If anything matters, everything matters

Meaning, meaning, meaning.

We've all done it (here in Minnesota at least). It starts with a fresh snow fall and an empty parking lot. You throw the car into reverse, turn the wheel as far as it will go and hit the gas. Round and round you spin. You may have noticed that even though you have the steering wheel pegged, you never end up repeating the exact same circle twice. There's always a bit of drift—just enough to keep things interesting...

Okay, maybe it's not that interesting. But anyone who's been around here for any length of time knows where I'm going with this. Matt and I have been going round on the meaning of life since the very first (with the help of many others along the way). Indeed, we may well sound like broken records at times. Still there is this "drift," subtle shifts in the direction of the conversation and an unshakable feeling that there is more to be said—that it's still a conversation worth having. Or maybe that's just me. I don't know.

Starting back in July there was a rash of "meaning of life talk" that broke out. First here. Then here. From these two conversations two theories of meaning were purposed (well, more than that actually, but these were the only two that stayed in the discussion):

Alex's Meaning Thesis {AMT} =
A thing or state of affairs is meaningful only if it holds a conceptually significant place in relation to the telos of the whole.

Existentialist Meaning Thesis {EMT} =
A thing or state of affairs is meaningful if it strikes an observer as significant or "weighty" when filtered through one’s life experience.

EMT was then later revised by Matt and became something slightly different. I would like to call the Personal Meaning Thesis:

Personal Meaning Thesis {PMT} =
Something I think is meaningful will have (a) influenced the way I see myself and the world I inhabit, and/or (b)will have been something I've considered valuable (either at the time, or later on).

To begin exploring this I would wish to make two preliminary remarks. First, we should note that there is a epistemological/metaphysical schism running between AMT and EMT/PMT. I will elaborate on this shortly. Secondly, PMT (and from here on I will speak primarily of PMT) is fully able to exist comfortably within AMT. Following from this second observation flows my primary challenge: Can PMT obtain if AMT is rejected? In other words, is talk of personal meaning coherent if we deny any telos or "ultimate purpose" to the whole (i.e. all reality)?^[1] It seems to me any serious atheist must face this question. The very credibility of all vigorous denials of nihilism are at stake.

Now, back to this talk of epistemological/metaphysical schisms. This is an important point as it uncovers the fact that our comparison is not a kind for kind, but rather we are dealing with two levels of explanation. AMT is the more ambitious of the two theories as it deals primarily with questions of metaphysical truth (e.g. is love ultimately meaningful? Is striving for justice ultimately significant?). PMT, on the other hand, is a much more modest theory as it works within a more epistemically limited domain. ^[2] PMT would say, "look, we can't know the nature of ultimate reality in the way AMT seems to desire, thus if we work from what we can know (e.g. I feel a sense of solidarity with those who suffer, etc...) then we can go on to construct a theory of meaning from these basic facts.

This is true so far as it goes and I do not wish to minimize it's legitimacy in any way. The question is, under what circumstances does this legitimacy obtain? PMT cannot answer this question. It simply does not go far enough as a theory of meaning. Allow me to here try and put my finger on the fatal flaw of all PMT type formulations. PMT ultimately ends with an emotional brute fact. The question is then not "why desire a desire," (as I was thought to be suggesting here) but "what's next in questioning this desire?" Is it really an absurd question to ask, what is desire? Is desire itself meaningful?

Here, if held at the exclusion of AMT, PMT is dashed on the rocks of its own inquiry. It's not that this desire in PMT is unable to be questioned in the same way the validity rationality is (discussed here). The validity of desires can be questioned without absurdity, the problem here is that PMT is simply too small to answer the question and thus is a myopic theory of meaning. PMT dwells long and hard on the four-color "welcome to the Rocky Mountains" brochure while refusing to step off the tour bus to witness the sun cresting over glacier crowned peaks.

In the final analysis if we accept AMT and it is true that there is a purposeful telos to the whole of reality (much as the Christian story suggests), then you get PMT as well. Yet if we deny the legitimacy of AMT by arguing that "the whole" does not have a telos, then we have yet to see how this ruptured dam of meaninglessness can be kept from surging back down the canyon of history destroying every supposed village of meaning along it's path. PMT, like everything else, is awash in the flotsam of cosmic waste.

I realize that at one point, Matt, you said that you are not necessarily denying AMT. I'm not altogether sure what you meant by that. Though I do know you had your money on PMT, at least last we talked. I'm not sure whether or not I have succeeded or not, but I have tried here to demonstrate that PMT is dependent upon AMT and the additional premise that "the whole" does indeed have a telos.

If what I have said so far is true, then one of two things can be said from our intuitions of "meaningfulness." 1. Our intuitions regarding meaning are appropriate inklings of the truth that comes both before and behind all history, or 2. these intuitions are simply the Universe making noise for no other reason than the fact that it does. Thus, to speak of "meaning" under 2. seems to entail such a heavily qualified disclaimer that we may as well speak clearly into the mic: All is meaningless.

Thoughts? Pushbacks?

^[1]
The Factory Thought Experiment
Consider a factory. It sits somewhere out in northern Saskatchewan. The factory is completely automated and no one knows where it came from or who owns it. As a matter of fact it produces absolutely no product, service or output of any kind. It is completely and totally without purpose. It even runs as if by magic, needing no energy source to sustain itself.

Now on a random vacation to the area you are passing by this very odd factory and you notice a sign offering free tours [let us here ignore the suggestion that the purpose of the factory is to provide a location for tours]. Not having anything else planned, you decide to have a look. Once inside, you notice the factory is filled with all manner of frantic, automated activity.

Happening across a particularly complicated little piece of machinery you note the many intricate tasks it seems be be performing. Getting the attention of the tour guide you ask, "What is this little gizmo up to?" (how is it contributing to the telos of the system?)

The tour guide then begins to expound on how it contributes to the larger system of which it is a part. Having provided a satisfactory answer regarding how our little device participates in this system, you ask the obvious question, "okay, but what does that system do?" And so on…

Thus, from inquiring about the one isolated gizmo, one's questions becomes ever more expansive, asking of ever larger systems within the factory. Likewise, each answer must relate the previous system to the next larger system in which it is nested, until finally there is no "next step up" except that of the entire factory itself. To ask this final question exposes the absurdity of the exercise, for, as we have stipulated, the factory itself has no telos—it "just is."

From here we must ask, does this dead end not render questionable any purpose within the previously mentioned systems and relationships? That is to say, did our little gizmo ever relate to the telos of the system of which it was a part? It does not appear that it did, for the only way this purposive relationship could be justified was by appealing to the telos of the system yet above it, and so on…. We have a regress on our hands that must stop with the telos of the factory, which, by definition, has none. Thus, if all those relationships are evacuated of any purpose, does that not also annihilate any significant meaning? It seems to me it does. And if this is true for our little gizmo, how much more so for our own lives?

^[2]
At least when taken at its best. At its worst this position is held to avoid the uncomfortable implications of AMT in relation to certain metaphysical convictions. Not pointing fingers. I'm just sayin'.

P.S. This post title is shamelessly ripped off from William P. Young's The Shack

A bit late, but still...

Wee li'll Zoë Ophelia

For any who don't know already, our very own Rev. Dr. Incitatus is a daddy!

Congrats man!

Grenz on Death

As you may have guessed I've been preoccupied with school, work and family life these days. Sadly, this leaves little room for the blogging. Since I can't seem to find a spare moment to pick up the several blogging projects I've left hanging, I thought I'd perhaps post random tidbits from some of the reading I'm doing now days. That way I don't have to think too hard. ;-)

P.S. for any of you Facebook friends of mine I've recently posted some pics and videos from my latest mountain adventure. Good stuff.

Our ability to reflect on our own death brings to light the deeper dimension of this phenomenon. Not only is death the cessation of biological function, it marks the end of personal life. In this way, death calls personal existence into question. As the termination of a person's life, death speaks as it were the final word. Death, so it seems, undermines all our attempts to find meaning for our own lives. In the end, we all die. Whatever significance we may have constructed for life is abruptly breached. As the psalmist declared, "What man can life and not see death, or save himself from the power of the grave?" (Ps. 89:48).

The dark shadow that death casts across personal life suggests that life is a meaningless absurdity. This was the conclusion of the Preacher: "all share a common destiny — the righteous and the wicked, the good an the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not" (Eccles. 9:2). They all "join the dead" (v. 3).

In death, therefore, we face an enigma more problematic than the cessation of the function of a biological organism. We are confronted with a crisis of meaning produced by our inevitable death. As Ernest Becker poignantly observed, "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."

Does our Christian faith commitment shed light on the phenomenon of death: Does death carry and genuine significance, or is it indeed the ultimate absurdity?

Stanley Grenz - Theology For the Community of God

Man and the Machine

There came a day when Man awoke. He was all alone with the machine. From the first day he knew he couldn’t live without it, for outside of the machine there was nothing. This isolation reminded him that, though he was free to explore, his freedom was limited. Whatever he was, he was bound to the machine. As Man pondered this he was assailed by a strange sensation — a deep longing that he couldn’t shake. “From where do I come? Where shall I go? To what shall I live?” And the most puzzling question of all, “What am I?” With these questions in hand Man entered the machine.

It was his hope that within the machine he would find the answers to his questions. With great zeal he began his work. As Man explored, he marveled at the complexity of the machine. At times he was overcome with it’s beauty. He would sit silent for hours just experiencing its wonder. “What does all this mean?” he would ask himself. But no answers were forthcoming.

As Man’s quest progressed he couldn’t help but think that the nature of the machine was such that only something like Man, only much greater, had crafted it. There was much that went on within the machine that seemed impossible if it were not by the work of such a being. For what seemed like an age, Man devoted considerable energy to pondering what such a being would be like and wondering why it created what it did.

With time Man came to see that he could manipulate the machine to achieve his own purposes. This was no small revelation, for now he was able to discover so much more than he had ever dreamed! Bit by bit he brought the machine under his control. With each new advance Man’s knowledge of the machine increased and with each discovery he was stunned by what he found. Phenomena that once seemed almost magical, now appeared to have deeper mechanisms that drove them. Man was so impressed by his discoveries that he no longer felt he needed to postulate a “super-man.” With the abandonment of a creator agency, Man returned to his task, but as he worked the questions he was seeking to answer were starting to feel strangely hollow. Or perhaps it was that the field of answers he had to choose from were now starting to feel a bit more absurd. No matter where he looked, all he found was more machine, more complexity, more noise, but no reason for their existence or workings. As wonderful as the machine seemed to be at times, he could find no point for its existence. It was just there, running on a track between an apparently pointless beginning and an ultimately meaningless end.

The more Man struggled to extract answers from the machine the more it began to lose the beauty he had once seen in it. It was as if the machine mocked him. In all its intractable mystery, it continued on its blind path with no care for the pleadings of the man within it. Frustrated with his attempts to find answers by examining the machine, he traced the long journey back to the place he had first experienced it’s beauty. In desperation he screamed with everything in him, “WHAT AM I?” All his strength gone, he fell to the ground, sobbing. His body shook as waves of anger and despair washed over him. All around him there was nothing but the whirr and click of a machine that took no notice of him.

It was at this time that something caught Man’s attention. A soft glow from deep within the machine flickered through a gap in the floor. Wiping his eyes, he peered between the metal plates. Nothing could have prepared him for what he was about to discover.

Far below him he could see a small monitor nestled deep in a tangle of wires and in it there was an image of himself. It was a birds eye view, as if a camera was positioned directly above him. He looked up, hoping to see what was watching him, but as he did he realized something that wasn’t quite right. The image of himself in the monitor turned and looked towards the ceiling a split second before he did. He turned back and looked into the monitor, then quickly, he turned away. Sure enough, the visage of himself moved before he moved his body. Every move he made the monitor displayed just prior to his enacting it! He would wave his arms or shake his head but his visage would begin it’s movements before he could get his body to react.

He was beginning to think the machine was reading his mind until the video began to gradually speed up. He watched himself peering through the crack, then lift himself off the floor and proceed to sit with his hands in his lap. Apart form a slight swaying from side to side, the image of himself simply sat motionless. This went on for quite some time until suddenly the screen flickered and went dark. Terrified, he lifted himself off the floor and sat up. With his hands lying limp in his lap, Man sat. He felt like he should run, or lift his arms, anything just to prove the video wrong. He could do that couldn’t he? He was a free creature after all... He was the originator of his actions, not the machine... Right? Long hours passed as he sat motionless; his body lost all feeling as the deepest truth he had yet discovered slowly saturated his being.

All this time, even now, this very second, his actions, his thoughts... He had never been controlling the machine; it had been controlling him. Why had he not seen it before? He had no autonomous existence. He was, and always had been, merely a part of the machine. His freedom, his experience—they were all illusory. He had never really been searching for answers to begin with—it had always been the machine. Never Man. Only the machine. In a single moment Man’s existence collapsed.

The machine devoured him, and all was silent.

The atheist's choice

Humanists have a long tradition of drawing on literature, poetry and art to illustrate their arguments. Some use the works of Shakespeare, some use that of William Blake.

I'm going to use a late 90s science-fiction TV show.

'Cos that's how I roll.

For those who don't know, 'Babylon 5' was a series whose reach often exceeded its grasp – despite the low-budget and sometimes embarrassing dialogue it was never afraid to tackle philosophical and ethical issues and normally managed to say something interesting along the way.

In the following clip the main character, Sheridan, is caught between life and death (for reasons far too complicated to go into) where he's offered (again for reasons too complicated to go into) the chance to live – but only if he wants it enough.



The reason I've posted this clip is that the decision that Sheridan has to make here is, I think, based on perhaps the most important question that an atheist has to answer: Why should I live?

According to Alex, there is no good answer. We're simply complex units of matter in an indifferent universe. Whether we live or die makes no difference.

But to me this doesn't mean that there are no good answers, only that there are no good a priori ones. The atheist must confront the fact that the universe provides us no good reason to live: Kill yourself and, from the universe's point-of-view, it makes no difference whatsoever.

But that still leaves us with the possibility of good a posteriori answers. Atheists must decide for themselves whether life is worth living. We must look at what we know and how we feel and decide whether it's worth going on or not. It's a personal choice – not one that can be made by anyone else. For some of us this reason will come from our relationships with those around us, or from an appreciation of the aesthetic quality of life. For some of us no reasons will be found – though, given the only alternative, this is quite rare (and often the result of errors of thinking rather than genuine disregard for life).

Only once this choice has been made, once we've learnt to embrace life and “simply be”, can we get on with the business of living. (Although this isn't to say that once answered the question never re-appears: self-evaluation of this kind is likely to be a fairly constant feature of life on some level or other).

The sun

Cherish the moment

Just found out yesterday that my good friend Brad's brother passed away unexpectedly over the weekend. I guess it was a massive heart attack. He was only 38. Brad is understandably in a real state of shock.

Please, my friends don't take your life for granted. Entertain the big picture, keep your trials in perspective. Rejoice in the good things you have for today for there's no guarantee you'll have them tomorrow.

It would be a shame for the play to end while we were out in the lobby buying popcorn.

A pathetic attempt at light conversation

As happens from time to time Matt sent me a friendly email the other day and my attempt at light hearted conversation quickly got out of hand and morphed into a post I have been meaning to write. So I figured, rather than triggering a private email debate, I'd spare Matt and just put it up as a new thread. Once finished I will make another attempt at personable conversation. Wish me luck.

Matt said:
"Who knows, maybe we'll have some answers by then." (referencing the possibility of us still swinging away at this in 09)

Begin Alex:
Heh... We have all sorts of answers. It's just that we are hesitant to put to much stock in any of them! Here's how I see it. If each of us were in a vacuum, we'd probably be fairly satisfied with our own particular world views. Problem is... we're not. We are both all to cognizant of individuals vastly exceeding our own intellect who disagree with us. As such, simply 'being happy' with our wold view becomes less tenable as it is probably false in one or more fairly important aspects. We also realize that with the fundamental "is there a God?" question, one of our views is correct while the other is not. On an intellectual level we are bright enough to entertain the possibility that it could indeed be our own person who is wrong. Thus, the search continues. If we are aware of any particular area in the others world view that we cannot dismantle to our own satisfaction, the desire to continue researching and reading will continue. While all this has been phenomenal mental exercise for me and an experience I'm quite indebted to, something seems to be missing. The sustained amount of head work we do here seems to have the potential of becoming vacuous and empty. Your "quick question" the other day hints at as much.

When it comes to the search for truth, it's not easy. You can always doubt it. There's always going to be someone smarter than you are. Someone who's more handy with logic. You can never win. The world's not that simple. So if there's a God, what does this state of affairs say about his programme? Why does he make it so impossibly difficult to find him this way? I've been pondering this quite a bit lately. As such, certain things have been jumping out at me from my readings. Allow me to explain:

In response to the question, "Why does God make us go through all this to know him?" I think what I'd like to say is this:

Maybe he doesn't.

I've ran across a few passages recently that seem to indicate a more cohesive, less inscrutable option.

"This one God is known to us not speculatively but existentially. He [Irenaeus] expresses this in saying: 'Without God, you cannot know God.' God is never an object. In all knowledge it is he who knows in us and through us. Only he can know himself; we may participate in his knowledge of himself. But he is not an object whom we can know from the outside. God is unknown according to his greatness, his absoluteness, his unconditional character. He is known in according to his love in which he comes to us. Therefore, in order to know God you must be within God; you must participate in him. You can never know him as an object outside yourself."

– Paul Tillich on Irenaeus of Lyons addressing necessary conditions for knowing God.

"...contrary to a typical human attitude, knowledge of God is not a spectator sport. It is rather part of a process of God’s thorough make-over of a person." p.17

"God refuses, for our own good, to become a mere idol of our thought or entertainment." p. 17

"Filial knowledge of God is available to every sincere seeker at God’s appointed time. Still, its realization comes via—and not in advance of—an attitude of sincere willingness to love God with the kind of love characteristic of God." p.30

"The evidence of God’s presence offered by loving character-transformation in God’s children is crucial. It goes much deeper than the comparatively superficial evidence found in entertaining signs, wonders, visions, ecstatic experiences, and fancy philosophical arguments. We could consistently dismiss any such sign, wonder, vision, ecstatic experience, or argument as illusory or indecisive, given certain alterations in our beliefs. In contrast, genuine character transformation toward God’s all-inclusive love does not admit of easy dismissal. It bears directly on who one really is, the kind of person one actually is." p.35

– Paul Moser, Why Isn't God More Obvious?

I think there's something to this. Something larger than I can put into words. Part of it is simply that though I can convince my mind through interesting thought experiments, in the end it's empty... if that's all the further it goes. I get the feeling I have been carrying somewhat of an inappropriate attitude towards knowing God all these years. I have wanted to anthropomorphize what it is to know God. I want it to be a 'feeling'. In short, I want it on my terms. Perhaps this isn't the proper road to take in response to the God of all creation?

Perhaps it's more of a response to something much more primary than I had ever thought?

-------------------------

Well friends. Classes have begun afresh, so this will probably be the last you hear of me for another few months. (aside from one other piece I've been working on which will appear in due time) I'll be digging into to my first systematic theology class this quarter which ought to be a good ride. My other class has to do with various cultural perspectives on ethics and such. I'm rather looking forward to that one as well!

Best wishes to you all this new year. And thanks for the thoughtful conversations! See you again when I can come up for air.

Where do we begin?

We have spoken often here about how the only indubitable certainty is "that I am experiencing existence". From there our epistemology exhibits a steady downhill trend. Even so, as finite men we have only one option in our search — and that is to begin with ourselves. And here I think is the dilemma that I've been trying to articulate. (with limited success.)

What justifies such a move?

What justification do we have to begin with our own experience? There is only one answer that holds any weight, and It's not atheism. Atheism destroys any justification to begin with ourself. Within atheism the foundation of all reality is an impersonal something. If you start with impersonal something, then man must be reducible to impersonal stuff. To argue otherwise is to say the stream rises above it's source.

My co-blogging friend Matt seems to realize this (at least the first bit) and thus, has accepted determinism. Man is simply part of the machine. But he can't live consistently within such a world view — none of us can. The implications are too destructive. As such, he clings to one last hope: "My life is meaningful because I find it to be meaningful". I empathize with his sentiment here – we all do – but it's an unjustified leap. It's unjustified because it destroys itself when it tries to answer the question I have asked above. "What gives us the right to start with ourselves?"

