40 Days for Life

Two different Pro-Life organizations have sent flyers promoting the 40 Days for Life campaign of prayer, fasting, and vigils in cities across America for an end to the abortion holocaust. This program seems like the real deal. I haven't heard whether there is anyone organizing for this specifically in the Superior, WI area, but, whether or not that is the case, it strikes me as an effort worthy of individual participation. The 40 days are from September 26 to November 4, 2007. I will keep the link up in the top of the left side bar as a reminder.

Reason and volition

Pseudo-atheism and pseudo-intellectualism aside, the possibility of true, rational atheism should be allowed as well. Since my last blog post, I have spent some time in perusing and cogitating and writing about the relative merits of atheistic vs. Christian/theistic systems of thought from within the discipline of logic. But the writing part, while still just the hint of an insignificant beginning, soon became much too long and involved for a blog post. If you are so inclined, you may read and judge for yourself at http://www.bmi.net/~dogpatchnorth/atheism1.php. This may be a work in progress, as I think of more to say, or respond to critical review.

Cutting to the chase here on the blog, I believe that a key point in favor of theism is the issue of free will, or volition. In the atheistic paradigm, man is composed solely of physical stuff; there is no spiritual component. This means he is driven by a combination of genetics and environment, determinism is the rule, and free will cannot exist. The theistic system allows for free will, and the Christian system positively affirms it.

Ironically, this rational point reveals the relative unimportance of rational argumentation. Sound reason may lead to faith, but if we have free will, each individual has the ability to choose whether or not to believe, whether for rational reasons or otherwise.

The opposite also applies. If we lack free will, rational disputation is pointless. The determinist says that everyone behaves in a determined way. He says to the Christian, "You believe because of your genetics, upbringing, and environment." The Christian replies, "You choose to disbelieve." It's a rational stalemate.

My earlier point still applies (see "Pseudo-atheism" below). Within the system of materialism and determinism, evangelism is absolutely pointless. Within the free will system, rational disputation may not sway many minds, but, together with other means of evangelistic outreach, it does at least make some sense.

I, for my part, have chosen to believe that I have the freedom to choose. Why? Because it's more reasonable.

Pseudo-intellectualism

In a similar vein as the previous post, there seems to be an abundance of illogic posturing as intelligence.

One prime example of this is the individual who smugly dismisses religious faith as irrational. The presumption seems to be that folks who believe in God must be gullible fools, lacking either the intellectual competence or the honesty to question the tenets of their faith, who blindly cling to the comforts of religion. The pathetic irony is that the reverse appears to be the case. At least, I have yet to hear an avowed atheist present a rational argument for his lack of faith.

Most of the supposed arguments for unbelief end up being little more than contrived diatribes. Some priest or minister or devout Christian was guilty of such and such scandalous behavior. Or the stereotypically distorted versions of the Inquisition or Crusades are presented as somehow proving the insincerity or hypocrisy of believers. Never mind that these are ad hominem arguments. Never mind that the facts are usually distorted beyond recognition. Never mind that authentic Christians invariably admit their own sinfulness, and the sinfulness of their Church. What is perplexing is how anyone can jump from the problem of human sinfulness to an atheist conclusion, as if God's existence depended upon man's perfection. Huh?

Another tack is that of science; it is suggested that scientific advances have made religion obsolete. The mysteries that in the past confounded man and made him turn to religion are now within our grasp; we have only to discover via the scientific method that which we still do not understand. But this is also childishly simplistic, and wholly unscientific. Science can only concern itself with empirical data, with the observable traits of matter and energy. Science can never address such non-material realities as love, truth, or beauty. It is obviously beyond the competence of science to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

On and on it goes. Turns out, atheism appears to be the fragile and irrational system, depending upon blind, unthinking adherence. If there is an atheist out there who can present a cogent syllogism for his system of thought, I would love to hear it, I really would. If I could convince myself that God was just the invention of humans, life would become much more convenient. I could make up my own rules, readily justify my own behavior, and, best of all, condescendingly pity those poor foolish believers. Trouble is (sigh!), the sheer illogic of this idea stops me every time.

Pseudo-atheism

The fool hath said in his heart, no God.
  -Ps 14:1 [KJV]*

Public professions of atheism are becoming more common. In many cases, they are also becoming much more militant, demanding prohibitions against religious activities, the removal of religious symbols and names, etc. Moreover, a number of books have recently appeared that could be characterized as atheistic evangelism, seeking to win the minds and hearts of their readers over to atheistic beliefs and values.

Such atheistic activism strikes me as highly oxymoronic. How so? Glad you asked...

If I were convinced that God did not exist, I'm not sure what shape my priorities and values would take, but they would definitely pertain to this life on earth. I might be concerned with a peaceful home life, or a safe neighborhood. I might focus on earning a comfortable living, or staying as healthy and fit as possible. I might be interested in acquiring fame or political influence. But if I knew that God did not exist, I would definitely not be pursuing any other-worldly or spiritual goals.

