In 13th Century Paris, St. Thomas Aquinas proposed a curriculum for the university which offered a hierarchical view of studies. The newer students would study the liberal arts, including language, history, logic and geometry. After completing this, those students who wished to continue their studies would learn philosophy, including Aristotle. Finally, students would be taught theology. Theology was saved for last because, in Aquinas' mind, it was the highest discipline and therefore should not be taught to those who were not willing to learn all the other disciplines they needed to. Of course, this system sets up a highly educated caste of theologians, such that their intellect and knowledge would surpass the philosophers of the day.
Today's university has discarded of the practice of hierarchically ranking studies. Accounting is as valuable as philosophy and English as worthwhile as theology in our schools. This practice does not make for well-versed students. I do not say this because I think that theology is the best subject, but rather because we do not emphasize how all of these subjects can be connected to form a comprehensive understanding of the world. That being said, I will propose that theology does a great job out of all subjects for doing this.
Consider the following: a history class' objective is merely to report the facts of the past. The ramifications of these actions is not within the realm of history to determine, but rather for philosophers, politicians and strategists. A literature class seeks to understand specific literary works, which sometimes requires an understanding of time, and consequently history. However, rarely does this, unless it is a philosophical work, require an understanding of philosophy to understand the work. Rather, language devices and literary nuances are required.
If we follow this trend we can observe several other things. In sciences, for example, it is necessary to have an understanding of mathematical concepts, but math does not necessitate the understanding of science. Linguistics requires an understanding of at least one language. Engineering requires an understanding of physics and advanced math is only understood after simple math is learned.
As we follow this line of thinking, we discover philosophy incorporates several of these studies. As a philosopher, one has to understand a history that dates back to Pythagoras. Literary devices, including allegory, allusion and equivocation are important parts in philosophical discourse. As Socrates demonstrates in the Crito, even mathematics is important. In short, learning more and more about the world can only help one in the philosophical field.
Theology, then goes one step beyond this. Theology often incorporates philosophy and engages every other field of study. Evolutionary biology is constantly in direct dialogue with theology. Neuropsychology has implications for the nature of the soul and what it means to be human that theology must also engage. Even Quantum Mechanics, with its focus on elementary particles, has something to say about the universe that God created and the way that we understand the matter therein.
As we realize this, we discover something shocking and unsettling. We cannot intelligently engage in theological discussion without understanding a large amount of what is going on in the world. If we idly spout out uninformed opinions about God and the universe, we are little more than babbling fools. For how can we expect the world to take us seriously as believers when we respond to challenges to our faith in the most uninformed and baseless manner? If we want to enter into real discussion with the world, then we necessarily need to be aware of the matters in which we engage others in conversation. Laying baseless claims against the charges of unbelievers does not increase our credibility, but rather it makes us look like fools and yuppies in the eyes of our critics.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Too Pious?
I attended a Protestant service today. It was a departure from the way Mass is celebrated.
Rather than genuflecting, we just sat down. There was no holy water to cross ourselves and no one bowed at the altar. We began, not with a blessing or a song, but with a rockin' rendition of some hymn I'd never heard before.
I was reminded just how different Catholicism was practically from Mormonism. Mormons show up for meetings and just sit down. and talk to people around them. They don't really stand up or sit down a whole lot and there are no responses during the service. There really are no readings to speak of, and the communion, though lauded as being the central focus of the meeting, is carried out in so quick a manner that nobody really pays attention. Two to three lay people will be asked to deliver sermons, and they will, usually to the best of their ability (or with only five minutes of prep time before the meeting). All manner of church business will be conducted before communion, usually distracting people. Kids will be crying, old men will be snoring, children will be drawing or texting or some other activity, and everybody will be hot because the AC doesn't work. Any music numbers consist of an organ, or possibly a piano or choir number between speakers.
Catholicism, however, is very big into its ceremony and sacramentals. We cross ourselves walking into the church. We genuflect before sitting down at the altar. We stand and sit and give responses. The readings are often read by lay people while the gospel and homily are done by the priest or deacon. The Eucharist is done at the end of the service with fully half of Mass devoted to the mystery of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. People are less likely to doze off because of all the constant position changing, though a few will snooze during the homily. Mass is only an hour, as opposed to Mormon's three hours of church meetings, making it more endurable for the unwilling attenders. Music is usually more traditional, with either a piano or organ, or possibly a small band, though with only accoustic instruments.
Even the more traditional Protestant churches I've attended place much less emphasis on ceremony and tradition. People just walk in, talking and sharing with each other. There are no procedures for bowing or sitting, but people do rise for readings and sermons are usually done by the minister. But the minister is not a priest, and the Communion is not viewed with the same reverence and respect as the Eucharist. Usually there's a full band, including electric guitars and basses and keyboards. Where the crossing and genuflecting is absent, however, other forms of worship are present. People stand during songs, hands outstretched and eyes closed in worship. People shout glorious alleluias and amens during sermons.
So I wonder what it is to be pious and reverent in worship. Is it dancing in the aisle? Is it Gregorian chanting? Is it abject silence as a peer reads a pre-written sermon? In my mind, worship needs to be somehow disconnected from the mundane world we live in. Our individual actions and habits we associate with worship need to be seperated from what we do at parties.
Do we talk too loudly at our services? Do we distract ourselves with the gossip of our friends and neighbors? Does the worship music distract us? Are we conducting ourselves in such a manner that we know we are in a worship service?
