Do we as Americans live in a post Christian imagination - society? Many people would answer Yes. In fact, I have heard Christians say that and ask how to live as Christians in this kind of society. My answer to that would be what Jesus would say and in fact what he said as it still applies to our times no matter how modern or diverse in religions we are. Be salt and light, be the light of the world, do good and be ready to do good. Of course, debate can enter in the picture here as to what is good these days. We as Christians know what that means. So speaking as a born again Christian social scientist, I would say that it means to freely give of yourself, die to your wants/desires and praise God for all your blessings. And, in that dying to yourself, come to accept that what appears to be bad situations for us, is God's mercy and grace at work in our life. Therefore, we are not living in a post Christian society if we as Christians can live according to God's will in this 21st century society.
What about everybody else who is not Christian or deny that they are or deny any existence of God, are they really living in a post Christian society like they think they are? My answer to them as a sociologist is this. No matter how far we think we have come from our European ancestry and Judeo-Christian thought, we still live in it. What does that mean? It means that we cannot escape our socio-historical foundation or default mode program which was written though many many years ago by people still tied very closely to their European roots (George Washington was a British solider in the French Indian War) still stands as a foundation for American society and its civil religion. We cannot escape the fact that Martin Luther gave us the Protestant idea of individualism that being the idea that anyone who excepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior can have a personal relationship with Him regarding their salvation; and the Catholic idea of the victim who must overcome. Both interestingly, promote or stand up for the one 'individual' who by his/her own reaching out to God can be saved; this individual is the American hero, the underdog.
If the individual is no longer important in this country and we become a more top down society where by the masses are controlled by powers that seek to destroy the underdog... then we do live in a post Christian society. If we do live in a post Christian world, then the individual means less than it did in the Christian world we used to live in.
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Monday, May 19, 2014
Diversity Today wasn't Diversity Yesterday... today's diversity isn't yesterday's
Diversity today is different from diversity yesterday. How? Diversity yesterday was when people of the same ethnicity and or race, religion, culture lived their experience, lived their uniqueness. Was there a sharing of diverse experiences among all the diversity of people's; as much as there could be. What does that mean? It means that some things are lost in translation. Diversity means different. It means that if you are raised in one culture you cannot become a member of another. Yes, you can imagine that if you speak their language, eat their food, you have some knowledge of what it is like to be them. But, you cannot be them in the same sense that they know who they are. If you think you can, then you effectively water down who they are and it would be the same if they 'try to be like you'. We can take from each other only that which we are able to. This means that we can only internalize information that makes sense to 'our culture or way of doing things;' as that new information does not exceed our comfort level or what we think of as normal... yes, what is comfortable for us. All other information that does not seem normal or comfortable to us is rejected or adopted as in make it our own. The first time I was in Poland and ate pizza out I was horrified as they brought out a pizza with corn and ketchup on it. For me, that was unimaginable. Today, pizza in Poland is more traditional as in what we accept as Italian style pizza as it comes closer to the normal idea of pizza.
You see, we can only use information that we already know have learned in social context with socialization in a place as normal and yes we can come to know something of other people and their way of living, but that does not make everyone everywhere the same. This applies to all human cultures in the world, primitive and sophisticated. Information is different as it is received in a place and shared in a place, shared in the same way so that we gain a sense of identity; who we are and are not. Hence, real diversity means being different and accepting that people are different and that will not change; less we are no longer truly diverse. Today's diversity has people thinking that diversity means people are able to have different skin color, different religious beliefs and traditions and be the same. But that diversity is essentially a false diversity. What does that mean? It means that people are different and some things that we gained in our socialization have been imprinted on us as a default mode; which cannot be deleted or changed. Americans today think that diversity means that we are the same regardless because everybody wants to be thought of as the same and liked... in that we are the same. This is not diversity. I hear all too often the argument that people are of some universal thread... yes, to some extent we are just being human. But that does not mean we are the same. If we truly like diversity as in diverse information (that which we can look at in awe and respect as it is different...then let us take care not to change it too much from touching that which is different and certainly let us take care not erase it.
Acts 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the world earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though He is not far from each one."
You see, we can only use information that we already know have learned in social context with socialization in a place as normal and yes we can come to know something of other people and their way of living, but that does not make everyone everywhere the same. This applies to all human cultures in the world, primitive and sophisticated. Information is different as it is received in a place and shared in a place, shared in the same way so that we gain a sense of identity; who we are and are not. Hence, real diversity means being different and accepting that people are different and that will not change; less we are no longer truly diverse. Today's diversity has people thinking that diversity means people are able to have different skin color, different religious beliefs and traditions and be the same. But that diversity is essentially a false diversity. What does that mean? It means that people are different and some things that we gained in our socialization have been imprinted on us as a default mode; which cannot be deleted or changed. Americans today think that diversity means that we are the same regardless because everybody wants to be thought of as the same and liked... in that we are the same. This is not diversity. I hear all too often the argument that people are of some universal thread... yes, to some extent we are just being human. But that does not mean we are the same. If we truly like diversity as in diverse information (that which we can look at in awe and respect as it is different...then let us take care not to change it too much from touching that which is different and certainly let us take care not erase it.
Acts 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the world earth; and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though He is not far from each one."
Friday, May 16, 2014
Transcendence - The Movie and What it Means For Our 'Fallen' Social Reality... a Sociological Christian Perspective
Just saw the movie, Transcendence starring Johnny Depp and Morgan Freeman. It was very interesting to me as a Sociologist/Social Psychologist and as a Christian. Let us start from the later. As a Christian, we recognize our Creator who made us in His image; He is our Lord and Savior. We are His program essentially; given free will to choose life and though in this fallen world, our 'information' program contains 'His' being and all we have to do is turn to him... Ps. 71 "give the command to save me". The world thinks of death as an absolute end. However, death is necessary so we will not live in a corrupted state forever which makes death an act of grace and mercy on God's part. His plan always was to restore us to our perfect 'information' state. Now, let us look at the movie script- Transcendence.
In this movie, the scientists (namely the Depp character and his love interest) are trying to develop the technical means to use information - computer data - to extend our lives, our consciousness, into a silicon processor so we can live longer lives and no longer suffer from the weakness and frailty of these corrupted bodies. In the film, the main scientist played by Depp is killed and his consciousness is uploaded into a computer. He quickly begins to act like a god and try to transcend the limitations of the physical world. He eventually takes command over microscopic robots - nanobots - and begins to alter the physical world around him at the atomic level. Unfortunately, this power is not measured by a moral conscience and people, feeling threatened try to stop him. In some sense, the other characters in the movie seem to realize the great danger in this, ...that the scientist is trying to overcome life itself; overcome what they already are, a program written by a Creator- the one who created the heaven and earth and everything in it.
Though, this may sound like it could be a good idea, to extend lives, end suffering... it is a false assumption. In that, we are already a wonderfully created program. One (program) however that became corrupted and now in this 'fallen world - program' we have only to die to it and be saved to a higher social reality (as Jesus Christ demonstrated). If that sounds way out there, imagine then that if scientists today (those that are seriously working on trans-humanism) are attempting to do what they movie scenario depicted then they are in denial of what they already are- organic avatar's (programs) in a program created by a Creator. How can that be a 'true' statement; it is because scientists are using what is already given to them; they are not creating something new, a new heaven/earth but recreating what they already are and have. This false endeavor will entrap them in another kind of program (man-made) from which they cannot be saved, not ever. In Revelations 9,... "there will come a time when men will seek death but cannot find it, they will long to die, but death will elude them".
Final point being, going off a quote in the movie made by the Depp character when asked in the movie "Are you trying to be God", the answer by the Depp character was "Yes, isn't that what man has always been trying to do". Some may read that and think of course, man has always been trying to elevate himself to a higher sense of human being. I say, how can he imagine what that higher human being is unless he himself already has an idea of that in him. I say man wants to be like God, because man is His creation.
In this movie, the scientists (namely the Depp character and his love interest) are trying to develop the technical means to use information - computer data - to extend our lives, our consciousness, into a silicon processor so we can live longer lives and no longer suffer from the weakness and frailty of these corrupted bodies. In the film, the main scientist played by Depp is killed and his consciousness is uploaded into a computer. He quickly begins to act like a god and try to transcend the limitations of the physical world. He eventually takes command over microscopic robots - nanobots - and begins to alter the physical world around him at the atomic level. Unfortunately, this power is not measured by a moral conscience and people, feeling threatened try to stop him. In some sense, the other characters in the movie seem to realize the great danger in this, ...that the scientist is trying to overcome life itself; overcome what they already are, a program written by a Creator- the one who created the heaven and earth and everything in it.
Though, this may sound like it could be a good idea, to extend lives, end suffering... it is a false assumption. In that, we are already a wonderfully created program. One (program) however that became corrupted and now in this 'fallen world - program' we have only to die to it and be saved to a higher social reality (as Jesus Christ demonstrated). If that sounds way out there, imagine then that if scientists today (those that are seriously working on trans-humanism) are attempting to do what they movie scenario depicted then they are in denial of what they already are- organic avatar's (programs) in a program created by a Creator. How can that be a 'true' statement; it is because scientists are using what is already given to them; they are not creating something new, a new heaven/earth but recreating what they already are and have. This false endeavor will entrap them in another kind of program (man-made) from which they cannot be saved, not ever. In Revelations 9,... "there will come a time when men will seek death but cannot find it, they will long to die, but death will elude them".
Final point being, going off a quote in the movie made by the Depp character when asked in the movie "Are you trying to be God", the answer by the Depp character was "Yes, isn't that what man has always been trying to do". Some may read that and think of course, man has always been trying to elevate himself to a higher sense of human being. I say, how can he imagine what that higher human being is unless he himself already has an idea of that in him. I say man wants to be like God, because man is His creation.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Race is Socially Created and God's Master Plan
Who isn't taking about racial issues today? It seems to be a global problem. Many colleagues of mine are brainstorming, trying to come up with a solution. Well, here is the problem that they must first address the fact that race is socially created. I am surprised that they fail to realize what that means. And, they are always surprised to hear that it is not the kind of problem that man can overcome with man-made top down contrived solutions. Why? Because, it is a condition of man in this fallen world. From the perspective of a sociologist, it is a condition because it is a necessary social experience that leads us back to our creator.
Strictly speaking though as a sociology, it is the way we construct social reality... knowing who you are and are not. That is why we as social scientists can say race is socially constructed. It happens through socialization which is about and only about social interaction; the experience of the exchange of information. All social encounters we experience on a daily basis is an exchange information. In all forms of communication with the purpose of information exchange, we able to socially construct our social reality. In sharing information, we are constantly affirming 'who am I and who am I not... who are we and are not'. This is built into our program so to speak through the first socialization encounter... that being with our mother. In this world, (even in a virtual world) we have to be connected to a place, persons, to the people in it in order to experience identity in a social order and to experience that in a constant form called social stability 'culture'. Why? Because, if we did not have an identity in a social order given to us through socialization in a place... we could be catatonic. We would have to live our life everyday in the same way... starting from the beginning. By the end of the day, we would not have accomplished much since most of the day we spent re-learning everything about social reality in a place. You see, the socialization of who I am and am not gives meaning to our life. We understand what it means to be 'me' and what it means not to be 'me'. We experience what it means to belong to a group as 'me' which we can recognize as 'our' group i.e. ' my family'.
Race is a feature of the socialization process. It is about making social distinctions which give us meaning. This experience of the self through others allows us to be members of group which has its identity in a sense given to it by those who find themselves in a place together; remaining there together because of like physical beauty 'features', like mindedness and likeness in general. When you meet someone for the first time, you discrimination, you make social distinctions. You are looking for how they are like you, what you have in common. In this way, we get a clear point of departure, a clear knowledge of who we are and are not and what is comfortable and possible between us. Race is socially created by all people in every culture. Social distinctions in fact create diversity.
Now, can there be racial tensions, prejudice and discrimination? Yes. We naturally discriminate. It happens through the experience of who I am and am not, who we are and are not. We make social distinctions based on the information we have and the comfort it gives us. We get into our groups and we set up boundaries for reasons of comfort and social stability... so we don't have to recreate ourselves the next day. Yes, we as a group will leave out those who are not us and embrace those who are. Can those who are not us feel left out? That is a good question. They can if they do not have a group of their own which they can experience who they are and are not...yet, if they recognize another group, they already have social identity, they already have had that experience of who I am and am not. So, what could make one group or another group of people want to be like or included by another group... a group that they are not? Good question. The other group may seem better off or somehow superior in skills in a place. Thus, another group may find value in the other group and wish to integrate. That has happened many times in our history. Most of Americans today have or are experiencing this as they become American citizens. People come to the US thinking it is a better place.
What about when a group takes over another group? What examples illustrate this? First, keep in mind that regarding all social relationship, there are social dynamics - subordination and domination. They are working together more or less. Without them, we would experience entropy and it would all be over in the meaning that there would be no meaning as to who I am and am not. When those dynamics are at work, it is a given that one will appear to be more or less better. One may appear to carry more weight as in social connections 'clout' depending on who they are in place and who values them in that place which can be as simple as in having greater skills to overcome a particular place 'geography'. So, what about when one group takes over another... the Roman Empire was known for this. It happens most often in this way- the social dynamics being at work, set the stage of a winner and loser or one group that will submit and the other dominate. Can they both be winners? Only if they are able to completely integrate with each other as in a 'fusion' and become a new group. They could also become a new group taking positive aspects from both but favoring the one which appears to have greater evidence of sustainability in a place.
Nonetheless, this kind of take over or submission to one group can only happen through the workings of social dynamics. The results of the social dynamics are both legitimately and illegitimately perceived by both groups or more: the integrating group (s) and the host or 'winner' group (s). Can there be issues which have unacceptable preferences? Certainly, even after what has appeared to be a full integration, when the workings of social dynamics have arrived at a winner-loser. The way to deal with such issues, as one group may become dissatisfied with the other group or is disappointed with the group in which they integrated into by choice or lost the battle to, is to let them over time... work it out.
Booker T. Washington, an African American, had one of the best solutions for working it out, he called it - The Politics of Accommodation. In this solution, over time, the integrating group slowly becomes more and more like the group which they seek to integrate with. Hopefully, that group 'host group', will be accommodating. More often than not, in this way, racial issues or any kind of issue (difference) will diminish to the point that race or any issue is no longer an issue. One could apply this to corporate office dynamics.
God also had a 'master' plan. Acts 17:24 says "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And, He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the world earth and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him."
What does this mean for us, for a group? It means that God knew of man's social experiences and man's needs... in that every man needs to know who he is and is not in this fallen world, which man caused because he disobeyed God, his creator. God understands that every man as a group only understands itself as a group when it encounters other groups; which could lead to conflict. God suggested that we wait before we just jump out there seeking ways to understand ourselves through other men, we need to first understand who we are in Him. Eventually, in our knowledge of who we are in God, we will better understand others, tolerate them in letting them solve their own battles, we will pray that they seek the Lord before we try to make them like us. As Americans, we have good intentions. We like to make others like us because we think we have it better here and everybody should be like us because it is better. However, in this line of thinking, we deny other groups their experience of seeking the Lord and letting Him help them out to prosper. We also hurt our relationship with God by doing His job, our work is to rest in the Lord knowing that He made all the nations and He has a time set for them. And,when we recognize this... recognize God's purpose, we will no longer have racial issues.
Strictly speaking though as a sociology, it is the way we construct social reality... knowing who you are and are not. That is why we as social scientists can say race is socially constructed. It happens through socialization which is about and only about social interaction; the experience of the exchange of information. All social encounters we experience on a daily basis is an exchange information. In all forms of communication with the purpose of information exchange, we able to socially construct our social reality. In sharing information, we are constantly affirming 'who am I and who am I not... who are we and are not'. This is built into our program so to speak through the first socialization encounter... that being with our mother. In this world, (even in a virtual world) we have to be connected to a place, persons, to the people in it in order to experience identity in a social order and to experience that in a constant form called social stability 'culture'. Why? Because, if we did not have an identity in a social order given to us through socialization in a place... we could be catatonic. We would have to live our life everyday in the same way... starting from the beginning. By the end of the day, we would not have accomplished much since most of the day we spent re-learning everything about social reality in a place. You see, the socialization of who I am and am not gives meaning to our life. We understand what it means to be 'me' and what it means not to be 'me'. We experience what it means to belong to a group as 'me' which we can recognize as 'our' group i.e. ' my family'.
Race is a feature of the socialization process. It is about making social distinctions which give us meaning. This experience of the self through others allows us to be members of group which has its identity in a sense given to it by those who find themselves in a place together; remaining there together because of like physical beauty 'features', like mindedness and likeness in general. When you meet someone for the first time, you discrimination, you make social distinctions. You are looking for how they are like you, what you have in common. In this way, we get a clear point of departure, a clear knowledge of who we are and are not and what is comfortable and possible between us. Race is socially created by all people in every culture. Social distinctions in fact create diversity.
Now, can there be racial tensions, prejudice and discrimination? Yes. We naturally discriminate. It happens through the experience of who I am and am not, who we are and are not. We make social distinctions based on the information we have and the comfort it gives us. We get into our groups and we set up boundaries for reasons of comfort and social stability... so we don't have to recreate ourselves the next day. Yes, we as a group will leave out those who are not us and embrace those who are. Can those who are not us feel left out? That is a good question. They can if they do not have a group of their own which they can experience who they are and are not...yet, if they recognize another group, they already have social identity, they already have had that experience of who I am and am not. So, what could make one group or another group of people want to be like or included by another group... a group that they are not? Good question. The other group may seem better off or somehow superior in skills in a place. Thus, another group may find value in the other group and wish to integrate. That has happened many times in our history. Most of Americans today have or are experiencing this as they become American citizens. People come to the US thinking it is a better place.
What about when a group takes over another group? What examples illustrate this? First, keep in mind that regarding all social relationship, there are social dynamics - subordination and domination. They are working together more or less. Without them, we would experience entropy and it would all be over in the meaning that there would be no meaning as to who I am and am not. When those dynamics are at work, it is a given that one will appear to be more or less better. One may appear to carry more weight as in social connections 'clout' depending on who they are in place and who values them in that place which can be as simple as in having greater skills to overcome a particular place 'geography'. So, what about when one group takes over another... the Roman Empire was known for this. It happens most often in this way- the social dynamics being at work, set the stage of a winner and loser or one group that will submit and the other dominate. Can they both be winners? Only if they are able to completely integrate with each other as in a 'fusion' and become a new group. They could also become a new group taking positive aspects from both but favoring the one which appears to have greater evidence of sustainability in a place.
Nonetheless, this kind of take over or submission to one group can only happen through the workings of social dynamics. The results of the social dynamics are both legitimately and illegitimately perceived by both groups or more: the integrating group (s) and the host or 'winner' group (s). Can there be issues which have unacceptable preferences? Certainly, even after what has appeared to be a full integration, when the workings of social dynamics have arrived at a winner-loser. The way to deal with such issues, as one group may become dissatisfied with the other group or is disappointed with the group in which they integrated into by choice or lost the battle to, is to let them over time... work it out.
Booker T. Washington, an African American, had one of the best solutions for working it out, he called it - The Politics of Accommodation. In this solution, over time, the integrating group slowly becomes more and more like the group which they seek to integrate with. Hopefully, that group 'host group', will be accommodating. More often than not, in this way, racial issues or any kind of issue (difference) will diminish to the point that race or any issue is no longer an issue. One could apply this to corporate office dynamics.