It all comes down to this word "personal". If, for the sake of argument, we presuppose atheism, then to avoid having the stream rise above it's source, "personhood" must be reducible the impersonal. Suddenly all the attributes that man has historically thought unique to himself (self-determination, the importance of love, the ability to act for 'better' or 'worse') have been destroyed by man's only option: The decent into behaviorism and determinism. Man is just a part of the machine.

One must watch closely at this juncture as all but the most hopeless of men employ some understandably slippery language in the hope of avoiding the implications. You will hear them say things like, "You are making this all sound much worse than it really is. You simply fail to comprehend the incredible potential of the material world!" and "There is no God needed, just look at all the world can do with out him!" Though I truly empathize with such statements, they are irreconcilably flawed. First off, they simply beg the question. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they make an unjustified optimistic leap. The leap is to desire one's unique personhood in-spite of what must become a reductionist programme in the absence of God. Any attempts to argue otherwise once again have our stream rising above it's source.

I hope I have made the situation clear. It's a desperate place to come to, but if the foundation is impersonal something we are left with no alternative. Now I often have those who are of the atheist persuasion become angry with me at this point. They act as though I have tricked them. There has to be another way... and indeed there is, but before we can consider it we must feel the depth of our plight. If we begin with the impersonal, man is dead. There is no other alternative.

So what other option do we have? "What right do we have to begin with ourself?". There are only two options here an I am convinced that the presupposition of atheism has utterly failed. Let us now consider that which Christianity holds to be truth — that at the center of all reality lies personality. If this proposition obtains we don't have the dilemma of the stream rising above its source. In-fact, personality becomes irreducible altogether. There is an upward rather than downward movement. In atheism we think we know what material is and what it does, thus we are reduced to it. Under Christianity we are only experiencing diffused personality. We cannot fully grasp what it is to be personal. Our ultimate starting point is not blind matter, but a personal God. Our ultimate relationship to reality is not downward, but upward. The mistake of atheism is that it tries to get to know personality by studying corpses.

In the Christian system, beginning with ourself is justified as we are created in the image of God. Like God, we posses a measure of self-determination. Thus, our search is valid because we really CAN search. Also like God, our mind operates according to reason, thus validating our search for unity within the varity. However an important distinction between man and God is that man is finite (and fallen, but that's for another time). Our finite nature makes necessary the 'search' for truth. We don't arrive programmed. We need to look for it. And so, in these ways our most basic task of beginning with ourselves is justified.

One caveat I must add is this: We must here make the distinction between validating the "starting from one's self" and validating the claims of rationalism which stipulate we can achieve final answers using ONLY man, at the exclusion of any revealed religion. This has been the enlightenment project that has died a thousand deaths, but for some reason continues to resurface in the minds of men. If we choose to reject all forms of revelation the result is predictable as the rising of the sun. Unless an unjustified leap of faith is adopted, man is dead. All is arbitrary. We are lost.

As I continue to grapple with these questions I am increasingly confronted with the fact that Christianity, as a system, answers man's fundamental questions like no other philosophy or religion can. It's coherence and correspondence continue to amaze me. Though there are plenty of peripheral questions I continue to do battle with, I am able to live in the comfort of knowing the big ones have answers that satisfy the deepest yearnings of man.

Cynicism vs. Joy

For me it is amazing to experience daily the radical difference between cynicism and joy. Cynics seek darkness wherever they go. They point always to approaching dangers, impure motives, and hidden schemes. They call trust naive, care romantic, and forgiveness sentimental. They sneer and enthusiasm, ridicule spiritual fervor, and despise charismatic behavior. They consider themselves realists who see reality for what it truly is and who are not deceived by "escapist emotions." But in belittling God's joy, their darkness only calls forth more darkness.

People who have come to know the joy of God do not deny the darkness, but they choose not to live in it. They claim the light that shines in the darkness can be trusted more than the darkness itself and that a little bit of light can dispel a lot of darkness They point each other to flashes of light here and there, and remind each other that they reveal the hidden but real presence of God. They discover that there are people who heal each other's wounds, forgive each other's offenses, share their possessions, foster the spirit of community, celebrate the gifts they have received, and live in constant anticipation of the full manifestation of God's glory.

Henri J.M. Nouwen The return of the prodigal son

I see much of myself in the cynic. Especially in religious scenarios. It is interesting to note that the joy Nouwen speaks of is not something that just "happens". It's chosen. I can see how, much like love, this joy is transformative to those who experience it. (an those who manifest it as well) It is my greatest hope that my life may in some small way be a "light" that might disperse much darkness. It is my greatest hope for you as well.

Speaking of which, what are we to make of the implied consideration that one must be a religious person in order to experience this joy? To this I would simply like to say that (at least in my view) the implication is misplaced. For those who don't assent to the intellectual proposition "there is a God" yet who's life displays a faith in love beyond self, I maintain they know more than they realize.

Tom once said to me he gets the feeling I believe in love more than I do in God. I'm not so sure there's much of a difference. I don't see how we could have one without the other.

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him."
1 John 4:16

Choose joy. Choose love.

Our trip to Glacier 2007

In the interest of not clogging up the posting space, click here to read the whole story.

Dawkins and McGrath

As Alex is busy with his studies and I'm busy debating the merits of drinking urine, I thought I'd post this video of Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath debating the existence and nature of God:

Enjoy.

Angry Sky

It seems as though we haven't had a drop of rain here in central Minnesota since the middle of June. That all changed this last week. We've found ourselves in the midst of a "storm belt". Four out of the last five days have produced severe weather that has been surging through our area. The photo above is of a storm that just missed us last night. It dumped so much hail onto the town just north of us that they had to call out the plows to clear the streets!


This photo is from my brother-in-law who lives about an hour south of us. The same storm was still dropping large hail and producing 70 mph winds by the time it reached them.

It's hard for me to express how much I look forward to these summer storms. There is this strange combination of awesome beauty and the ominous threat of potential tornadic activity. (which I also MUST see before I die. (hopefully not as I die))

It seems we are all drawn to the fantastic. We'd all love to see a "miracle" — something that just blows you away. I find myself ever drawn to this sense of awe. I love to be in the presence of great power. I like to feel small. I long to stand before something much greater than myself. I guess that's why I love the mountains as much as I do. It's also why I love gazing off into the universe on a moonless night. (note to self: buy a telescope.) And I think it's also why I enjoy watching such an awful manifestation of power go angrily growling past my neighborhood.

These storms have the potential to destroy my home and kill my cherished trees. (let alone myself along with my family!) Still I eagerly await their arrival. Each summer that goes by without at least one severe storm feels like a waste of a perfectly good season.

Last Day (to my friends at Agency 128)

Today is my last day at the shop. It's weird. I've spend more time in this office than I have in my own house these last 4.5 years. Much has changed in me since I walked into this place for the first time. My eyes were wide with wonder as I entered what I had always thought to be "the real world". In many ways it was everything I had hoped it would be and more. But in another sense I slowly came to realize that though this job was better than anything I could have hoped for right out of college, it wasn't me.

I took some things home last night. Walls that once held my personal art are now bare. The ledge below my window that once held an assortment of various knickknacks I've collected over the years is now empty.

That's the thing about life, you know. You live in the now. You remember the past. You can see how it influenced who you who you are today, but you can never go back. The trick is to embrace all the good that came out of those times and use what you learned to help shape your future. There's no need to stare longingly back into the mists of time wishing you could be there again. It's like grabbing at smoke; the moment you try and grasp it, you destroy it's beauty.

I guess the way I see it, good memories are not just good times that you'd like to relive, but they are opportunities to learn about the core of who you are. As I look back upon these last 4.5 yrs I can see the parts of this job that brought me the greatest fulfillment were not actually the job at all: Lunch with Jen, a walk with Brad, a road-trip with Gina, a counseling session with Connie, some life lessons from Ross, shootin' stuff with Tim, talking about Silver Bay with Sandy, a bit of encouragement from Carrie, a friendly visit from Doc and basically the times where I was able to sit down with someone and kick around thoughts on why we are here.

This life is bigger than we often see it. It's easy to be rocked to sleep by the lullaby of a busy life and making ends meet. Slowly, our eyes close and be begin to lose sight of the inexplicable wonder of our own existence. However, for me it seems the opposite has happened. When I look at each of you I see beauty. I see joy. I see wisdom. I can see how the creator of all existence would see fit to pay such a price for you. Realizing that not everyone here agrees my assessment of the larger reality we inhabit, I hope you can feel my sentiment through any objections you might have.

This has been a great chapter in my life, but it's time to move on. I see this step less as a change in who I am, as it is more of an acceptance of who I've always been. Thank you for the part you have played in my life. I always cherish the time we shared.

Thank you.

Life trajectory

Well folks here's the deal. Over the past three years I have witnessed a steady shift in myself. My desire to continue in the world of advertising (at least in the corporate sense) has continued to wane, while a new fire has been kindled within me. I have become increasingly passionate about existential/metaphysical/theological questions and ponderings. My mind has been turned on and I can't seem to find the off button. A fair amount of this can be attributed to the bright people I talk with on this very blog. I think it will be a couple years yet before I'm able to decide whether to thank you or curse your name for this influence. ;-)

That said, I've made two drastic shifts in direction these last two weeks. Firstly, I applied and was accepted into a Masters program at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul. (No, I'm not looking to become a pastor. This is a different sort of degree.) Starting this month I will begin working towards my M.A. in "Christian Thought". In their own words:

"Those looking for a systemic understanding of the Christian worldview may choose the Master of Arts in Christian Thought. The heart of this degree program is significant work in philosophy of religion. The program integrates this with related study in theology and Bible to enhance the study of philosophy. The class work in this program addresses worldview issues from a distinctively Christian point of view. It will include opportunities to study both with resident faculty and with outstanding visiting scholars."

From what I've heard of people who are in this program, it's basically a rigorous version of this blog with a fancy degree awarded upon completion. (an obvious understatement) I'm really fired up!

