Common Ground

The Beautiful Candidate

maaark — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 05:42:23 +0000

The Beautiful Candidate!

ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT

BRO MITT

I am beautiful and I say wonderful things!

America loves a beautiful president, and I AM BEAUTIFUL!

LET’S FACE IT!

I AM BEAUTIFUL and

NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!

Logic; why bother?

maaark — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 21:13:19 +0000

After reading on logical fallacies I began thinking about premise as the basis of logic.

Premise as a foundational principle of logic

What we perceive to be a logical fallacy may actually be a difference in a basic premise that creates a different type of reasoning process which leads to a different conclusion. Most conflicts in reason start with a difference in basic premise, whether in personal relationships, philosophical ideals, or international conflicts. By basic premise I include things as broad as a foundational belief system or as specific as the premise of a math equation.

Examples of contrasting premises are; all truth must be proved by the scientific method/ the scientific method is only valid for science not all truth, people are more important than capital gain/people are secondary to capital gain, since people are biologically the same as animals, people and animals are equal/ people and animals are not equal in status, the ultimate goal of life is self/life is greater than self. You can see from these classic examples what we call logic is really based upon our deeper perceptions of what we consider true. Then we find logic that affirms our basic premises and all that does not affirm these premises we call illogical, resisting the challenge to question our basic premises. We also may be selective in our interpretation of facts so that our selected facts affirm our basic premises.

We should consider the proposal that many of our basic premises are derived from our culture which explains why there are so many international conflicts; we are just not starting on the same page. Advertising often uses these assumed premises. Advertising may appeal to people on the grounds of an assumption like “financial prosperity is always the best choice and your financial insecurity is a good reason to buy our product” or how about an appeal to women based on assumptions of what constitutes beauty?

We have all had the experience of a conflict with someone and after a very long argument we conclude that there is just no way we will ever agree because we just don’t see it the same way. And how many marriage conflicts start as a disagreement over some issue and we think the other person just needs some facts clarified, or we keep trying to point out the fallacies in our mate’s logic. But after hours, days or months we realize that we are just coming from very different perspectives. This may appear as an issue of simple logic but I propose that it is actually deeper because these issues begin on a deeper level and even though they may in fact be partly logical and partly illogical our preferred type of logic is actually based upon our very biased basic premises of life.

As egocentric humans we naturally assume our own basic views to be infallible and that all others should naturally see the pure logic of them. For example as Americans we hold freedom of speech as a basic assumption of freedom that really is accepted without question. But do you have any friends from China who see things differently? In China where Confucian thought has formed their foundational ideas, they consider the well being and harmony of society as more important than individual rights, including freedom of expression. So if we Westerners have a conflict with an Asian; either on a personal level, within a corporation or on the international level, both sides will appear very illogical until addressing the core foundational premises.

We study and appreciate math and the sciences because their logic is consistent. That is the beauty of science: 2+2 is always 4. And many people attempt to make all of life manageable under these consistent laws of logic. But most of human experience is not so logical. Most of our relationships are not manageable under these principles. (I love the old Star Trek episodes that dealt with this paradox.) This is the human element of life that hovers below the ideals of pure logic.

The perpetual debate between the atheist and theist is a classic example of a basic premise conflict. If I correctly understand the basic premise of the atheist position it is that: the physical world is the totality of our reality and that all truth is subject to the law of scientific inquiry. True? – If I understand the basic premise of the theist position (limit here to Biblical model) it is that: our physical world originated from a spiritual creator and this spiritual creator is not subject to proof by law of scientific inquiry. Agree? Given the differences in these basic premises is there any ground for discussion at all? My personal conclusion is that I can never “prove” anything to an atheist but only possibly convince him to reconsider his basic premise. Of course he also would like to persuade me that my basic premise is faulty.

If this is truly the human malady, how can I ever say that someone else is using a faulty logic? How subjective is logic? I am on the verge of claiming that all supposed human logic is really subjective self justification. If we do not consider this dilemma will we ever be able to arrive at pure simple logic? It may therefore be logical to perceive humans as very illogical creatures. Can you spell “p-a-r-a-d-o-x”? We apparently move easily in and out of logic, often within the same sentence. We brush up against logic long enough to taste its benefits but retreat into our preferred state of denial. But mostly, we just wave the flag of logic claiming that others are illogical. Therefore, in our quest for pure logic our basic premises must be examined, for the fallacies of our premises will surely be reflected in the reasoning that follows.

Islam-Christianity

maaark — Tue, 17 May 2011 23:57:26 +0000

Islam-Christianity; compare and contrast

In the process of looking at religions first I prefer to observe the similarities.

Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic, though later this turns into the main conflict (Islam sees Christianity as polytheistic)

Both believe in a basic premise of revelation; that mankind needs revelation from God.

Both believe in the nature of God as holy and that judgment for sin is proper.

Both have a foundation built on Judaism and Jewish scriptures.

Both have a community aspect; gathering for mosque or church.

Both have group leadership; imams or pastors.

Now lets look at these similarities but draw out the contrasts.

Monotheism; this is the great distinction of Judaism and religions flowing from it. It is the deity of Jesus that creates the sharpest conflict between Islam and Christianity. In the Quran this teaching about Jesus is repeatedly rebuked by Muhammad (Surah 5:17). Christians should think clearly on the doctrine called the trinity to make sure we are not becoming polytheistic because that would clearly go against the Hebrew scriptures upon which the Christian faith is based.

Revelation; both groups understand that our Creator is far above mankind’s ability to comprehend by our own reasoning and we are therefore dependent upon God for self-revelation. Our Creator has revealed itself in a general way through creation; art reveals the artist. But both groups believe that our Creator has spoken more specifically through prophets and through sacred texts; Quran and Bible.

Quran was spoken and recorded through one prophet Muhammad. The Bible was spoken and recorded by many prophets and writers, over a long span of time. The implication here is choosing to place confidence in one source or placing confidence in a larger source community. Both groups believe that regardless of the human source it is God who is the ultimate source. But for me I see God’s inspiring hand working over a long period of time weaving themes through the many writers.

No Labels; political stereo type

maaark — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:04:09 +0000

Do you like wearing a label? Do you like being defined in a narrow way by what others say you believe because they have labeled you? Examples;
(these examples may be totally in accurate)

Conservatives believe;
1- Greed is a good thing justified by principles of capitalism.
2- Oil companies should be allowed to determine our policies on foreign relations, and the environment.
3- Obama care is wrong because we love the health insurance industry and don’t want to disrupt their profits.
4- America should be run as a religious government so we can rule things our way and get rid of the people we don’t like. If we have more religion (our religion) everything will be wonderful like a utopia (kingdom on earth).
5- War is minor problem.
Liberals believe;
1- We are not greedy because we just print more money any time we want.

2- The Sierra club should be allowed to determine our policies.
3- Health care and all kinds of wonderful things are not privilege but rights.
4- America should be run with every religion except Christian. America can be a utopia if we spend enough money. Our ideals of utopia are the dreams of mankind and we eventually will overcome and force these dreams on everyone if they like it or not.
5- Abortion is a minor problem.
How do you like those labels? Well what if I don’t give you a chance to even explain? What if I just force you into a box and tell you what you believe?

Check our the group No Labels; No Labels

Racism universal?

maaark — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 17:23:15 +0000

Racism in this world may have its roots in the most basic parts of our human nature. To some extent all species prefer their own kind. It is totally understandable that humans in primitive societies would naturally prefer their own tribe/group and their perception of the universe would be based upon the bias of their tribe. Observing nature we see that animals use a system of what we might call stereo typing to distinguish between safe or dangerous species, a lamb encountering a predatory lion will stereo type the lion as unsafe. This is a basic system of survival for groups to identify each other. So our aptitude to stereo type by race, tribe, clan or culture may be deeply imbedded within our DNA. This basic understanding of human nature is an important starting point, or premise for me if I want to understand the issues of real racism.

If we accept this premise about human nature then maybe we should look closer at what we call racism for a more clear definition. If it is natural to see the world and other people from the bias of my own group what is racism? Racism is distortion of the universal natural preference for one’s group, making one’s own group superior to other groups, to oppress or cause them harm by any means. This definition is broad enough to encompass all groups, majority or minority, who use their bias to harm or oppress others.

However, some people may use the premise above as a reason to justify racism, saying that survival of the fittest is the normal course of nature. This leads us to consider a serious difference between animals and human animals. Humans have a dilemma because we have to make choices that other animals may not be required to make. Regardless of your stance on evolution or creation humans are held to a higher standard of conduct. A social evolutionist may conclude that mankind has learned that for true survival our species needs to learn cooperation and the creationist may conclude that the creator of all humans expects cooperation between the human groups; anti-racism. Choice is another essential aspect of human nature as we consider the problem of racism.

Christmas festival in Kobe Japan

My theory for overcoming racism is not based on denying the differences between the human groups, but we overcome racism by a choice to respect. Denial of differences may actually be way of forcing assimilation into a dominant group. Acknowledging our differences does give us the difficult task of not considering one group superior, which in our human history has been a problem. Acknowledging our differences also means that we realize that stereo types in humans are never 100% true. Stereo types are built on partial truths and exaggerated. So as humans we have the choice to look beyond a stereo type and risk getting to know and trust the individuals. As humans we may prefer the friendship our group, seek the wellbeing of our group, see life from the perspective of our group, but never at the cost of oppressing or harming another group. This is the responsibility that our common Creator gives us. Or if you prefer to ignore our Creator, it is still the only viable path for the survival of our species.

Gender roles

maaark — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:50:59 +0000

In defense of gender roles let me first make a couple observations. In nature we see that animals and insects have gender roles and these beings likely do not consider one gender superior to the other. Superiority is probably not an issue when the survival of a species is at stake. I cannot use this observation to dictate what the gender roles for humans should be but only to establish a principle that gender roles are part of nature and these roles do not mean that one gender is superior to the other. Another observation is that ancient cultures, mostly Asian since those cultures have remained intact for longer than our western blends of cultures, have preserved traditional gender roles. In these ancient cultures it is apparent that gender roles serve the purpose of simplifying relationships. By contrast here in the west we currently need to re-invent each relationship from scratch. In traditional relationships it does not need to be resolved that men are responsible to take certain responsibilities and women also theirs. When I look at so many of our social problems today such as unwed mothers struggling to survive while the play boy father runs around impregnating other women, I see our desperate need for cultural reform. These kinds of issues motivated Confucius in China several centuries before Christ to lead reforms of what we today call family values.

The negative side of gender roles is how they are abused for oppression. It seems that the human tendency is to pervert all that God created as good. The love of power, the fear of losing control, and greed all contribute to abuse. We find parts of our scriptures to endorse what we want to see. But if our hearts are inclined to the heart of God we will seek those parts of scripture that provide justice and liberation for the oppressed,

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loosen the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter— when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly appear;

Then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I. “If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.”(Isaiah 58:6-10 NIV)

If we are truly seeking liberation we will find that gender roles carried out voluntarily, with respect, can provide a very peaceful way to coexist. But any time we find ourselves using roles as an excuse to abuse or oppress then we should fear that we might be offending our Creator who seeks protection for the oppressed.

Mormon premise examined

maaark — Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:34:07 +0000

Critical issues as I see it through Biblical perspective and personal experience;
1- The original vision Joseph Smith asks the wrong question “Which is the true church?” This is a continual war over who holds human authority as in pope vs. prophet vs. king. A true search for God would ask “Who are You God that I might know You?”
2- Original vision; speaker claims that none of the churches are true and that “all of their creeds are an abomination to me”. This is a judgment upon all of Christianity and separates all of Mormonism as a cult outside of and superior to Christians. Mormons consistent with this vision should consider it an insult to be called Christian but now they want to insist that they really are Christian. Crazy, can’t have it both ways.
3-Preisthood; the premise of the Joseph Smith vision and the LDS church is a need for the restoration of the priesthood because the Christian church had lost the priesthood. It is a false premise. Christian priesthood is the priesthood of all believers and is based on worthiness of Jesus our perfect Priest. It is not about man’s worthiness.
4- Jesus says to know prophets by their fruit Matthew 7. LDS claim they have good fruit but they are referring to human works and institutions built by man. Fruit from God should first of all provide a connection to God, salvation and forgiveness, which should result in displaying the character traits of God. We can identify the character of one’s god by the character of the person. An angry unforgiving god will result in anger, violence, self justification, self-made religion.
5- Common sense revelation from nature; even those who do not believe the Bible can see from observing nature that our Creator is far above all mankind. Our purpose in this life as humans is to take our place as creatures before our Creator. The LDS claim that our purpose is exaltation to become gods and that God the Creator was once a man like us. This is called “eternal progression”. It is an offense to nature and to scripture.

I was raised here in Salt Lake City, Utah and was Mormon when I was young. Jesus saved me from it. Salt Lake City is awesome and there are some incredible Mormons.

Yes it’s my own photo taken from a freeway overpass with the Wasatch mountains in the background.

World religions

maaark — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:54:56 +0000

I realize now that I have gradually become a lifelong student of religions and cultures of the world. How can I be a serious Bible student and live in ignorance of other people’s views? If done seriously it will cause self reflection on my own beliefs and actually create a respectful understanding of other views. So a major aspect of this study is observing the similarities and differences between Christianity and other religions. When people claim that all the religions of the world are basically the same they are partly correct; there are many similarities between the world’s religions. However there are also some radical differences. Similarly wherever we go in the world we can find basic similarities to the Biblical 10 commandments; honor your parents, don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t have sex casually, etc. However the Bible has a couple of unique commands like; there is only one high God and don’t make images of it, and rest on the 7th day. The Bible continues to be unique in that it is a story of our Creator reaching out to us and revealing itself to us in a special way; Jesus.