I find it quite fascinating to see the ways in which worship has changed over the last 2000 years. In the early days, as detailed by writers like Egeria, services would last hours, sometimes all day long. While I seriously doubt that many people today have the patience to sit through such a long liturgy, it is interesting to note that they did back then. However, we can also infer that aside from strict worship, the service also sought to entertain. We also read from Paul that when members got together for the Lord's Supper, they often gorged themselves as if they were strictly there for the food (1 Corinthians 11:21-22).
Over time, the Church moved from lengthy, entertaining services to shorter, worship focused liturgy. With developing theology, Mass shortened to focus more on the liturgical, worshipful aspects rather than the grandiose rhetoric and theater.
Then, during the Reformation an interesting thing happened. The Roman Church changed its liturgy to a more Baroque style with ornate art and gothic architecture. Many of the Protestant Churches, the Reformers and Anglicans especially, traded the ornamentation for simplistic, bare-walled worship, often with no music. The Protestants sought simplistic worship, with the scripture being the beginning and end. The Catholics, with their tradition and Tradition, held onto the images of saints and the writings and songs of the doctors and theologians.
As time went on, Catholicism made few changes, until Vatican II. Then, the liturgy was changed to vernacular, the priest faced the congregation for Eucharist and hymns were modernized. However, even these changes couldn't parallel the radical changes American Protestantism. In exchange for the melancholy tones of yesteryear, Christian rock bands take the stage. Where hellfire and damnation were once preached from the pulpit, today it's love for Jesus. Shame has been traded for ambition and the angry preacher for the happy-go-lucky minister.
It can be hard to decide what form of worship to adhere to. Do we stick to the old ways of yesteryear, full of bowing, crossing, genuflecting and chanting? Do we get with today's contemporary worship with rock bands, bible study, youth ministers, and interactive sermons? Or do we go with the silent adoration with no signals, no prostrations or ornamentation? Whatever way we decide to worship, the most important aspect of it is our understanding it as worship and our utilizing it as such.
Rather than genuflecting, we just sat down. There was no holy water to cross ourselves and no one bowed at the altar. We began, not with a blessing or a song, but with a rockin' rendition of some hymn I'd never heard before.
I was reminded just how different Catholicism was practically from Mormonism. Mormons show up for meetings and just sit down. and talk to people around them. They don't really stand up or sit down a whole lot and there are no responses during the service. There really are no readings to speak of, and the communion, though lauded as being the central focus of the meeting, is carried out in so quick a manner that nobody really pays attention. Two to three lay people will be asked to deliver sermons, and they will, usually to the best of their ability (or with only five minutes of prep time before the meeting). All manner of church business will be conducted before communion, usually distracting people. Kids will be crying, old men will be snoring, children will be drawing or texting or some other activity, and everybody will be hot because the AC doesn't work. Any music numbers consist of an organ, or possibly a piano or choir number between speakers.
Catholicism, however, is very big into its ceremony and sacramentals. We cross ourselves walking into the church. We genuflect before sitting down at the altar. We stand and sit and give responses. The readings are often read by lay people while the gospel and homily are done by the priest or deacon. The Eucharist is done at the end of the service with fully half of Mass devoted to the mystery of the Flesh and Blood of Christ. People are less likely to doze off because of all the constant position changing, though a few will snooze during the homily. Mass is only an hour, as opposed to Mormon's three hours of church meetings, making it more endurable for the unwilling attenders. Music is usually more traditional, with either a piano or organ, or possibly a small band, though with only accoustic instruments.
Even the more traditional Protestant churches I've attended place much less emphasis on ceremony and tradition. People just walk in, talking and sharing with each other. There are no procedures for bowing or sitting, but people do rise for readings and sermons are usually done by the minister. But the minister is not a priest, and the Communion is not viewed with the same reverence and respect as the Eucharist. Usually there's a full band, including electric guitars and basses and keyboards. Where the crossing and genuflecting is absent, however, other forms of worship are present. People stand during songs, hands outstretched and eyes closed in worship. People shout glorious alleluias and amens during sermons.
So I wonder what it is to be pious and reverent in worship. Is it dancing in the aisle? Is it Gregorian chanting? Is it abject silence as a peer reads a pre-written sermon? In my mind, worship needs to be somehow disconnected from the mundane world we live in. Our individual actions and habits we associate with worship need to be seperated from what we do at parties.
Do we talk too loudly at our services? Do we distract ourselves with the gossip of our friends and neighbors? Does the worship music distract us? Are we conducting ourselves in such a manner that we know we are in a worship service?
I find it quite fascinating to see the ways in which worship has changed over the last 2000 years. In the early days, as detailed by writers like Egeria, services would last hours, sometimes all day long. While I seriously doubt that many people today have the patience to sit through such a long liturgy, it is interesting to note that they did back then. However, we can also infer that aside from strict worship, the service also sought to entertain. We also read from Paul that when members got together for the Lord's Supper, they often gorged themselves as if they were strictly there for the food (1 Corinthians 11:21-22).
Over time, the Church moved from lengthy, entertaining services to shorter, worship focused liturgy. With developing theology, Mass shortened to focus more on the liturgical, worshipful aspects rather than the grandiose rhetoric and theater.
Then, during the Reformation an interesting thing happened. The Roman Church changed its liturgy to a more Baroque style with ornate art and gothic architecture. Many of the Protestant Churches, the Reformers and Anglicans especially, traded the ornamentation for simplistic, bare-walled worship, often with no music. The Protestants sought simplistic worship, with the scripture being the beginning and end. The Catholics, with their tradition and Tradition, held onto the images of saints and the writings and songs of the doctors and theologians.