The second major life change came yesterday when I realized that I simply cannot, with any integrity, continue to my profession in an agency setting. The mental demands placed upon me here, combined with the equally rigorous thought life I am about to embark on simply do not add up to a good professional setting. It is not fair to my employers to be so mentally divided when they are counting on me to deliver. As of yesterday, I have submitted my resignation. I agreed to stay on until they have found a replacement, then I'm outta here.

So the question hangs... What now?

At the moment I'm fluid. Ideally, I'm hoping to find a part time job for stability purposes, then ramp up my seat business. This move would give me the flexibility I need for my studies/family life as well as the stability of a steady income. I have a couple options on the table already for part-time work. One of which would involve torching apart train wrecks at a local scrap yard! Honestly, that sounds quite appealing when taken in context of where I'm at. At the moment, though, I don't know what I'm going to do. I have a couple weeks yet to figure it out.

For you praying types out there, please feel free to bring my situation before our Father. For the non-believing folk, any words of encouragement would be appreciated. This is scary, crazy and wonderfully exciting all at once. I can hardly wait to see what lies ahead.

An open invitation for self-exploration

For anyone who reads this blog who feels inclined to share:

What's the deepest ache of your soul? What do you hope to find in this life? Who do you hope to be? What do you hope to accomplish?

Why?

What do you fear?

Why?

What frustrates you? What gives you hope?

- Insert cliched shakespeare quote here -

In the interview a couple of posts below, Denys Turner makes the claim that in order to be a “proper, card carrying, atheist” you need to find a way of avoiding a certain question: Why is there something, rather than nothing?

It’s an interesting, and extremely important question. However, I don’t think that it really poses a great difficulty for an atheist such as myself, as there’s an extremely simply, but perfectly valid answer:

I don’t know.

That’s it. In some of the discussions I’ve had, both here and elsewhere, the theism/naturalism debate is treated almost as if it’s a zero-sum game – if naturalism doesn’t have the answers, then theism must be onto something. But for me that just doesn’t flow. It’s quite possible to completely demolish the naturalistic conception of the universe without providing any validation of the ‘God Hypothesis’, as they’re merely two separate attempts to explain why things are the way they are.

The theistic argument can’t just be a case of: “If naturalism can’t explain it then there must be a God”. Like any theory, it has to be built up independently.

In the same way, dualism is quite distinct from theism. It's quite possible - though I don't personally believe it - that morality is dependent on an aspect of the universe that we've yet to discover. Saying this merely suggests that there's still something for us to learn about what we call reality. It says nothing about possible deities. To say that there is “something” more than the material universe out there is to say nothing about the nature of that something – it’s worth bearing in mind that the discoveries we make about the universe in the next millennia or so are more than likely to be beyond anything that we can currently conceive.

The universe is a mysterious place, and we’re far from having all the answers. But that in itself is absolutely no argument for God.

Drawn away by the sun

My apologies for being slow to comment and quick to let conversations drop lately. Fact of the matter is, it's just to incredibly nice out to stay inside ruminating on complicated philosophical/metaphysical/theological conundrums.

Then yesterday the massacre in Virginia hit and I'm finding it hard to sit down and think on these issues that can often seem far removed from real life. Especially when you look at how my debate with Stephen is going.

I know the thought precedes the action. Because of that I know these conversations we have here have the possibility to shape reality. Perhaps only in a small way, but who knows. Even so, as the weather turns warm I want to make sure I'm spending all the time I can with my wife and little boy. Over lunch I'll probably want to go for a walk with Brad rather than stare at a computer screen.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will probably be a slow down over the temperate spring and summer months. I'll still be around commenting when I can, but the level of intensity will probably be lessened. Don't be put out if I don't get around to responding to a comment. You are still helping shape my mind with each contribution you make.

Having said that, I think it's about time for a song. All together now! ...

The Call

The call goes out:
"Rise up oh brother! Steel yourself with the truth! Have faith in who you are! Cast off the myths of your past and stride forth in the truth of your own self-sustaining power! Bend your knee to no authority for you are your own — subject to none! There is none to protect you — no one to fight your battles. But take heart! You can accomplish all things by looking inward and finding the power within! Let no man call you sinner! Let no man consider you wrong, for you are the standard by which all things are measured! You alone have the power to define good from evil. The sun will rise and set for you. Go forth in the confident knowledge of your own power."

I hear the call. It echos in my ears. But I cannot heed it, for I am dust. I do not sustain myself. I am utterly dependent upon forces beyond my control. The air I breathe I do not make. The sun that warms me I do not stoke. The bones that hold me together I did not craft. Where then do I find such vigor and faith in my own abilities? If pulled from the confines of my fragile refuge my blood would boil in the vacuum of space.

"Believe in yourself!" The call goes out.

But I cannot heed this call, for I cannot find my power. They forgot to tell me where to look. "Look inward" they say, yet all I see is dust. I am empty. Do you not see it? Where did you find your confidence? Did it beat within your heart? Was it buried deep within your head? I swear I searched every part of me but all I found was dust. How then do they expect me to find my power after they've labored to steal it away? How can I have faith in myself when 'myself' is naught but clay?

"Rise up oh brother! Cast off the useless myths of old!"

But the stories of the ancients haunt me. They tell of one who spoke all into existence — a divine power from whom all things flow. One who allowed the fall of Man, who Himself was brought low. But in the depths He did not dwell. He was raised they say, but He will not be raised alone. He rose to bring us with Him, to carry us to heights we could not reach on our own.

"They lie! They were confused! Time erodes all and your savior is no exception! We searched the heavens with our telescopes! With our microscopes we probed the cell! We have split the atom and released it's power! HE WAS NOT THERE! We have seen all there is to see! We have known all there is to know and He is not there! Take heart, for in His absence YOU remain! Have faith in all that you are!"

But you do not hear! I am DUST! Do you not see? What is there to put my faith in? Should I place my trust in a stone? You have rent me in two and seen that I am dust. Why then do you continue your call? On what basis do you stake your claim? What foundation holds the weight of your assurance? I do not share your strength. I cannot place my faith in dust. My strength will come from Him who made me. Do you not see? To deny Him, is to deny me.

The search for congruity

Our good friend Incitatus has recently posted a comment that is so brutally honest I cannot help but honor it with a post all it's own. He's obviously not trying to "win" with a comment like this. The man is just being honest. I have a lot of respect for that. The following are a few brief out takes. Read the comment in it's entirety by following the link above.

I can't speak for all atheists, but my atheism often runs contrary to a very deep and primitive sense that a higher power exists. Now, for me, I choose to believe that this gut instinct is the psychological equivalent of an appendix, and hence I opt to override it with what I perceive to be a rationale outlook. However, the 'feeling' (which Alex has alluded to before) remains, and so there is something of a continual minor conflict, which I perceive to be the old and the new parts of the gray porridge trapped in my skull.

A question I have asked myself is whether that's really healthy; am I forcing my body to behave in a manner not in keeping with it's evolution? One can argue that atheists seem like very healthy people, but we can never really know what goes on in the mind of any other atheist except ourselves. How do we know some atheists aren't 'cheating' as it were? Secretly relapsing into theism under strenuous circumstances? The metaphysical equivalent of nipping into the alley for a smoke? Who knows. I can only speak for myself, but I freely confess that I cheat regularly; usually to hurl abuse at providence for anything that doesn't go the way I planned...

Alex responds:
I look at it like this:
I am conscious. I exist. At this point in my life I have been struck with a heightened sensitivity to things such as beauty, love, justice, mercy and redemption. I feel these qualities in a deeper sense than I have at any other point in my life. I am aware of a thread of truth that runs through out all humanity. Not only physical truth, but moral truth. We all appeal to it. We argue about who is closer to it. Thing is, the argument cannot even be started without the shared impression that such a thing exists. It's easy to appeal to physical truth because more often than not we can point to it. Moral truth is different. Most people are moral realists, though most do not think through the implications of that position. Also, as Moe hints at, there is this question of "why is there something instead of nothing?" We also have this reality that the deepest longing of every human is to be known... to be known completely... and to be loved while hiding nothing.

In my mind this all points somewhere. It points to something big. Much bigger than the god of religion that I knew growing up... but at the same time... maybe more importantly, it points to EXACTLY the God I knew as a child. It points to the same God I would thank for my toys and the big puddle at the end of our drive way. As I lay out on a moonless night and stare out into the universe, my mind feels as if it is about to collapse under the sheer weight of my situation. I move about with such an urgency, with such motivation...

why?

If there is no God, the stars themselves scream the answer...


I must admit throughout the last several months of this debate I have spent large swaths of time pretending to be an atheist. (I do a pretty poor job) I try to imagine that the entire purpose of my life is to make my own purpose and my own meaning. Then I ask why? What does it matter what purpose I choose?

Can you hear the crickets chirping?

There is no answer.

I pretend I'm part of an unfathomable reaction to an unknown cause. I try to feel weight of a story that tells me I am part of the grand march of evolution progressing onward and upwards... until of course it is all brought to nothing. I operate my morality believing that it is strictly evolved mental paths that proved conducive to survival. But then I remember – If I know this about my morality, I see that there is nothing of any weight behind it. I am under no obligation to surrender to it. I can obey it when it suites me and ignore it when it doesn't.

If I became an atheist, there's a lot of things I'd do differently. You'd be tempted to call me a bad man –  tempted, I say, because remember, there's no such thing as bad.

When I look at religions in general they make me rather ill. There seems to be this level of wishful thinking and propensity to suspend critical thought in favor of a nice story to hang our life on. I find it quite disturbing.

But then I look at Jesus. Not Christianity as it is often manifested, but the person of Jesus. You know, that guy who partied with the hookers and drunks. The guy who hurled abuse at the religious leaders. The guy who took compassion on prostitutes and turned away the proud. The one who's body the religious leaders claimed was 'stolen' (because it was gone) by his followers who then gained nothing form their 'hoax' but persecution and death. (all the while being in a position to know the 'truth')

To me it all ads up to something. A bigger story, if you will. It reaches the very depths of my heart's longings. It gives me strength to face a life I would otherwise have no purpose to live. Could it be there is more to this life than pure naturalism allows for? If I am wrong what will I have lost? My faith (and it is faith) gives a foundation for every belief I hold. Without God we are adrift. There is no right, or wrong, good, nor bad, beautiful, or ugly, life nor death. All existence "JUST IS". Oddly enough the faith I hold states, "I AM". We are not the center, He is.