Also as I study cultures I realize that every culture is like a soup with many ingredients and one of those is religion. So if we are serious about understanding the world around us we should seek to understand religions.

So as I continue on this lifelong course I will share some summaries of my studies here. In this age of religious conflict there is a huge need for not backing down from our beliefs yet being humble enough to admit we do not know everything, our own beliefs are still in progress. Your comments are welcome.

The complete study will be available in pages to the right >>>>>>>>>

Ethics wholistic

maaark — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 02:37:13 +0000

ETHICS

The classic humanist statement is; “My rule is to love my neighbor and do good unto others. Why do I need god to be a good person?” And I must agree that people can have relatively good characters without recognizing the creator. However, I propose that the first great ethic is to recognize the creator? To claim to be ethical and yet not recognize the Creator is just not really ethical, it is incomplete ethics.

Can we love the art and not recognize the artist? Jesus says that there are two parts to true ethics, “Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.” This is the great dividing point in ethics. If this is true that God has really revealed himself in Christ, then the ultimate unethical act would be to ignore him. If we agree that recognizing the creator is the first principle of ethics then that becomes a premise out of which the rest of our values will flow.

Which part of this great twofold ethic we emphasize depends on our view of the Creator/ creation relationship? Often religious people are known for emphasizing the first part, loving God, while neglecting the second half, loving neighbor. Religious people can be all about doing a church thing for God. But ignore what God says about loving our neighbor. In contrast the non-religious folk love the creation and love people but ignore the Creator. Truly consistent ethics should be more holistic recognizing the connection between Creator and creation. If we do recognize the Creator first then we can potentially have a balanced ethic towards people. This balance will drastically affect our views of social justice. The ancient scripture says, “If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother” (1 John 4:20).

The Bible declares clearly that whether we live under a strict moral religious system or prefer just living by our own conscience, none are considered pure in the sight of the Creator. The amazing thing about God’s revelation in Jesus is that God is reaching out to us, to make that bridge between him and us. In this grace of God, ethics can be transformed from legal obligation into love, through faith.

For a longer discussion visit the pages under philosophy 101 >>>>>

On self delusion

maaark — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:05:13 +0000

Many atheists and other skeptics properly point out the vast array of conflicting belief systems within humanity. As we look around the human landscape we observe political, social and religious belief systems, that are in conflict yet held to tenaciously as superior to others. With this observation we might rightly conclude that mankind must have great potential for convincing ourselves of our own narrow truth. This is what I will call self delusion. And if I am convinced that others of another system are self deluded, is it not also possible that I myself am self deluded? And I think that you should ask the same of yourself! So I conclude that a certain amount of self distrust is appropriate.

Therefore the true agnostic would claim that truth about god is unknowable. It is not that he doesn’t care, but that it is impossible for mankind to know. I think theists should give this person more credit than we have. This agnostic position is actually a lot more valid than a position of presumption; that is presuming we know things about god, yet being ignorant.

So does mankind have a starting point for true knowledge? Is there a foundation to build upon to guide me into truth rather than self deception? The philosopher Descartes from the enlightenment era claimed “I think, therefore I am”. His starting point for truth was himself, his self knowledge. I don’t think that is any guarantee against self deception! We all naturally start from within ourselves and what our culture has infused into us. And our first observation was that we humans tend to be totally convinced of our own perceptions as truth. So is there an honest way out?

We can use nature or creation as a starting point because that is one thing that all humanity shares in common. And many atheists do point out that all true knowledge should be tested by the method of scientific inquiry; that it is able to be tested and repeated with the same result. But let me reclassify this type of atheist as a physical universe atheist; one who claims that the only reality possible is physical reality. But doesn’t this fall right back into the category of possible self delusion by denying that there could still be yet other realities unknown to our scientific community? Is it not appropriate for scientists to acknowledge that human knowledge is always increasing and therefore what we know tomorrow will be more than what we know today? Shouldn’t we acknowledge that we do not know everything?

Nature is still a reality common to all mankind. And nature implies an artist/creator. The real question for mankind should therefore be; if there is a creator, does it reveal itself? If it does reveal itself let me trust in it’s own self revelation rather than my presumptuous ignorance.

Wikopedia on Descates; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum