This was the assignment right?
August 26, 2008
|
|||||
| 1 1/2 pounds vine-ripened tomatoes, peeled, seeded and chopped Tomato juice 1 cup cucumber, peeled, seeded and chopped 1/2 cup chopped red bell pepper 1/2 cup chopped red onion 1 small jalapeno, seeded and minced 1 medium garlic clove, minced 1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil 1 lime, juiced 2 teaspoons balsamic vinegar 2 teaspoons Worcestershire sauce 1/2 teaspoon toasted, ground cumin 1 teaspoon kosher salt 1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper 2 tablespoons fresh basil leaves, chiffonade Fill a 6-quart pot halfway full of water, set over high heat and bring to a boil.Make an X with a paring knife on the bottom of the tomatoes. Drop the tomatoes into the boiling water for 15 seconds, remove and transfer to an ice bath and allow to cool until able to handle, approximately 1 minute. Remove and pat dry. Peel, core and seed the tomatoes. When seeding the tomatoes, place the seeds and pulp into a fine mesh strainer set over a bowl in order to catch the juice. Press as much of the juice through as possible and then add enough bottled tomato juice to bring the total to 1 cup. Place the tomatoes and juice into a large mixing bowl. Add the cucumber, bell pepper, red onion, jalapeno, garlic clove, olive oil, lime juice, balsamic vinegar, Worcestershire, cumin, salt and pepper and stir to combine. Transfer 1 1/2 cups of the mixture to a blender and puree for 15 to 20 seconds on high speed. Return the pureed mixture to the bowl and stir to combine. Cover and chill for 2 hours and up to overnight. Serve with chiffonade of basil. |
|||||
Origins and Love
August 26, 2008
Tony (Sr.) has shared with me several times his distaste for the removal of narrative from the throws of theological discourse. I agree, in this case, a narrative is the perfect outlet for proper theological development.
—-
Paul Sandbourne had been in love with Estelle Ventido ever since he could remember. Estelle has always been close to him geographically, despite his propensity to travel here and there, he always found her very near himself in thought.
After a long time in waiting and some good advice from his mother, Paul bought land for his love. The land was vast, hundreds of acres and full of trees, grass and soaring sky.
Paul looked upon the land and was happy.
Then Paul thought, my love cannot come to my land if she has no house in which to dwell. So he built her a fantastic mansion, with hundreds of floorboards, large windows and a big front door with an enormous ‘welcome home’ sign upon its frame.
Paul looked upon the house and was happy.
Then Paul thought, if my love had nothing to drink how would she survive in such a place? At once Mr. Sandbourne built a deep spout. At its base was a deep, flowing river that shot water up and out its enormous mouth. The water was clean and cold, refreshing to the touch.
Paul looked upon the spout and was happy.
Then Paul thought, how could my love survive in such a house, she has nothing to eat? Then with painstaking effort, Paul tilled, planted and watered a garden. From the garden large tomatoes grew, along with cabbage and a plentiful supply of carrots.
Paul looked upon the garden and was happy.
After many years and awesome acts of love the land was ready for Estelle. She came and was happy in the land. After many children survived and thrived on the land they looked at the gifts bestowed upon them, forgetting Estelle and Paul,
they continued along in the grace of their love.
It will appear after this post that it would seem Dan was using a labeling-gun with no glue. For our tags continue to fall off as it would appear so far that nobody believes that the whole of the cosmos was created in six twenty-four hour periods.
I might start off by adding, in concert with the others that I am not a scientist, physicist, mathematician nor even an able theologian and so I suppose that in this regard my post will bring no finality to the conversation either. But I do hope to bring some epistemological light to this nihilistic darkness.
I will start by stating what it is I do believe, not necessarily why I believe it or how I came to believe it. In light of other Near Eastern evidence it would appear that the Genesis creation stories are not merely a statement or revelation about ‘what happened’ nor even just about what God (here I believe the name used is Elohim) is like or His design for creation; that is developed more fully in later tradition. Rather it is a statement that God will brook no rivals. Marduk needs slayed dragons in order to shape the world, Israel’s God creates by speaking. God calms the waters of chaos and does not struggle to calm them as do other gods. And all this likely created as early Hebrew tribes are being oppressed by a kingdom who by all traditional accounts stands in judgement of their God. He who’s kingdom is ruling has the God who is ruling. Not so say the ancient Hebrews.
Because this is what I believe is being communicated I do not find a ‘belief in science’ in conflict with this story or with our testimony as Christians. Yet that does not mean that my position is that God as Creator is a sort of ‘theological’ or ‘spiritual’ truth unrelated in any way to ‘the facts on the ground.’ Perhaps the ‘Big Bang’ occured, but where did the matter come from? How about the physical laws that command the matter to behave in said way as to predicate and demand a Big Bang? And so I believe in Creation Ex Nihilio even though Gen 1-2 does not necessarily demand that it be so. If one should wish to say that this position is a bare and childish ‘statement of faith’ then they are welcome to. As the phenomenon was not observable, testable nor repeatable I would argue that both ‘creationists’ and ‘scientists’ are on even footing. (But this split is itself a line created by the thinking of ‘Modernity,’ reality, thankfully, is much more complex than ‘science vs religion’).
I am actually an enthusiastic supporter of Evolution. Perhaps not taken to a crude extreme, but I have found it to be a theory that makes a lot of sense of what we can discern about how life progresses. I think it makes sense of this physical world, but also of free will, of the fall, and subsequent and progressive ‘recreation’ of a creation gone amiss. In the same way that we humans can ‘guide’ or ‘manipulate’ the life around us (for instance by selective breeding and even advanced gene manipulation, cloning, etc…) so God would act upon and guide creation by ‘natural’ means. Humanity is the apex of creation, the product of millions of years of careful and tender care and growth. I used to say that to suggest that God took millions of years to create would be to not give God His place or to limit His power. In reality that was simply my own prejudice. I judged that length of time meant weakness, but it need not be so. Therefore there is no mystical ‘supernature’ whereby God does magic tricks, but He acts as He also sustains and heals by the same manner. By allowing for infinite possibilities, and endowing His creation with freedom there is the potential for a ‘falling’ whereby free agents act against the perfect wisdom of their Source and so fall into disrepair. (As I recall there is a story about how God is going to restore His creation, but that is another essay)
There seems to me to be way too much concern with why we believe what we do. Or how we came to believe what we do. Or even a mourning over the inability to discern things ‘objectively’ and so what we really do is just pick a worldview, as if it were a supermarket and one simply just happens to like oranges to apples. Here are a few quotes to this extent:
Reed:
“Thus, (while fully admitting I’m inescapably tied to my own worldview) I’ve made a decision to believe in a creator who has a purpose for his creation”
“Because no matter what criteria you’re using to discern the origin of the Universe, you will inevitably encounter the same limitation: your own point of view.”
“From this place of preference we choose which evidence to accept”
Jeremy:
“I am not opposed to the existence of an intelligent God figure, in fact I am strongly in favor of inclusion of this character to the equation. However, this predisposition for me is based on desire more than conclusion and as such I find it difficult to choose a specific divine representation.”
“My personal affinity is for a theory which aligns itself with man’s current knowledge while still leaving room for an intelligent designer.”
I greatly appreciate conversing with people so honest as to critique themselves with such veracity. Both essays have been a pleasure to read and great to mull over. If I am discerning their argument I would put it as follows:
1-Nobody can have ‘objective’ or ‘empirical’ ‘proof’ of a particular interpretation of Origins or really any worldview at all
because
2-We all interpret reality through our cultural history, our life experience and/or preferences
therefore
3-In lieu of this inability to make a comprehensive and unhindered decision, at the end of the day what we really do is pick an interpretation on the basis of personal desire or as Jeremy puts it, “this predisposition for me is based on desire more than conclusion.”
I would argue that this line of reasoning is a Non Sequitur. That is to say I believe not that we cannot know something objectively, but rather that there is no such thing as objective knowledge. Not just that it is unattainable, but that it does not itself exist. All knowledge involves the object which communicates to another object, which interprets the stimuli as it is able to do so. When I see a tree I am actually seeing light, put out, or reflected off of it. The tree is not itself light, but I can only discern it by light or by running into it. When I read an essay or hear a lecture the communicant uses different words, rhymes, rhythms, grammatical structures, tenor, tones, pauses, etc… to communicate. I cannot discern mere words because words do not stand alone, they are only discernable via context and delivery and even then one can misunderstand the original intent.
And so when one might say, because I cannot objectively prove a worldview I must resort to matters of taste or even of reasoning and/or argument. Because there is no objective knowledge there is not even knowledge of why we prefer one thing to another. One cannot say: “I like this so I will choose it.” One can only say “I am predisposed to believe this for what reason I know not why.”
And so I do not offer my testimony that
- I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
- Maker of heaven and earth,
- And of all things visible and invisible
with reservation knowing that I have no ‘proof’ in an empirical sense. I offer it with confidence, being convinced of it’s truth not knowing why it is that I do believe it. In a way, by uttering it, I create the worldview itself, to be accepted or rejected by others for what reason they themselves do not know. This is frighteningly the closest I have ever gotten to Calivinism (Irresistable Grace)
Flemish Red Ale, the drink of God
August 21, 2008
Someday guys, someday…We will do this
Origins and Sustenance
August 16, 2008
God created many parallel versions of you--all of whom are wearing different colored shirts.
The Problem of Extraordinary Limitations
So the other day I was listening to my favorite NPR program, Radio Lab. In this particular episode one of the hosts was interviewing Brian Greene, the head of Cosmology and Physics at Colombia University. Dr. Greene was presenting on the theory of multiple universes or “parallel dimensions” as they are commonly called in popular science fiction. Being nothing near a theoretical physicist or even very good at 10th grade science, I will none-the-less attempt to briefly summarize the tip of his argument for anyone unfamiliar with strings and quantums and all that other sciency stuff.
Scientific observation has shown us that the Universe is infinite. While we don’t know the exact nature of this infinitude (it’s shape, motion, or even origins) there exists no boundary of space but only extreme distance. In a Universe of infinitude, with an infinite amount of particles, every single compilation of particles is possible and thus every single compilation of those particles will occur. The metaphor they gave to explain this was that of a coin toss. It is statistically improbable that if you were to toss a coin one hundred times, you will get heads 100 times in a row. It’s still next to impossible that you would get heads 100 times if you tossed the coin 1000 times. But eventually, if you tossed the coin enough, millions of times, you would eventually get heads 100 times in a row.
The same principle can apply to the Universe. Given enough space, any reality is possible. These alternate Universes are, of course, unobservable. They are so distant that their light will never reach ours. Yet somewhere out there, there is another version of you, sitting where you are now, reading this blog entry. Except for that person, there’s no period after this sentence. but actually a comma, followed by an exclamation point! Or he or she is drinking tea instead of coffee. Or they married someone else, or any number of other possibilities.
Such an idea calls into question all sorts of presuppositions we have concerning identity (what does it mean to be me?), God (is he even necessary), destiny (am I making my decisions or just acting out the way my atoms were chemically predisposed to?), and existence (why am I me and not the blue shirted me?)
Believe it or not I discuss all of this, not to expound on string theory, (or bubble Universes, or why we’re stuck with the particular Shoe that we have and not a more pleasant, better smelling parallel Shoe), but actually to illustrate the limits of our observations, and the limitless potential of our conjecture.
One aspect of this interview which caught my attention was Dr. Greene’s insistence that this was really what the evidence suggested was the case. That “scientists don’t just sit around coming up with stranger and stranger ideas for the sake of it,” but that in fact, “these theories come from careful observation and logical analysis.” He said something similar to this on multiple occasions, always unprovoked, in an almost pleading fashion. It was obvious he was used to skepticism from the non-scientific community. Why is this? Certainly no one doubts his intelligence or qualifications? While not all physicists agree on his conclusions, they have to recognize the possibility of his conclusions or at least his adequate awareness of the facts.
Because no matter what criteria you’re using to discern the origin of the Universe, you will inevitably encounter the same limitation: your own point of view.