As time went on, Catholicism made few changes, until Vatican II. Then, the liturgy was changed to vernacular, the priest faced the congregation for Eucharist and hymns were modernized. However, even these changes couldn't parallel the radical changes American Protestantism. In exchange for the melancholy tones of yesteryear, Christian rock bands take the stage. Where hellfire and damnation were once preached from the pulpit, today it's love for Jesus. Shame has been traded for ambition and the angry preacher for the happy-go-lucky minister.
It can be hard to decide what form of worship to adhere to. Do we stick to the old ways of yesteryear, full of bowing, crossing, genuflecting and chanting? Do we get with today's contemporary worship with rock bands, bible study, youth ministers, and interactive sermons? Or do we go with the silent adoration with no signals, no prostrations or ornamentation? Whatever way we decide to worship, the most important aspect of it is our understanding it as worship and our utilizing it as such.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Whose fight is it?
I read today that Mormon Church leader Dallin H Oaks spoke to the student body of Brigham Young University Idaho on the gay rights movement. In his talk, he compared what was going on to the Civil Rights Movement.
As if that wouldn't be a controversial enough statement, the way in which he compared it was laughable at best. He claimed that the Mormon Church, due to the (sometimes violent) backlash of those against Proposition 8 in California, was synonymous to the African-Americans who fought for their rights. This is hilarious on several levels. 1) The gay community at large are the ones seeking civil rights, not the Mormon Church. 2) The Mormon Church are the ones responsible for holding down the homosexual movement, thus more the aggressors here than the victims. 3) The Mormon Church was also not on the side of African Americans in the Civil Rights Movement because they denied Black men the priesthood until 1978, a full decade after Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.
It's hard to not view the whole picture of this without laughing, or at least chuckling. 119 years ago the Mormon Church had to officially stop allowing their men to have multiple wives (some as many as twenty) in order to gain statehood. Now, one would imagine that because of their past non-conventional style of marriage, they would be more merciful to those seeking to have their marriages recognized as legitimate. On the contrary, though, the Mormon Church either seeks to act out in pure spite against those seeking legalization of their marriages or wishes to be more conformed with other conservative evangelical faiths.
Perhaps to understand the emphasis the Mormon Church places on heterosexual marriage we need to understand a critical document called The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In it the Mormon leaders set out that the "traditional family" is the only one that is worth upholding. This document presents very few beneficial patterns for family life and many backwards minded constrictive and regressive models. Among the positives are the emphasis of father interaction with children. However, among the negatives are a call for women to stay in the home, for the man to have sole financial burden and for the prototypical model to consist of a man born with an X and Y chromosome, and a woman born with two Xes who are lawfully married.
Which brings me to a final point. Marriage, in the way that we speak of it, has three different definitions. First is the legal definition. This is the fight going down in the ballots, in the courts and in the marches. Legal definition gives rights for insurance, inheritance, financial co-ownership, children custody and last rights and medical decisions. In the event of divorce, the fight is generally over property and children rights.
The second definition is the social definition. This has no clear boundaries and is only displayed insofar as both parties demonstrate consent. A couple that lives together and shares all things is for all intents and purposes socially married. A child can be raised by a man who is not biologically or legally his father if he is in a social marriage with the child's mother. This definition often coincides with the legal definition, but over and against it, if parents are "separated" they are legally still married, but socially divorced. This form of marriage is not generally recognized by most conventional organizations, but is the most practical and has the most far reaching consequences for familial structure and development.
The third and final definition is the religious definition. This is a marriage officially recognized by a specific faith group. For Catholics, this is the sacrament of marriage. For Mormons, this is marriage in a temple. For other faiths, these are the traditional marriage ceremonies unique to each one. Often times these are coincidentally legal marriages as well, but from time to time, religious marriages have not been recognized by the state. Similarly, in divorce, for religious marriages, a special "divorce" is often required, as in the case of annulments. Religious marriages have consequences in spirituality. They impact the nature of the religious family and the value of the marriage in an eternal perspective.
The important distinction here is that the Mormon Church is a religious organization. They meddle in the religious sphere. Their authority is over religious marriages. They can deny or allow marriages in their temples for whomever they wish. But the homosexual community is not currently vying for religious marriages in Mormon temples. No, they only seek legal marriages. Yes, the Mormon Church views it as their specific duty to ensure that the "traditional family is upheld in every sphere." However, I think it is important to note where they're jurisdiction ends and begins. So it is, whether or not we agree with the idea of homosexual religious marriage, the desire for legal marriage is merely seeking a civil right--one that we as a people have given to every race and religion and owe to the homosexual community
As if that wouldn't be a controversial enough statement, the way in which he compared it was laughable at best. He claimed that the Mormon Church, due to the (sometimes violent) backlash of those against Proposition 8 in California, was synonymous to the African-Americans who fought for their rights. This is hilarious on several levels. 1) The gay community at large are the ones seeking civil rights, not the Mormon Church. 2) The Mormon Church are the ones responsible for holding down the homosexual movement, thus more the aggressors here than the victims. 3) The Mormon Church was also not on the side of African Americans in the Civil Rights Movement because they denied Black men the priesthood until 1978, a full decade after Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.
It's hard to not view the whole picture of this without laughing, or at least chuckling. 119 years ago the Mormon Church had to officially stop allowing their men to have multiple wives (some as many as twenty) in order to gain statehood. Now, one would imagine that because of their past non-conventional style of marriage, they would be more merciful to those seeking to have their marriages recognized as legitimate. On the contrary, though, the Mormon Church either seeks to act out in pure spite against those seeking legalization of their marriages or wishes to be more conformed with other conservative evangelical faiths.
Perhaps to understand the emphasis the Mormon Church places on heterosexual marriage we need to understand a critical document called The Family: A Proclamation to the World. In it the Mormon leaders set out that the "traditional family" is the only one that is worth upholding. This document presents very few beneficial patterns for family life and many backwards minded constrictive and regressive models. Among the positives are the emphasis of father interaction with children. However, among the negatives are a call for women to stay in the home, for the man to have sole financial burden and for the prototypical model to consist of a man born with an X and Y chromosome, and a woman born with two Xes who are lawfully married.
Which brings me to a final point. Marriage, in the way that we speak of it, has three different definitions. First is the legal definition. This is the fight going down in the ballots, in the courts and in the marches. Legal definition gives rights for insurance, inheritance, financial co-ownership, children custody and last rights and medical decisions. In the event of divorce, the fight is generally over property and children rights.
The second definition is the social definition. This has no clear boundaries and is only displayed insofar as both parties demonstrate consent. A couple that lives together and shares all things is for all intents and purposes socially married. A child can be raised by a man who is not biologically or legally his father if he is in a social marriage with the child's mother. This definition often coincides with the legal definition, but over and against it, if parents are "separated" they are legally still married, but socially divorced. This form of marriage is not generally recognized by most conventional organizations, but is the most practical and has the most far reaching consequences for familial structure and development.
The third and final definition is the religious definition. This is a marriage officially recognized by a specific faith group. For Catholics, this is the sacrament of marriage. For Mormons, this is marriage in a temple. For other faiths, these are the traditional marriage ceremonies unique to each one. Often times these are coincidentally legal marriages as well, but from time to time, religious marriages have not been recognized by the state. Similarly, in divorce, for religious marriages, a special "divorce" is often required, as in the case of annulments. Religious marriages have consequences in spirituality. They impact the nature of the religious family and the value of the marriage in an eternal perspective.
The important distinction here is that the Mormon Church is a religious organization. They meddle in the religious sphere. Their authority is over religious marriages. They can deny or allow marriages in their temples for whomever they wish. But the homosexual community is not currently vying for religious marriages in Mormon temples. No, they only seek legal marriages. Yes, the Mormon Church views it as their specific duty to ensure that the "traditional family is upheld in every sphere." However, I think it is important to note where they're jurisdiction ends and begins. So it is, whether or not we agree with the idea of homosexual religious marriage, the desire for legal marriage is merely seeking a civil right--one that we as a people have given to every race and religion and owe to the homosexual community
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Cynicism
I feel as if I've brought this topic up once before, but in looking at the previous post, I realize that it does actually address a slightly different topic of discussion.
I've realized (with more than a little help), that I'm a cynic. I do not take great pride in this fact, nor do I take shame in this. It is what it is. But I shall attempt to explain why this is and from whence it comes.
To begin, I start with St Augustine's theology about Original Sin. St Augustine states that all men are born with the sin of Adam. Though I don't know that he ever explicitly mentions this, many theologians have derived from Augustine that this means that humans' souls are stained with sin. Of course, with the theology of the Passion, Cristology tells us that through Jesus all are alleviated from the sins of Adam. However, many disagree with the way in which this is done, and even still, no theologians have ever allowed this to mean that any men (aside from the Blessed Mother and Jesus Himself) were ever born without the sin of Adam still on them.
I take this to mean that human beings are innately evil. Yes, this is a very dismal view on the human condition, but I accept this to be only an extension of Augustine's theology. If we have been born with the sin of Adam, and our souls are inherently stained, then we are automatically sinful and inclined to sin. Thus, we are wicked and bad people by nature.
I do not think that all people are bad, however. I have continually been shown that there are, in fact, many good and great people in this world. I have known many philanthropic and self-sacrificing people. All the saints were great people. Many mentors and instructors are and were great people. Philosophers and philanthropists have blessed the world with their virtuous ideals. The world is not completely evil, in other words.
However, this makes me take on the idea of people being bad unless proven innocent. Worse is when I negatively associate many occupations without knowing the people necessarily. While I will not make more specific what occupations I view as contemptible, suffice it to say any position in which I believe people are unduly rewarded for something which doesn't merit such benefits I regard in negative fashion.
However, to be more all-encompassing in my general biases (which have been variously pointed out to me), I would state that any industry, organization or social trend that promotes vice over virtue is despicable in my eyes. Our pop-culture is heavily laden with bad morals and unethical practices. The dominant image in media portrays an image of vice and sin. It is as the serial killer (Spoiler Alert) on Se7en states, "Only in a world this sick would we consider these [sinners] to be innocent people."
This doesn't mean that I think there should be any destructive or mean repercussions enacted to combat this. On the contrary, meanness only begets meanness, while kindness leads to kindness. The only way in which I think these ideals could be reversed would be through promotion, especially on our own part, of virtues. Only through this, do I think, anything will be accomplished to better us.
When I close my eyes, the world I see is one quite unlike this one. Parents are most concerned about instilling their children with virtue and view sports and other activities as secondary. Prisons are replaced with rehabilitation programs to help prisoners learn of the errors in their ways. Schools teach virtues first and expound on them to all other studies (including wisdom, which consists of the bulk of our curriculum). Men and women pursue activities that will bring them true happiness rather than temporary pleasure. Virtue rules the culture and dictates what we do.
However, I am no fool. I don't foresee this happening soon. I know the world is full of corruption, and that complete virtue is a goal far off. However, I believe it negligent of me to not try to instill any virtue on those I meet. Not to force it, mind you, as this would also be inconsistent with virtue, but to try to enlighten whomever will be receptive.
