurant, renowned for its expensive food and debonair clientele. I was working as a concierge at the Palliser Hotel, one of the most upscale hotels in the city and had one of my co-workers call in the reservation, so that it would appear to the French restaurant that my friends and I were clients of some import. As the time drew near, it appeared as though the evening would go off without a hitch.<br /><br />I picked up my date in the northwest part of the city and we proceeded to go to the Uptown district of town, where the restaurant was located. Even though it was nearing the end of March, it was still about -15º Celcius and the coldest spring that I could ever remember. Luckily for my date and I, there was plenty of free parking available right behind the restaurant and within mere seconds of leaving the car, we were able to be inside of the warm, though somewhat austere, eating establishment.<br />We had arranged to meet at the restaurant at 8:00 PM, so it came as no surprise that we were the first people there, arriving at 8:05 PM. We removed our jackets and proceeded to our table, which had been prepared for eight people. The waiter took our drink order and we became the wait for the others, which at first did not seem so long, but as the minutes dragged by, seemed to be of epic proportions. Around 8:30 PM, wondering about the wisdom of dining with friends, my date and I proceeded to discuss what we should do. Was it possible that the others had gone to a different restaurant? Had some kind of accident occurred in which one of our friends was seriously injured and at the hospital? These unknowns caused us greater and greater discomfort, as well as the waiter who seemed insistent that we order. As the minutes ticked by, it seemed as though the only course to pursue would be to call Fraser, whose cell phone number both I and my date knew. I had neglected to bring my cell phone with me and my date did not even own a cell phone (or so she would have had me believe at least). Since the restaurant was not only fancy, it was also quite small and I felt a little embarrassed about asking the staff if I could borrow the phone to call my tardy friends. What would the other patrons of the restaurant think? Instead of asking to use the phone, my date and I decided that I would go to a nearby gas station and use the pay phone. As I expected this to only take a few minutes, I felt that I did not need my jacket. Jingling the 35 cents needed for my call, I embarked into the dark, cold night.<br /><br />At every gas station in the whole world, there is a pay phone. I believe it is akin to some kind of physical law, like gravity or inertia. You can imagine my chagrin when I realized that the nearby gas station, unlike every other gas station in the world, had no pay phone. The night air was cold and I could see no other pay phone nearby. My options were severely limited as I felt the coldness creeping in around me, slowly draining my body of its precious heat.<br /><br />A couple of doors down from the restaurant, I noticed a used bookstore that was still open. The Uptown area has a reputation for being somewhat hip, so I figured that the person working in the store would be either a) be a left-wing tree-hugger who would help me in my struggle against the Establishment and show it I didn't need to pay to use the phone and that it should be a service available to all at no cost, or b) be stoned out of their mind and biddable to any request I might have. A lack of alternatives prompted me to quickly enter the store.<br /><br />Behind the counter stood a woman who looked to be in her mid-thirties or so. She was the quintessential used-bookstore clerk, dressed in drab clothing, with even drabber hair and eyes to match.<br /><br />"Excuse me," I said. "I was looking for a pay phone, but I can't seem to find one. Would it be okay if I used your phone? I'll let you dial the number so you know I'm not calling long distance or anything."<br /><br />She didn't hesitate to give this reply, as though people made similar requests all the time. "There's a pay phone across the street and down about a half block."<br /><br />"Well," I said, using my most polite voice possible. Was this lady for real? Human skin would freeze in as little as thirty seconds outside in the cold weather. "It's a little cold outside and I'm not wearing my jacket. I don't think I could make it that far without getting really cold. It will only take a few seconds and I will be out of your hair."<br /><br />"Okay," she said grudgingly, "What's the phone number?"<br /><br />I gave her the phone number and after she had dialed it, she handed me the receiver. "Hey Fray," I said. "Where are you guys?" He told me the situation and promised me that he and the others would soon be at the restaurant. I finished by telling him that my date and I would be waiting for him at the restaurant.<br /><br />As I hung up, the bookstore clerk asked, "Why didn't you just use the phone at the restaurant? I'm sure a fancy restaurant like that would let you use the phone."<br />"I know they would let me use the phone," I replied, "but I didn't want to look like an idiot in front of all the people there."<br /><br />"That's really strange," she said. "I'm sure that the other people wouldn't really care."<br /><br />"Look," I said, trying to extricate myself from the situation. "It's not important. I just needed to make a phone call and now I'm done."<br /><br />The woman would not give it up. "So why didn't you just use their phone. You're spending a lot of money on their food. I'm sure they would have let you use the phone."<br /><br />"Look lady," I said, finally losing patience, "I just needed to make a phone call and I did. I don't care what you think I could have done or what I should have done. I made my phone call and now I am going back to the restaurant." With that, I walked out of the bookstore, vowing never to return.<br /><br />It was not until afterwards that it struck me that I felt like I had been a character in a Seinfeld episode. Up to that point I hadn't learned a lot in life, but I have since learned that trying to save face in front of one group of people may not be all that good, especially if it makes you look like an idiot.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-40346308430002811372007-06-13T12:05:00.000-04:002007-07-05T10:49:51.093-04:00On Punditry and CulturalismFor whatever reason, I can never seem to find a radio station that suits me. Whenever I drive to or from work, I am continually flipping through the various stations. Since my taste in music is diverse, sometimes I forego listening to the music stations and I listen to talk show radio. I'm not sure why I subject myself to this as I find most of the talk show pundits to be obnoxious blowhards who pander to the lowest common denominator. You would think that always being right would wear off after a while, but with these guys, it doesn't. The worst offender has got to be Michael Savage of the Savage Nation. It goes beyond simple disagreement with what he says; I worry about the negative impact that his ideas have on the general public. His rantings can only be described as political pornography. I feel physically ill after listening to him. <br /><br />I understand that ratings and the all-powerful dollar drive a lot of radio commentators' rhetoric, but do we really need such odious polemics every day? The sole purpose of these shows is to engender hate, not debate. I would not, however, classify these people as racist, sexist, or homophobic. Those labels have been so overused as to be completely meaningless today. These people are what I define as 'culturalists.' They have a disdain for any culture that is not a 'traditional' American culture and are antipathetic to any culture (i.e. European, Islamic, Hispanic, etc. and I use these terms very loosely) that does not fit to that mold. Dogmatism is born of provincialism and talk show radio commentators are provincials at their absolute worst. If you only look at the American experience and deem it the best, you are excluding a lot of good ideas and values that America does not currently possess. <br /><br />Culturalism is bad for two reason. First, it is absolutely fallacious to argue that America is worse now (and getting worser by the day) then it was twenty, thirty, or fifty years ago. Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's worse. Who wants to go back to the crime and poverty of the 1930s, even if it means more bodies go to church on Sunday? Second, it ignores the great learning opportunities that are attendant to it. I don't believe in 'tolerance.' I believe that it is a morally-bankrupt word. It can (and has been) twisted to mean anything. However, I believe that divergent beliefs should be shared, not so much that people can arrogate themselves to how accepting they are, but because you can learn from what people do differently. I have lived in the United States for the past four years and I can see what is good and what is bad. I don't think that it is all good or all bad, but I think there are many things that should stay the same, yet at the same time be changed. Tolerance would imply that I could make no value judgments as to the differences between American culture and my own culture, but that I had to accept it as it was. We shouldn't be neutral to what we encounter, we should engage it, critically examine it and discard that which is of no value.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-396719690755349721.post-68613769169416746942007-06-12T14:47:00.000-04:002007-06-15T10:32:26.605-04:00Meaninglessness DefinedThis blog is dedicated to all those who have come to the realization that everything that they hold dear in life is, when they really think about it, is devoid of meaning in and of itself. In the grand scheme of things (and I use this phrase liberally…there is no grand scheme after all), everything that we believe is important is not so. For humankind, however, we attach the most significance to the most insignificant of things. Take the current immigration debate in the United States. Does it really matter whether we use the word "amnesty" or not in determining the future status of twelve million of our fellow human beings? Instead of talking about real people and their feelings and emotions, some would waste precious time and energy on debating what punishment is appropriate for 'illegals'. And the crime for which no amnesty should be granted? Working on the wrong side of an imaginary line. If only I had the power to punish my sisters when they crossed the imaginary line into my bedroom when I was a child. No mention is ever made of the fact that current worldwide immigration policy is nothing more than neofeudalism. No mention is ever made that all immigration laws are malum prohibitum and not malum in se. Assuming that there were no political states, could anyone rationally argue that moving from one part of the globe to another to work is somehow morally wrong?<br /><br />But to strip away meaning, to look at the real issue and come to a decision takes courage. Although I disagree with many things that Sam Harris writes in his book "The End of Reason", I think that he was correct in his argument that no idea and no belief should be consider sacrosanct. With that idea in mind, I intend to examine the issues facing us today. <br /><br />The title of this post is a misnomer. There is no definition of meaninglessness.DPChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13536202192031966996noreply@blogger.com1