Bear with me here. I've been doing some philosophizing and I think I've come up with something. I don't know that it's new or unheard of, but I don't know of anyone who has come up with anything quite like it. I have not yet fully developed this philosophy yet, so bear with me (this may come over in a few different posts). I've run this by Alexa, and she followed it, though I didn't fully explain it, so I think there's some factuality to it.
To begin with, let me state that we view time in a completely arbitrary and unrealistic way. We think of time the way we think of space: we can traverse it. However, we often view it as a river, where it's going one way, but given the proper tools (a boat for a river, a time machine for time), we could go against the current. I think that this way of viewing time ignores reality.
There is no future. By this I don't mean that there will not be a May 21, 2010. I mean that there is no such thing as the future, as a reality. It is all potentiality. No one exists in the future, because there is no way we can go into it. If we were in the future, it would be the present. Likewise, if the future is always going to be after the present, there can be no way to reach "the future" because it will always be the present when it is achieved.
In this way, the idea of "future" is merely an abstract concept that we use to define time that has not yet occurred. There will indeed be a May 21, but by the time it is May 21, it is the present, and no longer the future. The future is like what is undiscovered: we can say that it is, but when we realize it, it is no longer a mystery.
Thus, future is an abstract term that we should give no credibility to, especially in regards to traveling to the future or future dwellers traveling to the present.
Secondly, the most true thing about time is that there is an ever expanding past. The past only gets larger and larger. What had been thought to be the future rapidly gets subsumed into the past quicker than one realizes that it is the present. It is currently 2:22 as I look at the clock, and by the time I finish this post, 2:22 will be in the past. Today will be in the past by the time anyone reads this (probably) and by the time I finish talking about this theory of mine, all of this discussion will be in the past.
In fact, all that we know is in the past. Everything we learn, we learned in the past. Everything we experienced was experienced in the fast. Everything that makes us who we are is a product of the past. Our past is really what shapes us.
The scary thing about this is that we cannot prevent the past from expanding. Childhood is in the past, and the only thing we have from it is memories. My time at Notre Dame is in the past, and all I have there is memories. And the past just continues to expand. We cannot freeze it, we cannot prevent it from getting bigger, we cannot even delay its expansion. Before we know it, our entire lives will be in the past.
I just graduated from Notre Dame on Sunday, and as the day went on, I couldn't help but feel alienated that as I was experiencing all these goodbyes, ceremonies, and moments of celebration, they were all rapidly being added to the ever-expanding past. No sooner did I get my diploma than I was already done with that. No sooner was my degree conferred upon me than I was no longer a student. It is not something that can be prevented, delayed or resisted. The past only continues to grow and leaves us only with its memories.
Third. There is a present, but it is infinitesimally small. It is a razor edge. It is the moment of action. Whatever is occurring in present tense, must be occurring at the exact moment of action in order for it to be truly present tense. Thus, I can say I am aging, because that continues to happen at the moment of action, but if I say that I am working now, in no time at all, that is over and it is in the past. The moment of action is like the decimal point that prevents .999 repeating from being 1. It is so small it is undetectable. One cannot measure it in seconds, minutes or hours, because those are only lengths of time that are quickly subsumed into the past. The moment of action exists only on the edge of the ever-expanding past. It creates the past. It takes the abstract future reality and then past reality. This is the only present.
This is about all I have conceived of for now. My next post will probably answer objections to this theory. Thanks for reading.
Showing posts with label Alexa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alexa. Show all posts
Thursday, May 20, 2010
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, July 15, 2009
On being jaded
Alexa and I tend to have hour and a half to two hour long conversations at night since she is currently two thousand miles away. Recently a lot of our discussions have been about what she deems as my extreme opinions. Admittedly, I harbor several opinions that are not only shocking, but far from main stream. However, it seems to me that in the course of my life, there have been many instances that have left me feeling far from comfortable with the world I live in.
I remember once hearing from my dad that some study showed that Conservatives, on average, were a lot more satisfied with their lives than were Liberals. I remember trying to come up with some kind of reason as to why the evidence there might be a little biased, but since then I've realized that it seems quite reasonable to me that it is the case that Liberals are less happy.
The cliche goes something like this, "Ignorance is bliss." This seems to me to be the case. Those who are happy with what they have and where they are tend to not have as many problems that they worry about and think about.
I remember discussing the issue of death with some people at a bar one night. I mentioned that it is morally impossible to kill another man without severely deranging one's mind in such a manner that he no longer believes that what he is doing is wrong. A quite drunken Penguin's fan who was celebrating their recent Stanley Cup victory replied that he knew a Vietnam War veteran who had told him that while fighting in the Jungles of Vietnam, it was impossible for them to kill the VC soldiers if they had looked them in the eyes. As long as they didn't look at the person and let themselves realize it was a person they were shooting at, they were able to do it.
My point with this little anecdote is this: When we are aware of what we are doing, it is impossible for us to do it a lot of times in good conscience. When Rachel Carson warned the country about DDT, we stopped using it. When Upton Sinclair wrote about the conditions at meat packing plants, Teddy Roosevelt established the FDA. When the plight of the Jews in concentration camps was made known, the world made up for it by establishing a homeland for them.
It is true that we can live our lives ignorant of what the world is really like and be ok with it. But once we know what's really going on, we cannot afford ethically to go back. Once we are aware that children in China, Bangladesh, and Malaysia work 13 hours a day for our benefit, in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are forced into prostitution, in Ethiopia and Kenya are struggling to survive, in South Africa are the orphans of AIDS, in other countries around Africa are forced to become soldiers and in Mexico, India the Philippines and countless other countries have to beg for their food, we can no longer look at our own children in the same light.
And even aside from all the suffering that people endure in this world, there are also the little dreams that we sometimes see die as we learn the sad truth. When we know that there are people who cross the border every day for the chance to experience what we have, it is a grim testimony to what we take for granted. When we learn that people are people, no matter how they were born, we have to learn anew what it is to be kind and live the Golden Rule. When we realize the carnage and destruction that we have caused so much of, we must learn in our hearts to atone for these things.
The fairytale life that we wish we could live is really only a dream, and the truth does not set you free, it only makes you obligated. However, I believe that when we die, we will not be judged by God based on what Sacraments we have had, or whether we had enough faith, but whether we executed the commandment to love our neighbor properly. And our love is demonstrated by what we do and how we help.
I remember once hearing from my dad that some study showed that Conservatives, on average, were a lot more satisfied with their lives than were Liberals. I remember trying to come up with some kind of reason as to why the evidence there might be a little biased, but since then I've realized that it seems quite reasonable to me that it is the case that Liberals are less happy.
The cliche goes something like this, "Ignorance is bliss." This seems to me to be the case. Those who are happy with what they have and where they are tend to not have as many problems that they worry about and think about.
I remember discussing the issue of death with some people at a bar one night. I mentioned that it is morally impossible to kill another man without severely deranging one's mind in such a manner that he no longer believes that what he is doing is wrong. A quite drunken Penguin's fan who was celebrating their recent Stanley Cup victory replied that he knew a Vietnam War veteran who had told him that while fighting in the Jungles of Vietnam, it was impossible for them to kill the VC soldiers if they had looked them in the eyes. As long as they didn't look at the person and let themselves realize it was a person they were shooting at, they were able to do it.
My point with this little anecdote is this: When we are aware of what we are doing, it is impossible for us to do it a lot of times in good conscience. When Rachel Carson warned the country about DDT, we stopped using it. When Upton Sinclair wrote about the conditions at meat packing plants, Teddy Roosevelt established the FDA. When the plight of the Jews in concentration camps was made known, the world made up for it by establishing a homeland for them.
It is true that we can live our lives ignorant of what the world is really like and be ok with it. But once we know what's really going on, we cannot afford ethically to go back. Once we are aware that children in China, Bangladesh, and Malaysia work 13 hours a day for our benefit, in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are forced into prostitution, in Ethiopia and Kenya are struggling to survive, in South Africa are the orphans of AIDS, in other countries around Africa are forced to become soldiers and in Mexico, India the Philippines and countless other countries have to beg for their food, we can no longer look at our own children in the same light.
And even aside from all the suffering that people endure in this world, there are also the little dreams that we sometimes see die as we learn the sad truth. When we know that there are people who cross the border every day for the chance to experience what we have, it is a grim testimony to what we take for granted. When we learn that people are people, no matter how they were born, we have to learn anew what it is to be kind and live the Golden Rule. When we realize the carnage and destruction that we have caused so much of, we must learn in our hearts to atone for these things.
The fairytale life that we wish we could live is really only a dream, and the truth does not set you free, it only makes you obligated. However, I believe that when we die, we will not be judged by God based on what Sacraments we have had, or whether we had enough faith, but whether we executed the commandment to love our neighbor properly. And our love is demonstrated by what we do and how we help.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Souls intertwined
I feel remiss in never mentioning my girlfriend in any of these blog posts. In a blog about personal theological reflections, I think it is somewhat excusable, but nonetheless I wish to make up for it. So this blog post is dedicated to my darling Alexa, who brings so much joy into my life.
When it comes to love, I have a hard time taking a strictly Catholic view on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that there are some people that God wants to be married and some that he doesn't, but I have a hard time with some of the subtler doctrines.
Like homosexuality, for example. The official stance of the Church, as outlined in the Catechism is that homosexuality is not a choice nor is it a sin, and that we are to welcome our gay brothers and sisters into the Church with open arms. However, the Church officially does not recognize homosexual marriage and it condemns sex outside of marriage.
But that is a topic for a different time and place.
Being raised Mormon, I have certain ideas about marriage and love that other faiths do not have. My parents, and my two older brothers and their wives were married in Mormon temples. Mormons believe that they can be married forever, and that when they're married here on earth, they'll be married in heaven as well.
And while there are a lot of Mormon doctrines that I don't like (especially the deification that comes along with the Mormon idea of eternal marriage), I am somewhat partial to this one. Of course, the Roman Church cannot espouse this idea because this would undermine the whole idea of the celibacy of the clergy.
So here's where I'm torn: I understand why it's important for priests to be celibate. How can one devote his whole self to the Church when he has familial obligations? How can one be encouraged to have a family if he has no time to devote to them? Of course, other traditions, most notably the Orthodox Church, allow their priests to marry, but not the bishops.
But what of the families? What about those who are so happy in their marriage that they never want it to end? What salvific value does the sacrament of marriage have, if it all ends at death?
My first post was about love. I want to reiterate it. Love is what it's all about. If you are able to find someone who loves you, you'll understand. Love makes every day worthwhile. Love makes the dreadgery of life exciting. Love makes us do things we would never do. Love transforms us.
This is why the Evangelist John proclaims that God is love. God is all that is good and right. Love is all that is good and right. I believe that perhaps God, in His infinite wisdom and glory, will not end whatever relationships we have on this earth. Those we love here, we will be able to infinitely love in the afterlife. As we become engulfed in the ultimate love that is God, I believe we will not lose whatever love we have for each other here.
Can you imagine a sadder ending to life than for everything to be over? Instead of the story ending "happily ever after" it ends "and then they died and their love was lost forever." Why would a God, who is love, who is all that is good, and whose ends are always just, allow the brightest thing in the universe to die out while our souls live on?
I believe that in the eternal communion of souls, those who find their souls intertwined shall still be intertwined. I believe that God does not allow our love to die with our bodies.
When it comes to love, I have a hard time taking a strictly Catholic view on the subject. Don't get me wrong, I fully accept that there are some people that God wants to be married and some that he doesn't, but I have a hard time with some of the subtler doctrines.
Like homosexuality, for example. The official stance of the Church, as outlined in the Catechism is that homosexuality is not a choice nor is it a sin, and that we are to welcome our gay brothers and sisters into the Church with open arms. However, the Church officially does not recognize homosexual marriage and it condemns sex outside of marriage.
But that is a topic for a different time and place.
Being raised Mormon, I have certain ideas about marriage and love that other faiths do not have. My parents, and my two older brothers and their wives were married in Mormon temples. Mormons believe that they can be married forever, and that when they're married here on earth, they'll be married in heaven as well.
And while there are a lot of Mormon doctrines that I don't like (especially the deification that comes along with the Mormon idea of eternal marriage), I am somewhat partial to this one. Of course, the Roman Church cannot espouse this idea because this would undermine the whole idea of the celibacy of the clergy.
So here's where I'm torn: I understand why it's important for priests to be celibate. How can one devote his whole self to the Church when he has familial obligations? How can one be encouraged to have a family if he has no time to devote to them? Of course, other traditions, most notably the Orthodox Church, allow their priests to marry, but not the bishops.
But what of the families? What about those who are so happy in their marriage that they never want it to end? What salvific value does the sacrament of marriage have, if it all ends at death?
My first post was about love. I want to reiterate it. Love is what it's all about. If you are able to find someone who loves you, you'll understand. Love makes every day worthwhile. Love makes the dreadgery of life exciting. Love makes us do things we would never do. Love transforms us.
This is why the Evangelist John proclaims that God is love. God is all that is good and right. Love is all that is good and right. I believe that perhaps God, in His infinite wisdom and glory, will not end whatever relationships we have on this earth. Those we love here, we will be able to infinitely love in the afterlife. As we become engulfed in the ultimate love that is God, I believe we will not lose whatever love we have for each other here.
Can you imagine a sadder ending to life than for everything to be over? Instead of the story ending "happily ever after" it ends "and then they died and their love was lost forever." Why would a God, who is love, who is all that is good, and whose ends are always just, allow the brightest thing in the universe to die out while our souls live on?
I believe that in the eternal communion of souls, those who find their souls intertwined shall still be intertwined. I believe that God does not allow our love to die with our bodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