This is where I come to my final point about my cynicism. While I consciously will virtue to be pervaded throughout the world, I know that it isn't. And unless I acknowledge this, I cannot hope to change it. I perceive of the world as being corrupted and in need of change, because I feel that in acknowledging this fact, I am opening myself to the possibility of changing or trying to change what I see that is wrong. Taking a completely optimistic view of the world will only prevent me from allowing anything that I perceive to be already working to be fixed. Thus, a healthy dose of cynicism allows us to make improvements in our own lives.
I've realized (with more than a little help), that I'm a cynic. I do not take great pride in this fact, nor do I take shame in this. It is what it is. But I shall attempt to explain why this is and from whence it comes.
To begin, I start with St Augustine's theology about Original Sin. St Augustine states that all men are born with the sin of Adam. Though I don't know that he ever explicitly mentions this, many theologians have derived from Augustine that this means that humans' souls are stained with sin. Of course, with the theology of the Passion, Cristology tells us that through Jesus all are alleviated from the sins of Adam. However, many disagree with the way in which this is done, and even still, no theologians have ever allowed this to mean that any men (aside from the Blessed Mother and Jesus Himself) were ever born without the sin of Adam still on them.
I take this to mean that human beings are innately evil. Yes, this is a very dismal view on the human condition, but I accept this to be only an extension of Augustine's theology. If we have been born with the sin of Adam, and our souls are inherently stained, then we are automatically sinful and inclined to sin. Thus, we are wicked and bad people by nature.
I do not think that all people are bad, however. I have continually been shown that there are, in fact, many good and great people in this world. I have known many philanthropic and self-sacrificing people. All the saints were great people. Many mentors and instructors are and were great people. Philosophers and philanthropists have blessed the world with their virtuous ideals. The world is not completely evil, in other words.
However, this makes me take on the idea of people being bad unless proven innocent. Worse is when I negatively associate many occupations without knowing the people necessarily. While I will not make more specific what occupations I view as contemptible, suffice it to say any position in which I believe people are unduly rewarded for something which doesn't merit such benefits I regard in negative fashion.
However, to be more all-encompassing in my general biases (which have been variously pointed out to me), I would state that any industry, organization or social trend that promotes vice over virtue is despicable in my eyes. Our pop-culture is heavily laden with bad morals and unethical practices. The dominant image in media portrays an image of vice and sin. It is as the serial killer (Spoiler Alert) on Se7en states, "Only in a world this sick would we consider these [sinners] to be innocent people."
This doesn't mean that I think there should be any destructive or mean repercussions enacted to combat this. On the contrary, meanness only begets meanness, while kindness leads to kindness. The only way in which I think these ideals could be reversed would be through promotion, especially on our own part, of virtues. Only through this, do I think, anything will be accomplished to better us.
When I close my eyes, the world I see is one quite unlike this one. Parents are most concerned about instilling their children with virtue and view sports and other activities as secondary. Prisons are replaced with rehabilitation programs to help prisoners learn of the errors in their ways. Schools teach virtues first and expound on them to all other studies (including wisdom, which consists of the bulk of our curriculum). Men and women pursue activities that will bring them true happiness rather than temporary pleasure. Virtue rules the culture and dictates what we do.
However, I am no fool. I don't foresee this happening soon. I know the world is full of corruption, and that complete virtue is a goal far off. However, I believe it negligent of me to not try to instill any virtue on those I meet. Not to force it, mind you, as this would also be inconsistent with virtue, but to try to enlighten whomever will be receptive.
This is where I come to my final point about my cynicism. While I consciously will virtue to be pervaded throughout the world, I know that it isn't. And unless I acknowledge this, I cannot hope to change it. I perceive of the world as being corrupted and in need of change, because I feel that in acknowledging this fact, I am opening myself to the possibility of changing or trying to change what I see that is wrong. Taking a completely optimistic view of the world will only prevent me from allowing anything that I perceive to be already working to be fixed. Thus, a healthy dose of cynicism allows us to make improvements in our own lives.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Unanswered Questions
So Alexa and I had a long discussion today which involved several different things. However, there is really one which I would like to expound more. Anybody who has paid much attention to controversial issues of the day knows that a chief topic is Creationism versus Evolution.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.
Concerning the topic of Creationism, there are several big objections I have against it. The timing makes little to no sense, nor does the order of creation. Additionally, I have a hard time with the idea that God, being a god who is thought to work inside the confines of nature would create the world in such a strange manner, ignoring matter and universal properties rather than creating the sun with light, and land with the sea. Additionally, there is the simple matter of logistic errors. Why is there water in the sky? Why is woman pulled out of the side of the man? Why is the sun created after the earth? Finally, there is the contradiction in stories. Yes, storieS. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis provide two different stories of the creation. In one instance, God creates everything, and in the end creates humans. In the second, God creates man, then creates everything else in order to be used by human. Both stories supply woman as being created after man, in one instance being drawn from his actual body, and in the other being created almost as an after thought.
However, even with these many objections, I do think that the Creation has some merit to it. It is a scriptural story that has lasted through thousands of years, a claim that NO OTHER origination idea can claim. Also, There is the simple fact of human telos and God's glory in us. Whether or not we believe the stories to be literal, they demonstrate for us God's love in a very basic way. God loves us from the beginning, makes us in God's image and watches out for us and takes care of us.
Also, there is a lot to be gained from the story allegorically, as Origen, even in the second century, admits. We learn a basic pattern for human labor. We learn a metaphysical truth that Aquinas would verify in the hierarchy of being. We learn the connection between all things and the divine origin of the universe. Finally, we see that all that God has created is GOOD.
Evolution has several problems with it as well, however. Human achievment, intelligence and sentience is discounted if we are little more than a step on the evolutionary ladder. Identity and purpose is void if we are simply mutated simians. Thousands of years of philosophies and theologies are invalidated because the true answer to human existence lies in random chances and chemical reactions.
Furthermore, the truth is that the idea of human origin through evolution is not a scientific principle, though thought by many to be so. Evolution is cited as a principle, insofar as we have observed it in lower life-forms (bacteria and insects, ie). However, the idea of humans being descended from primordial primates is NOT a principle, but merely a theory. Granted, it has valid implications and has plenty of basis, but as there is no definitive proof, one cannot state that evolution of human origins is a proven principle.
Also, Evolution is an idea only 150 years old (this year!). Science continually disproves itself. The physics of Aristotle's time were disproven by Cartesian physics, which were disproven by Newton, who was shown to be wrong by Einstein, which even today is considered incorrect by Quantum physics. Biological origination has come a long way since pre-Pasteur. Even evolutionary theory has moved a long way since Origin of Species. Thus, to assert the absolute correctness of modern evolutionary theories would be to deny any possibility of a better theory in the future.
I have no problem synthesizing the two ideas, however. If we imagine for ourselves a God who operates in the natural world, one can posit biological development as if God were working in a petri dish which we term "earth." Thus humanity can emerge from the natural world, a world which even the Genesis account deems to be "good." Human diversity, awareness, sense of telos and natural curiosity can be accounted for by God's creation of us, whereas our animal bodies can be explained by the evolutionary aspect of it.
It is important to note that science does not and has never disproven God. Furthermore, true theology should never conflict with scientific truths. Thirteenth century Muslim philosophers understood this idea better than most Christians do today. Muslim thinkers like Averroes and Avicenna taught that if a scientific principle conflicted with theology, either we misunderstand the scientific results or we misunderstand our theological truths. God cannot create a universe that disproves Him. This is essential for us to understand as believers. For those skeptics out there, it is important to remember that modern scientific method is derived from the Golden Age of Islam.
Finally, we must cede that we do not actually understand or know where it is that we come from. As believers, the best we can truly say is that we believe we are made in God's image and likeness. As scientists, the best we can say is that our physiology, anatomy, and DNA suggests a close relationship between us and other primates which suggests a common ancestry. But whether an idea is three thousand years old, or only a hundred and fifty, we do not know definitively what the real answer is. Thus, I think it is wrong for either side to discount the other completely. Being completely ideologically opposed to the propogation of the other idea is just as bad as the accusations leveled against whatever group we support.
Best of all we need to understand that as believers, we must be willing to accept what science tells us and seek to understand God better through this rather than denying whatever new ideas may come at us. The theology introduced in the Torah is radically different from the theology of the Gospels, which is added to and explained over the course of the proceeding two millenia. To follow the mantra of evolutionary theory, if we do not adapt with our theologies, we shall find that we whither and die.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The language of God (linguam dei) (لغة الله)
I have grown up for the most part in Protestant-oriented (or Mormon-oriented if we want to differentiate) America with English as my only language for many years. After coming out to Catholic Notre Dame, I was exposed to a very different religious ideology. However, it was in studying theology in tandem with different langugages where I discovered that a lot of ideas and thoughts we have in American Protestant culture are very skewed and mistranslated ideas.
For example, as a Mormon, I always heard the name of Jehovah being tossed around among other Mormons. Later, I realized that Jehovah is really derived from the Latinized iehovah (like in Indiana Jones) which is really better transcribed in today's modern alphabet as YHWH (thanks to the incorporation of the Greek Epsilon and the invention of the W). The vowels we incorporate are purely functional since Hebrew can be read without vowels, and they for sure would not have been incorporated into the tetragramatron. In the Old Testament, the name appears like יהוה and would later have been given vowels as translators (most likely Jerome or those who compiled the Septuagint) would have seen fit.
Likewise, there are many ideas used in Greek that do not translate neatly into English. For example, the opening lines of the Gospel of John use the word "Logos" where it says "In the beginning was the Word." The Greek idea of Logos can be used to mean word, but furthermore it means something more related simple cognitive movement, but especially those movements that are communicative in nature. Thus, Logos can also refer to ideas, thoughts, and, in contemporary usage, even study. Thus the word Logos doesn't just mean the Word, but God's own thought.
There are other controversies that have arisen because of language ambiguation. The Nicene Creed for those from the Roman heritage, for example, says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son," whereas in the Greek tradition he "proceeds from the Father through the Son." This seemingly slight difference changes the entire Trinitarian formula depending on whether the Holy Spirit descends or is emitted. Likewise, the early Church councils debated on whether the Word and the Flesh were of one nature or one likeness depending on the placement of a single Greek iota.
Even in these early Church councils, such as Chalcedon and Ephasis, because of the wording of certain theological principles, the Christian Church was schismed against itself and the Oriental Church was broken off from the Church at Constantinople. This division caused such a rift that even until the last fifty years, the Churches had not been in communion with each other.
Perhaps this is why the Catholic Church maintained Latin as the official Liturgical language for so long. Even now, post Vatican II, all official proclamations from the Vatican are written in Latin. And other Churches, such as the Caldeans and the Assyrians practice their liturgies in their native tongues rather than in the common tongue of the area.
But even against this, it is interesting to see the various different languages God's word has been handed down in. The Old Testament, the oldest of the various scriptures adhered to by Monotheists, was originally written in Hebrew. When God speaks to Moses, it's all in Hebrew, and when Isaiah and Jeremiah write poetry, that's also in Hebrew. It would not be incorrect to say that God speaks Hebrew first and foremost.