God also had a 'master' plan. Acts 17:24 says "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And, He is not served by human hands, as if He needed anything, because He Himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the world earth and He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him."
What does this mean for us, for a group? It means that God knew of man's social experiences and man's needs... in that every man needs to know who he is and is not in this fallen world, which man caused because he disobeyed God, his creator. God understands that every man as a group only understands itself as a group when it encounters other groups; which could lead to conflict. God suggested that we wait before we just jump out there seeking ways to understand ourselves through other men, we need to first understand who we are in Him. Eventually, in our knowledge of who we are in God, we will better understand others, tolerate them in letting them solve their own battles, we will pray that they seek the Lord before we try to make them like us. As Americans, we have good intentions. We like to make others like us because we think we have it better here and everybody should be like us because it is better. However, in this line of thinking, we deny other groups their experience of seeking the Lord and letting Him help them out to prosper. We also hurt our relationship with God by doing His job, our work is to rest in the Lord knowing that He made all the nations and He has a time set for them. And,when we recognize this... recognize God's purpose, we will no longer have racial issues.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Where do Atheists get their morality?
Where do Atheists get their morality?
That is a good question. I was listening to an argument given by an 'educated' person. Their argument was part of a debate being re-broad cast on the radio. The host was an apologetic and well prepared to the argument. In fact, more prepared than the atheist. The atheist, interestingly gave this first statement "The Bible is the most important book in Western Civilization". I can't disagree with that and neither could the apologetic, in fact, that person said "Oh, thank you. And, now tell me how do you know that.? The atheist was quiet, and then said, it is common knowledge. The apologetic again said "Thank you." The atheist began his position by saying that God misled Job and this is how he knows that God does not exist. The apologetic said again thank you. The atheist said for what? The apologetic said because you just acknowledged God and in fact, you state that you know him by saying that he misled Job. The atheist did not understand. The atheist finally said that everyone knows this story and that Job was trying to do what was right and that he alone Job knew what was right simply because he was a man of conviction. The apologetic said thank you again. The atheist said for what? Because said the apologetic, you just acknowledge God by saying that Job acted on conviction. Yes, said the atheist but Job acted on his own conviction. The apologetic said no he did not. Because Job was not a relativist. Job later realized that he was so blinded by his over confidence that he failed to see God’s fairness... for that he abhorred himself and repented in dust and ashes. (Job 42:3-6). Only someone who acknowledges an absolute good and evil with an absolute source can repent. A relativist does not need to reflect on his or her life or actions and does not need to repent; because, a relativist is always in the mode of making the best decision for him/herself in the moment. Unless, they are careless about their decisions and actions which means that they are not convicted about anything let alone about their own decisions and actions. Effectively, they cannot be convicted about anything. To have conviction(s) means to have a strong set of beliefs, and such beliefs can only be strong because they have an absolute source. If Job were convicted only to himself, he would be a relativist and that would apply also to everyone else around him, convicted in their own beliefs. Relativism means that every man/woman is an island of 'every man is his/her own universe. Therefore, every man/woman is their own source for the concepts, beliefs that they have. They are not absolute nor are they collective. Collective conviction among people means that they recognize one source, an absolute so that everyone agrees that this is the way and there is no other. In this way, every man/woman as part of a group can experience true conviction as it is recognized as absolute, collective agreement that there is one creator of all the heavens and earth and is eternal light. That eternal light is knowable in that it is absolute in its 'His' light, there is no other and from that light there comes one ideal of true goodness.