I might secretly envy believers' faith, or I might snicker at their simple-mindedness. I might even despise them for their foolishness. But I can't see why I would want to bother to interfere with their religious practices. As long as I am not adversely affected by it, why should I care? Display all the religious symbols that you want, and I will happily ignore them.

And why on earth would I try to convert believers over to unbelief? What would be my motive? The motive for Christian evangelism is the hope of salvation beyond death, to avoid Hell and gain Heaven, and to help others to do the same. Without this eternal, other-worldly dimension, Christian evangelism makes no sense. Thus, atheistic 'evangelism' makes no sense, either.

Ergo, the kind of evangelism and activism we are witnessing cannot reasonably be ascribed to true atheism. Ah, but perhaps what we have here is pseudo-atheism. Perhaps what we are seeing is an increasing number of militantly active people who realize that God does indeed exist -- and who hate Him.

*The KJV actually reads thus:
    The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
with the words 'There is' italicized to indicate that they do not appear in the original, but were added by the English translators. Think about it.

Billionth birthsecond

1,000,000,000

It's probably a guy thing, like watching the car's odometer roll over to 100,000 miles. But observing birthseconds is really no different than celebrating birthdays, when you think about it. Specifically, the occurrence of one's billionth birthsecond is a rather singular milestone in one's life span. It is the only birthsecond magnitude one can observe with any real appreciation. The next lower magnitude, that of 100 thousand seconds, occurs when one is just a tad over 3 years old, too young to grasp what such a number entails. The next larger magnitude, 10 billion seconds, occurs at an interval of over 300 years; no chance to observe that event.

Just shy of 32 years of age, the billionth birthsecond could be seen as a sort of coming of age. You're a complete adult now, having typically completed your formal education, embarked upon a career and vocation, fully established, experienced, and capable of assuming leadership while retaining the strength of youth. The moment marking the prime of life. Very close to a hobbit's coming of age at 33 years (ref. The Lord of the Rings).

One could also make an argument for observing one's conceptionsecond (and conceptionday), as that is when one's life really began. We are all about nine months older than our birth age. But it's difficult to determine the exact day, much less the time of day, marking that beginning. Births tend to be more public events than conceptions, and so birthdays and birthseconds are more readily observed.

At any rate, I think it a worthy and interesting subject for thought. So much so that my first foray into javascript programming is a series of simple calculators that compute the elapsed seconds between two dates and times, and so facilitate (among other things) the observance of one's billionth birthsecond. If you're interested, check it out at http://dogpatchcentral.net/calc. If you're 31+ years of age, your billionth birthsecond is near!

(I wish I'd thought of this 25 years ago, in time for my own personal odometer event.)

Note: Your browser appears to have javascript disabled. The linked page requires javascript, and will not run properly, if at all, without it.

Cultivating patriarchy

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would like to fold two previous posts into a single simple thought:

If patriarchy is the cornerstone of civilization, and if civilization requires vigilant cultivation, then we ought to deliberately and patiently work to reassert a patriarchal structure for society. Feminism and egalitarianism are ideological failures.

I say this should be obvious and self-evident, but, unfortunately, many folks have not yet recognized this to be so.

Cultivation

A garden is an excellent metaphor for civilization. A garden is a thing of nature, and most of us gardeners are nature lovers. At the same time, a garden goes beyond nature; it is a harnessing of natural energy to dramatically enhance nature's fruitfulness and loveliness. In harmony with nature, the garden moves beyond mere nature.

In a similar way, let no one deny that man is a natural being, an animal with all the drives, instincts, and appetites thereof. But the basis of civilization is man moving beyond mere animal nature. In harmony with his animal nature and with his unique nature as a rational and spiritual being, civilized man seeks to harness his natural energy in a controlled and orderly manner.

Unfettered nature is not a garden. Unfettered nature is a random mixture of wild plants and animals. Left untended, a garden will easily revert to such a wild and unordered randomness, the weeds and vermin moving in and obliterating the order and fruitfulness. A garden takes hard work and constant vigilance; a weed patch requires no effort.

To be sure, there is beauty and life outside the garden fence, and the gardener might be tempted to wonder if his labor is worthwhile. Does it really make much difference? A casual observer might even accuse the gardener of being a control freak, of engaging in repression and manipulation. Indeed, from some plants' perspective, the gardener would be have to be regarded as a violent killer, spending much of his energy in uprooting or digging up the plants he doesn't like. So, it would seem that the more liberal and caring approach would be to cease such mean-spirited oppression, and instead allow full rein to the uninhibited forces of nature. Relax, let the forces of nature flow freely, and celebrate the increasing diversity and freedom that would result.

But time is the proof. In April, the garden looks rather barren compared to the wild meadow. By mid-July, the superior fruitfulness of the garden is apparent. And later still, when the bitter winds of January howl outside the door, the gardener's well-stocked larder and root cellar remove all doubts about the garden's worth.

My point is, of course, that our culture's moral demise, its 'Slouching Towards Gomorrah', is a very effortless movement, and may even appear quite attractive, but will prove fruitless and barren in the end.