Then comes something rather peculiar. Due to Alexander the Great's occupation of Israel, many Jews found themselves outside of the former Kingdom of Judah. The TNK (Old Testament) was then recompiled by seventy Jewish scholars into Greek, which we know now as the Septuagint. As far as translations go, there are few big differences between the TNK and the Septuagint, aside from the presence of deutero-canonical (or "apocryphal") texts in the Septuagint. However, with the Bible being in Greek, this took off any claim that could be made that Hebrew is God's language.
Christianity comes along and makes things even worse. Christian scriptures are all written in Greek. The apostles who wrote wrote their epistles in Greek. The Apocalypse is in Greek. Even the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are written in Greek. All of a sudden, there's a new religion claiming to be in right standing with God which writes completely in Greek. However, there's a bigger catch to this. Jesus didn't speak Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Traces of this can be seen even in the Gospels, especially in scenes where one of the Evangelists (John mostly) clarifies his words by saying "....meaning..." or "...that is to say..." Historical critical exegetes see these quotes as being evidence of the historical Jesus.
Now the Christian finds himself in an odd standpoint. His scriptures are in Greek, and, except for the fact that the canon was formed using the Septuagint, have some Hebrew origins, but their founder and the object of their worship spoke Aramaic. Thus we can see why above all the monotheistic faiths, Christianity puts the least emphasis on liturgical language. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic and Hindi were used for centuries as acceptable languages of the faith, with German, French and English developing as acceptable languages in the sixteenth century and all common languages being used today.
Islam enters the story about five hundred years after Christianity. However, the قورئن was handed down to Muhammed in Arabic as the very Word of God. Thus, there is no room for variance. To vary from Arabic in liturgy, or exegesis is to stray from God's actual word. Even the احدث are preserved in Arabic, though they are not official words spoken by the Angel Gabriel. Thus, in Islam, it is very clear that God's language is nothing other than Arabic.
This poses an interesting question and certainly a point for consideration. If so many theological points are untranslatable, how are we to expect all people to know them? Likewise, if God only speaks one language, are we to expect all men and women world-wide to learn this language? To take a passage out of the Bible, one which all three monotheistic faiths recognize, the tower of Babel story demonstrates to us the dangers that can arise when we all speak the same language. Had God wanted us to be able to communicate simply and universally with each other, perhaps it would have been better if our communication were limited to the moans and shrieks of whales, dolphins, dogs and cats. Thus, we are struck with the paradoxical question of "what language does God give preference for?" and likewise "if God had a preferential language, would not we all speak this?"
For example, as a Mormon, I always heard the name of Jehovah being tossed around among other Mormons. Later, I realized that Jehovah is really derived from the Latinized iehovah (like in Indiana Jones) which is really better transcribed in today's modern alphabet as YHWH (thanks to the incorporation of the Greek Epsilon and the invention of the W). The vowels we incorporate are purely functional since Hebrew can be read without vowels, and they for sure would not have been incorporated into the tetragramatron. In the Old Testament, the name appears like יהוה and would later have been given vowels as translators (most likely Jerome or those who compiled the Septuagint) would have seen fit.
Likewise, there are many ideas used in Greek that do not translate neatly into English. For example, the opening lines of the Gospel of John use the word "Logos" where it says "In the beginning was the Word." The Greek idea of Logos can be used to mean word, but furthermore it means something more related simple cognitive movement, but especially those movements that are communicative in nature. Thus, Logos can also refer to ideas, thoughts, and, in contemporary usage, even study. Thus the word Logos doesn't just mean the Word, but God's own thought.
There are other controversies that have arisen because of language ambiguation. The Nicene Creed for those from the Roman heritage, for example, says that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father and the Son," whereas in the Greek tradition he "proceeds from the Father through the Son." This seemingly slight difference changes the entire Trinitarian formula depending on whether the Holy Spirit descends or is emitted. Likewise, the early Church councils debated on whether the Word and the Flesh were of one nature or one likeness depending on the placement of a single Greek iota.
Even in these early Church councils, such as Chalcedon and Ephasis, because of the wording of certain theological principles, the Christian Church was schismed against itself and the Oriental Church was broken off from the Church at Constantinople. This division caused such a rift that even until the last fifty years, the Churches had not been in communion with each other.
Perhaps this is why the Catholic Church maintained Latin as the official Liturgical language for so long. Even now, post Vatican II, all official proclamations from the Vatican are written in Latin. And other Churches, such as the Caldeans and the Assyrians practice their liturgies in their native tongues rather than in the common tongue of the area.
But even against this, it is interesting to see the various different languages God's word has been handed down in. The Old Testament, the oldest of the various scriptures adhered to by Monotheists, was originally written in Hebrew. When God speaks to Moses, it's all in Hebrew, and when Isaiah and Jeremiah write poetry, that's also in Hebrew. It would not be incorrect to say that God speaks Hebrew first and foremost.
Then comes something rather peculiar. Due to Alexander the Great's occupation of Israel, many Jews found themselves outside of the former Kingdom of Judah. The TNK (Old Testament) was then recompiled by seventy Jewish scholars into Greek, which we know now as the Septuagint. As far as translations go, there are few big differences between the TNK and the Septuagint, aside from the presence of deutero-canonical (or "apocryphal") texts in the Septuagint. However, with the Bible being in Greek, this took off any claim that could be made that Hebrew is God's language.
Christianity comes along and makes things even worse. Christian scriptures are all written in Greek. The apostles who wrote wrote their epistles in Greek. The Apocalypse is in Greek. Even the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are written in Greek. All of a sudden, there's a new religion claiming to be in right standing with God which writes completely in Greek. However, there's a bigger catch to this. Jesus didn't speak Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Traces of this can be seen even in the Gospels, especially in scenes where one of the Evangelists (John mostly) clarifies his words by saying "....meaning..." or "...that is to say..." Historical critical exegetes see these quotes as being evidence of the historical Jesus.
Now the Christian finds himself in an odd standpoint. His scriptures are in Greek, and, except for the fact that the canon was formed using the Septuagint, have some Hebrew origins, but their founder and the object of their worship spoke Aramaic. Thus we can see why above all the monotheistic faiths, Christianity puts the least emphasis on liturgical language. Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Armenian, Coptic and Hindi were used for centuries as acceptable languages of the faith, with German, French and English developing as acceptable languages in the sixteenth century and all common languages being used today.
Islam enters the story about five hundred years after Christianity. However, the قورئن was handed down to Muhammed in Arabic as the very Word of God. Thus, there is no room for variance. To vary from Arabic in liturgy, or exegesis is to stray from God's actual word. Even the احدث are preserved in Arabic, though they are not official words spoken by the Angel Gabriel. Thus, in Islam, it is very clear that God's language is nothing other than Arabic.
This poses an interesting question and certainly a point for consideration. If so many theological points are untranslatable, how are we to expect all people to know them? Likewise, if God only speaks one language, are we to expect all men and women world-wide to learn this language? To take a passage out of the Bible, one which all three monotheistic faiths recognize, the tower of Babel story demonstrates to us the dangers that can arise when we all speak the same language. Had God wanted us to be able to communicate simply and universally with each other, perhaps it would have been better if our communication were limited to the moans and shrieks of whales, dolphins, dogs and cats. Thus, we are struck with the paradoxical question of "what language does God give preference for?" and likewise "if God had a preferential language, would not we all speak this?"
Monday, September 28, 2009
Intelligent debate
Though I claim to be no expert, I have recently concluded that there is a rather high percentage of internet users have no sense of reality.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.
Firstly, it seems that there is an abnormally high rate of atheism on the web. Not to say that all atheists are idiots, but there is most certainly a difference between informed atheism and ignorant atheism. There are plenty of atheists who stand behind Richard Dawkins without ever reading his The God Delusion or being aware of the real issues behind atheism. Scientific evidence or theories are touted as definitively disproving God. Theists are ridiculed and harassed to no end.
However, one must also understand that science has nothing to say about the existence of God. As of yet, God's existence has been solely relegated to the realms of philosophy and theology. There are evolutionary biologists with strong convictions in God. Likewise, many astro-physicists and various other scientists are known to have theological beliefs. At the same time, not all those who we would consider to be simpletons or of little intelligence are theists or even Christians. Barring the blatant example of many of the internet "trolls," atheists can be found in even the most backwater hollows and uneducated villages. Thus, atheism and theism cannot be strictly assigned to those we view as "educated" or "uneducated" without revealing a bias within ourselves that denotes simple prejudice and ignores reality.
Regarding the high occurrence of i-atheists--what causes this, I wonder? It seems that polls suggest that most of the country identifies with being theist, Christian, in fact. If this is the case, why does the bulk of internet literature provide a very antichristian message? Perhaps the answer lies in the sort of people we find on the internet.
So I come to my second point. It seems that the internet, or at least much of the posted stuff on the internet is relegated by the base and grossly immoral. When pedophilia, cancer and the Holocaust can be used as objects of comedy, one must seriously question the ethics of those making such jokes and those laughing at the same jokes.
Given real world situations, these jokes would find themselves limited to very few instance of acceptance, all of which involve the immature and the unrefined. This is where the internet shows reveals a dark secret: identity thereon is by and large anonymous. One can easily access the internet under any given guise he chooses for himself and can access it in any given place. There are no real world repercussions, provided that actual information is not supplied. Thus, the geeky kid who sits quietly in class can become a god among his peers without them knowing who he is.
I feel that this tells us something very shocking about human nature. Due to the anonymous nature of the internet, as I've hinted at, some of the most heinous and ethically wrong things have been posted and made fun of. There is no taboo on the web. Thus we are given a pure glimpse into the nature of human beings. This is a discussion for another day, but the question arises as to whether or not humans are good simply because of social pressures or whether the social situation determines ethics.
This leads to a third point. The internet is the medium of the up-and-coming generation. Our parents and grandparents live by the ethical standards of their generations. Rarely do you find a middle-aged or senior person who is as proficient at navigating the internet as their younger counterparts. Thus, we see that the children of today are being raised in a dual setting: one in which they are given a basic set of morals, customs and beliefs and another wherein those are attacked and mocked. We see the youth of today being taught by their peers at 50mbps that the entire system of morals and ethics they've been raised with are decrepit and outdated.
Thus we are beginning to see what seems to be the fulfillment of the Bible's prophecy that "the hearts of the children of men will wax cold," or even Nietzsche's prediction that "the peasant shall dance with satyr-like gyrations." What was heralded as wrong or taboo is swiftly being undone in such a way that the ethics of the old world might very well be on the brink of being completely abandoned.
I abandon my point, however. I would like to emphasize that the internet is rapidly producing some of the most unscrupulous and unintelligible rubbish ever to be seen in history. My fear is that the ability to engage in intelligent, rational conversation is being lost as memes, lolcats, and unintelligible webcomics and blogs take over the entirety of people's lives. Perhaps the solution, then is to try to engage those who post in forums to use real language and debate with logical discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