Atheists steal someone else's morality and claim it as their own. Whose? For this discussion... Christian morality. A moral society cannot exist without morality, this atheists understand. However, their argument is flawed as they act according to what they think is good, lawful and just. Yet, when you ask them where those ideas about what is good, lawful and just come from, they have either no answer or that everyone understands them since they are universal or that intelligent people know them. Firstly, there cannot be universal concepts for all because each man/woman is their own source. Atheists cannot recognize cultures or that cultural differences exist when it comes to understanding and practicing such concepts because there is no absolute. Yet, they still continue to argue that all intelligent people understand and practice what is good, lawful and just regardless of cultural differences. To make such a statement only means that one has projected one's one culture or world view onto someone else. Morality has absolutes. I might agree that people can be ethical if they agree on the source of those ethics. However, when asked where are they getting ideas about what is ethical, they rely on morality, the irony is that what is moral depends on absolutes. What is fair and just and lawful 'what is ethical' is difficult for different cultures and even for the same culture of 'intelligent' people to agree on. Atheists do not understand that you cannot have morality in a Godless society. Morality comes from knowing there there exists an absolute goodness and an absolute evil. In recognizing that, you also recognize that there is an absolute source for goodness and evil. From there, you can have 'establish' morality. Atheists, do not and cannot accept that morality cannot come from a relative source. Some people who claim to be intellectuals have said that you are your own universe and likely because we are all human, have the same universals built in. That suggests an absolute source, saying something is built into a system or thing. Random things have no need to seek out and try to understand other random things. In fact, if we understand and agree on what is random it is only because we have already agree on an absolute.
Some argue that you don't need an absolute to be kind to others, show compassion; maybe, but it will be selective basing on your own relativistic goals and desires. Some argue that it is possible to be kind and compassionate without being selective. That suggests that a person is making a choice to be altruistic. If you think that atheists are driven to the altruistic, then what end would that achieve when atheists don't believe in an after life. Some argue that they don't have to believe in an after life to be altruistic. That maybe true. However, the problem with that statement is in how they come to that decision to be altruistic; moreover it suggests that all atheists can come to the same decision which suggests that there is an absolute in being altruist. Since we can recognize altruism. Some might suggest looking at what motivates them to be altruistic? Yes, but what is that they cannot answer. The Christian knows. Atheists argue that Christians only behave kindly or altruistically because they are afraid. Maybe, but they know what their motives are and can defend their choice because they recognize an absolute goodness and evil. Christians also know that their works will not be the only factor in their salvation; it is believing in God, the absolute creator of heaven and earth who has the ultimate absolute power, the last say. It is their fear 'awe' in this absolute that stirs the Christian to be altruistic or good rather than evil. Atheists cannot state what stirs them. Neither can they say why another atheists would make that choice; hence, they cannot make other people be moral, because what someone else thinks is moral is not the same for another atheist. Some would and do argue that the source to be altruistic is man, a higher kind of man that they strive to be... but the problem with that argument is that whose higher kind of man are we talking about? ???
That is a good question. I was listening to an argument given by an 'educated' person. Their argument was part of a debate being re-broad cast on the radio. The host was an apologetic and well prepared to the argument. In fact, more prepared than the atheist. The atheist, interestingly gave this first statement "The Bible is the most important book in Western Civilization". I can't disagree with that and neither could the apologetic, in fact, that person said "Oh, thank you. And, now tell me how do you know that.? The atheist was quiet, and then said, it is common knowledge. The apologetic again said "Thank you." The atheist began his position by saying that God misled Job and this is how he knows that God does not exist. The apologetic said again thank you. The atheist said for what? The apologetic said because you just acknowledged God and in fact, you state that you know him by saying that he misled Job. The atheist did not understand. The atheist finally said that everyone knows this story and that Job was trying to do what was right and that he alone Job knew what was right simply because he was a man of conviction. The apologetic said thank you again. The atheist said for what? Because said the apologetic, you just acknowledge God by saying that Job acted on conviction. Yes, said the atheist but Job acted on his own conviction. The apologetic said no he did not. Because Job was not a relativist. Job later realized that he was so blinded by his over confidence that he failed to see God’s fairness... for that he abhorred himself and repented in dust and ashes. (Job 42:3-6). Only someone who acknowledges an absolute good and evil with an absolute source can repent. A relativist does not need to reflect on his or her life or actions and does not need to repent; because, a relativist is always in the mode of making the best decision for him/herself in the moment. Unless, they are careless about their decisions and actions which means that they are not convicted about anything let alone about their own decisions and actions. Effectively, they cannot be convicted about anything. To have conviction(s) means to have a strong set of beliefs, and such beliefs can only be strong because they have an absolute source. If Job were convicted only to himself, he would be a relativist and that would apply also to everyone else around him, convicted in their own beliefs. Relativism means that every man/woman is an island of 'every man is his/her own universe. Therefore, every man/woman is their own source for the concepts, beliefs that they have. They are not absolute nor are they collective. Collective conviction among people means that they recognize one source, an absolute so that everyone agrees that this is the way and there is no other. In this way, every man/woman as part of a group can experience true conviction as it is recognized as absolute, collective agreement that there is one creator of all the heavens and earth and is eternal light. That eternal light is knowable in that it is absolute in its 'His' light, there is no other and from that light there comes one ideal of true goodness.
Atheists steal someone else's morality and claim it as their own. Whose? For this discussion... Christian morality. A moral society cannot exist without morality, this atheists understand. However, their argument is flawed as they act according to what they think is good, lawful and just. Yet, when you ask them where those ideas about what is good, lawful and just come from, they have either no answer or that everyone understands them since they are universal or that intelligent people know them. Firstly, there cannot be universal concepts for all because each man/woman is their own source. Atheists cannot recognize cultures or that cultural differences exist when it comes to understanding and practicing such concepts because there is no absolute. Yet, they still continue to argue that all intelligent people understand and practice what is good, lawful and just regardless of cultural differences. To make such a statement only means that one has projected one's one culture or world view onto someone else. Morality has absolutes. I might agree that people can be ethical if they agree on the source of those ethics. However, when asked where are they getting ideas about what is ethical, they rely on morality, the irony is that what is moral depends on absolutes. What is fair and just and lawful 'what is ethical' is difficult for different cultures and even for the same culture of 'intelligent' people to agree on. Atheists do not understand that you cannot have morality in a Godless society. Morality comes from knowing there there exists an absolute goodness and an absolute evil. In recognizing that, you also recognize that there is an absolute source for goodness and evil. From there, you can have 'establish' morality. Atheists, do not and cannot accept that morality cannot come from a relative source. Some people who claim to be intellectuals have said that you are your own universe and likely because we are all human, have the same universals built in. That suggests an absolute source, saying something is built into a system or thing. Random things have no need to seek out and try to understand other random things. In fact, if we understand and agree on what is random it is only because we have already agree on an absolute.
Some argue that you don't need an absolute to be kind to others, show compassion; maybe, but it will be selective basing on your own relativistic goals and desires. Some argue that it is possible to be kind and compassionate without being selective. That suggests that a person is making a choice to be altruistic. If you think that atheists are driven to the altruistic, then what end would that achieve when atheists don't believe in an after life. Some argue that they don't have to believe in an after life to be altruistic. That maybe true. However, the problem with that statement is in how they come to that decision to be altruistic; moreover it suggests that all atheists can come to the same decision which suggests that there is an absolute in being altruist. Since we can recognize altruism. Some might suggest looking at what motivates them to be altruistic? Yes, but what is that they cannot answer. The Christian knows. Atheists argue that Christians only behave kindly or altruistically because they are afraid. Maybe, but they know what their motives are and can defend their choice because they recognize an absolute goodness and evil. Christians also know that their works will not be the only factor in their salvation; it is believing in God, the absolute creator of heaven and earth who has the ultimate absolute power, the last say. It is their fear 'awe' in this absolute that stirs the Christian to be altruistic or good rather than evil. Atheists cannot state what stirs them. Neither can they say why another atheists would make that choice; hence, they cannot make other people be moral, because what someone else thinks is moral is not the same for another atheist. Some would and do argue that the source to be altruistic is man, a higher kind of man that they strive to be... but the problem with that argument is that whose higher kind of man are we talking about? ???
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)