This means that regardless of how sensible your conclusions are, your arguments are moot unless your audience shares your worldview, and recognizes the same evidence as authoritative. When addressing the question of origins (and if I understand the prompt correctly, God’s plan for sustaining his creation) we must first realize that hardly anyone (within the scientific or religious community) holds the same evidence as authoritative. This is in part due to our extraordinary limitations. While only a phyicist is qualified to discuss the theory of multiple Universes, and a Hebrew scholar and historian would be best for telling us something of what the book of Genesis has to say on the subject, the fact is anyone, seriously ANYONE, can discuss the much broader idea of origin. This is because discussing the origin of life is inseparable from discussing the meaning of life. And since most people are walking around with some sort of meaning for their life (should it be as expansive as the Christian worldview or as simple as “providing for my family and being happy”) they also have some idea as to what they might believe about their origin. These ideas don’t come from evidence alone, but from worldview analyzing evidence.
What I’ve Chosen To Believe
For me, Science has never been able to offer the why I think is necessary to life. Existence is best measured by purpose and hope, and I believe the religious worldview best captures this necessity. Thus, (while fully admitting I’m inescapably tied to my own worldview) I’ve made a decision to believe in a creator who has a purpose for his creation. Some who hold this view may say they reached it through reasonable observations about nature (the complexity of the universe, the precision with which our world is run, the seemingly necessity of a designer to explain morality, art, beauty, etc…) but they disregard an Atheist or Agnostic who will have perfectly reasonable explanations to counter these ideas. I, however, feel like I can be much more honest:
In the end, I prefer a Universe with a creator–a supernatural being who has all the answers, especially since I don’t know them myself. This may sound like an admonition of self-delusion but I believe anyone who believes anything operates in the same fashion.
This is not a bullet-proof, “you must have faith and believe” position, because I think it requires faith to take a step in any direction on this issue. Even Brian Greene, the Atheist Physicist from above, admits that he must still have faith that the Universe doesn’t only “appear” to be infinite or that in this multiverse of infinite possibilities he isn’t some arbitrary computer program created in a parallel Universe by an advanced race(seriously, it comes up in the interview).
From this place of preference we choose which evidence to accept, and begin drawing our conclusions. Accepting the historical setting and mythical status of Genesis and other creation accounts, I can still accept that they contain truth because they share the worldview that I have chosen. When it comes to the very tricky idea of which one of is “right,” I can only appeal back to our problem of mutual human limitation. For this reason, the answer ultimately doesn’t matter.
A Few Shopkeeping Things
August 14, 2008
Just a few things to bring to your attention about using this blog:
1. You might notice a few words in the tag cloud on the right bar that are larger than the other words. This is because there are multiple posts that use those tags. Tagging posts provides us with organization so I want to remind you all to choose tags for posts that might possibly pop up again for someone else. This may seem redundant now but I promise once we have more content on this site, it will be very useful for finding information.
2. Everyone is still contributors on the blog but in order for your name to appear on the left you’ll need to actually contribute something to the blog. Until that happens, your name wont be displayed.
3. Don’t worry, my post concerning sustenance will follow shortly.
A Response to Sustenance
August 12, 2008
I agree with Dan that this could be an interesting topic. However, I have my doubts as to the true value that this discussion can bring. The reality of the situation is that attempts to explain or accept others explanations of the origin of mankind, the universe, etc. will all be based on conjecture. Furthermore, this is quite a convoluted topic as the question can not be answered by one theory. As such I must preface the rest of my response by stating that I am rather agnostic when it comes to the issues surrounding origins. While I find it fascinating fodder for debate, I see no real value either theologically or pragmatically.
Contrary to Dan’s broad almost bigoted over generalization I do not actually find myself drawn to evolution as a convincing model for the origins of man. I am sure this will disappoint some as I am probably the only hope for a liberal evolutionist that can be tarred and feathered in the pseudo scientific world of argumentation.
While I would love to be the enemy of the group on this topic I cannot bring myself to ascribe to evolution based on, what I deem to be, a plethora of holes in the logic and facts.
I will not mention all of them, however, the biggest issue for me with this theory is the apparent lack of evidence involving the “missing link” and the presence of modern paleontology that suggests that mankind in his present form has existed for several millenia making the time table for evolution astronomically higher than most are willing to accept.
Before I continue on with the revelation of which conjectured theory I prefer, I believe it wise to identify the various sub topics that must be addressed in this debate. I do this not only for myself but also others who plan on posting on this topic as it might serve as a blueprint for further discussion. When discussing theories of creation there are four basic sub divisions that must be addressed. While these will sometimes overlap depending on which theories one ascribes to, they are all important and should be individually addressed. The four sub divisions as I see it are Mathematics, Science, Religion, and Mythology. While some of these can be mixed and matched many of the theories within these divisions require a mutually exclusive response to the questions surrounding our origins. While each of these divisions hold theories which deal with the entirety of human origin, mathematics is unique in that it focuses almost entirely on sustenance and often avoids conjecture of the actual originating event. As such I will save that topic for the end of this post.
Within the world of science lies the much maligned theory of evolution. While this theory is often coupled with another scientific theory known as “the big bang”, the reality is that these are two distinct theories. While I have no affinity for evolution in as much as it tries to explain man’s origins, I do appreciate some of the aspects of “the big bang theory”. In as much as all of these theories are conjecture this one makes the most logical sense within the current frame work of human knowledge. While this theory by itself seems logical to explain the originating event for the universe, it is inadequate to explain to progressive existence of mankind. This is why it is often pared with evolution, and this is where my affinity for this theory wanes. Also within this sub division are various theories produced by the field of paleontology as well as astronomy specifically equinoxical processions. Many of these theories are extremely intricate and difficult to fully comprehend, and many in my opinion fall short of providing a holistic answer to the various questions of origins.
Many of the theories within the worlds of mythology and religion are seen as similar. However, there is a distinction between these two divisions. While mythology speaks metaphorically of creation, religion speaks literally to the issues much like science. The many theories of mythology are not attempting to reveal the facts of creation but rather using creation stories as a mechanism for relaying other truths about the world. One of the biggest attributes of mythologies is there tendency to be political in their approach. Theories within this division include: Adam and Eve, Gilgamesh, Hermeticism, and many Native American and tribal creation stories. Since non of these theories attempts to provide facts for debate in regards to creation I find no need to choose one over the other. Each is distinctive and representative of the culture from which it originated. As such they should be seen more as wisdom proverbs than explanation and are often similar in the messages they portray.
Within the world of religions lie many theories which attempt to offer a logical presentation of argumentation and facts outside of the world of science. This is not to say that they are reactionary, rather science is a reaction to them. Theories within this division include: creationism, intelligent design, UFO seeding, and other divine interventionist models. I find these explanations often difficult to accept. While science attempts to align itself with information which can be verified and validated, these religious answers often throw proof to the side and instead require faith to believe. This isn’t to say that they are opposed to being backed by facts, but they do not use facts as a barometer for validity. This makes it nearly impossible to evaluate and distinguish between the various options as one is left to arbitrarily choose based on preference. While I do not discount the entirety of these positions, I find many of their tenants to be troubling for my analytical mind to accept.
I am not opposed to the existence of an intelligent God figure, in fact I am strongly in favor of inclusion of this character to the equation. However, this predisposition for me is based on desire more than conclusion and as such I find it difficult to choose a specific divine representation.
The final and most confusing of division is that of mathematics. As I previously stated most of theories within this realm seek not to answer the questions surrounding origin but rather those surrounding sustenance. While many within the religious answer camp are threatened by mathematics often attaching it to the world of science, this is often an unnecessary fear. Because mathematics focuses primarily on sustenance it can easily be attached to either the religious or scientific models of explanation for origins. There are too many theories within this field to list them all. however, the four most prominent are the chaos theory, Ellie’s theory (which was the basis for the movie the Matrix), sacred geometry (otherwise known as fractal geometry), and the holographic universe theory. There is also a wide range of theories surrounding dimensional mathematics which are more and more popular among those attempting to marry mathematics with religious theory.
I am aware that I have done an inadequate job of fully presenting each of these theories, although this was not my goal. I hope, however, that this shows just how large and confusing this topic really is. As I said at the beginning of this post I am truly agnostic to which of these theories one chooses. My personal affinity is for a theory which aligns itself with man’s current knowledge while still leaving room for an intelligent designer. I look forward to seeing where each of you land and your reasoning for excluding some of these theories.
Sorry about the long post 
Jeremy
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
