jump to navigation

The Basics August 3, 2009

Posted by Treehopper in opinion.
Tags: ,
trackback

In the interest of full disclosure, I suppose I should make a few declarations up front.

First off, I’m not a professional anything. I’m not a scientist. Nor am I a theologian. I have great respect for both science and theology, and consider myself a student of both. But I don’t have a vocational vested interest in one position or the other.


So when you see me opining on various issues, whether cosmological or epistemological, they stem from a student’s efforts to seek out the truth.  Theologically, I believe that “truth”, objectively-speaking, finds its zenith in a Person; the same who claimed without hint of hubris that he was “the way, the truth and the life.”  This is my starting point, my zero-reference, the canon against which all else must be measured.

But issuing from that source and font of ultimate truth, there are “lesser” truths (lesser in the sense of subordination, not in that they are anything less than completely truthful.)  And here is where science comes in.  Empirical, observable, repeatable science.  Again, I am no scientist.  I may not be fully versed in all the vernacular, or the latest doctoral theses…the truth is, I barely passed high school chemistry (and just how I managed it is one of life’s great mysteries these many years later!)  I have great regard for those who practice science, and a great deal of suspicion for those who use it to further their own fame, ideology, or agenda.  Whether it’s because of my non-scientific background, or in spite of it, I tend to be a “hard-sell” for many of the theories that get handed off as fact (evolution chief among them.)

Now, before you write me off as a crack-pot, let me clarify what I mean.  I see some evolutionary mechanics at play, particularly within a species or genus.  I am not certain about much of what has been passed on from Charles Darwin on down for the past nearly two centuries; namely, that one species (given enough time and proper environmental motivation) will so fully spontaneously adapt so as to completely metamorph into an entire new and distinct species.  Nor am I at all sure about the rather new and novel teaching that life on this planet simply “poofed” into being whole-cloth from some primordial chemical soup.  I’ll have more to say about both of these in other articles in the future, but this is much of what I’m referring to when I claim to be a hard-sell.  Something about these theories just don’t pass the sniff test with me.

So much of what I post here as opinion pieces, especially where they touch on both matters of faith and reason, will be my (often-times feeble) attempts to grapple with reconciling the two within my own mind to my satisfaction.  I’m not entirely sure anyone else will find these thoughts to be of any value in the weeks and months ahead, but I put them out there in case there are other students…seekers…of truth.

Advertisements

Comments»

1. Doug - August 26, 2009

Hello from Cloudy Nights member!
Your thoughts are intreeging. What people believe of our world takes many different paths. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Have you read any of Acharya S books or her web site. Open your mind and take a look. The ancient people brought us Astrology and Astronomy. It was my study of religion or most importantly Comparative Religion that brought me to astronomy and my interest in observing the cosmos.
Doug

2. Treehopper - August 26, 2009

Thanks for stopping by, Doug. While I’m not acquainted with D.M. Murdock’s (aka Acharya S) writings, I’m familiar enough with the so-called “Jesus Myth Hypothesis” to have a fundamental grasp on what she presents. Needless to say, I flatly disagree with the notion; the times and circumstances in which the infant Christan Church emerged are well documented and attested to by a variety of sources, both sacred and secular. Noting similarities in ancient Chaldean and Babylonian religious texts with the life and times of Jesus of Nazareth does not necessarily insist on the former precipitating the latter. Rather, it suggests that there was in the collective consciousness even among the ancient pagan religions of an event and Person who would fulfill these archetypes in anticipatory fashion.

Simple logic mandates that for any given stated position, there must be a “right” or correct answer, which de facto renders other attempts to answer the same position with an alternative as “wrong.” The “right” answer to 2+2 is always 4. Objectively, this is always true, and the only time it’s not true is when we begin monkeying with what our notion of “2-ness” is (something my old high school algebra teacher unsuccessfully tried to foist upon the class.)

In like manner, it’s when we start fudging on what “truth” is that we begin to displace clarity within a fog of relativism. Maybe it’s my old Irish-German stubborn streak, but I’m not so willing to deny certain bedrock truths for the sake of “opening my mind.” There are a lot of folks with such opened minds that are in desperate need of an intellectual “Tupperware” lid. 😉

Thanks again for stopping by, Doug! Keep checking in, I’ll try get busy on putting more stuff online for your consideration.

Tim


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: