Nontrivial Solutions

Patriarchal Blessings

2010-05-04T16:20:00.000-07:00

As a volunteer youth worker, I can't think of anything I do which is more fulfilling than praying over our teens. It doesn't happen often, and when I pray for one of my guys it has always been initiated by them at the suggestion of a third party; nothing is forced. What I find so interesting about these times of prayer is the emotional rush that seems to accompany the event -- both for me, and for the person receiving prayer.

In retrospect, these prayers are the closest thing to prophecy that I find in Evangelical churches. They are, in many ways, closer to prophecy than anything I have ever spoken in charismatic circles, even without the "thus says the Lord" part. I call these prayers prophetic because they are -- not the "telling the future" kind of prophecy you get in fiction, but "speaking the words of God" prophecy after the Biblical model.

Before you write me off as an arrogant fool, let me explain: I am not praying that way to show off. When I pray for one of our teens, I honestly don't trust my own intentions, and I am seeking desperately to find the will of God in his life. The result is a prayer that asks God for what God already wills; I call that prophetic.

This is the part that I find so emotionally intense. I have prophesied in large groups and in small in various church settings on multiple continents, and I know how to seek spiritual direction from God. Nonetheless, I am still overwhelmed to witness the passion of God for his people. He reaches beyond my knowledge to the secret hurt, and speaks healing there. And why he would involve me in that process is beyond my comprehension.

While thinking about this earlier today, I noticed the similarity between my prayers and the patriarchal blessings in Genesis. In each, an older man (the father) speaks encouragement into his son's soul by pointing to his gifts and callings, and declares out loud how God will provide for those callings to be fulfilled.

This kind of prayer is in many ways The Answer that John Eldridge describes in Wild at Heart -- the answer to the question:

Do I have what it takes to be a man?

Young men can only get this answer if it is given by another, older man.

The story of Esau contains a dramatic example of this answer undelivered. When Jacob deceives his father, Isaac, Isaac mistakenly gives him the blessing intended for Esau. Isaac favored Esau over his brother, and the blessing shows it: the position of family leader and delivery of lifelong blessing from God. When Esau later arrives for the blessing he was promised, there is no way that Isaac can truly bless him without contradicting what he has already spoken.

This is the agony of a man whose father cannot, or will not, answer his question. "Bless me - me too, O my Father!" Esau cries, weeping. He knows his need, and knows that it will not be met. As a result, Esau learns to hate his brother, to the point where Jacob has to run away to save his own life.

Have you lived through that pain? You can make a choice to keep from passing it on. When it came time for Jacob to give his own blessing, he had a blessing for all twelve of his sons, even though everyone knew that Joseph was his favorite. Each one had his question answered.

Are you in a position to give that blessing? I don't have any sons (though I do have two daughters), yet I find that just by being around young men I end up in the position where they come to me for the blessing. Some of them have excellent Christian fathers. Others have fathers who don't know Christ, and some don't have a father involved in their lives at all. Regardless, their need as young men remains. If you are a Christian man in authority over younger men, you have what it takes to speak the Answer into their lives. And the older you are, the more powerful that answer can be.

Having said all this, I still consider this post to be nontrivial because I can't see the rest of the picture. Consider:

If the question for young men is "Do I have what it takes?" is there an equivalent question for young women?

Is that question for young women something that only a mother figure can answer?

What about prayer across gender lines? Is there an answer I give to my daughters through prayer, or one that boys get from their mothers?

Finally, how do we distinguish between a patriarchal blessing and inappropriate meddling?

Of this much, however, I am certain: our families, even in the church, are in such disarray that many young men have no one to give them a blessing. The need is great, perhaps greater than it has ever been before.

Community and Grace

2010-03-08T06:09:00.000-08:00

In recent years, I have participated in three online communities: Facebook, Perl Monks, and Sons of Sam Horn. Of these, the latter two are significant because they are primarily composed of people I don't know from meatspace. Both groups are topical -- the former, Perl Programming, the latter, Red Sox baseball -- and both groups contain a significant number of experts from whom I could learn a lot. I have read from, and posted to, both groups.

There, however, the comparison fails. While my involvement with SOSH was short-lived, my involvement with PM continues. The difference in these two relationships, plain and simple, is grace.

Lets be honest here, I should not have been surprised by this difference. SOSH is a notoriously unkind community. We Sox fans are historically tough on our beloved team and its critics alike, and SOSH raises that toughness to an art form. If you post something that is less than well written, it is out there forever, and they will rip you to shreds.

PerlMonks, however, gives you room to fail without feeling permanently outcast. I have been flat-out wrong in my time at PM far more than I ever was at SOSH, but I keep coming back. Upon reflection, I think I keep coming back because this grace made me feel welcome in a way that I never have at SOSH.

My home church has a similar situation to these two communities in that we regularly have visitors, and some of these visitors don't know anyone in the main service. They may have different opinions on free will, worship styles, or what constitutes "appropriate clothing" for church. Some visitors may not even agree with you on such essentials as the divinity of Jesus. Despite these differences, I think we can identify some techniques from PerlMonks that we can use to maintain community through grace:

Freedom PM has a "chat" area where members can kick around ideas without risking their long-term reputation. There is also a lot of opportunity to laugh together. Does your lobby provide this?

Feedback PM has a "voting system" whereby members are able to indicate approval or disapproval on the value of posts. This communicates reputation back to the members. Do you provide this level of honesty?

Flexibility PM allows members to edit their posts after the fact, often in response to prior feedback. If you make a bad post, you can fix it. Do you provide people room to grow?

Forgetfullness PM has a process whereby postings that are sufficiently incompatible with the community are "Node Reaped" and removed from the discussion (e.g. trolling, flame wars, spamming, etc.). Do you hold a grudge, or are you willing to forgive?

In a real-world community, the process of grace will be different, but the principle remains. If we don't give people the liberty to be wrong and a commitment that supersedes their mistakes, people won't stick around.

Uncomfortable Seating

2009-11-21T08:12:00.000-08:00

This past week at Supercomputing '09, I had the surprising pleasure of listening to Al Gore, "the man who used to be the next President of the United States" (his joke, not mine). I say it was surprising not because I didn't expect him to be there, but rather because I didn't expect to enjoy it so much. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised when a career politician is good at rhetoric. In any event, Mr. Gore was an appropriate speaker for a conference where "Green Computing" was a key focus, and his talk at the plenary session was both well attended and entertaining.

For context, I am a Global Warming skeptic -- I think that the measurement system is both faulty and incomplete (see this article from Analog for some thoughts on this), and that many of our proposed responses are not well thought out. Having said this, I think Gore was worth listening to, albeit not for the reasons one might think. For my own part, I think it is energy use, and not carbon emissions, that should be our real concern.

Consider, for example, the transport efficiency of your modern automobile. A typical internal-combustion engine might be 40% - 50% efficient if properly tuned and maintained. If we use that engine as part of a 3000-pound automobile carrying two adults, only 10% of the mass being moved is actually contributing to our goal of moving two people across town. This gives us 4% overall efficiency - or a waste of 96% of the fuel being consumed.

This result is significantly lower than the 99.2% quoted by Gore in his talk, but it's still a very large percentage. And even if you think that carbon emissions are essentially irrelevant, and variation in solar output is as likely to create the next ice age as it is to trigger melting ice caps, wasting that much energy should get your attention. Consider:

The earth has an energy balance that is predominantly based on the quantity of energy being added by the sun, less the quantity being radiated into space.

Barring the speculative future discovery of zero-point energy, this energy is finite in quantity. (see the First Law of Thermodynamics)

Energy that is released into our system as heat is not available for other purposes, and some fraction of it will be released into space.

Every time we convert energy from one form to another, some of it gets lost to entropy (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics), which for all practical purposes means wasted heat.

Within this framework, fossil fuels are one method for long-term storage of solar energy. If we choose to use that energy to drive to work today, it won't be available for use tomorrow.

As a technical geek, I think that solar panels are cool. I also think that wind farms are a much better choice than the current system of coal farms that are presently hurting our northeast sugar maple trees with acid rain. That said, neither of these directly impacts the planetary energy balance to the degree that efficiency improvements can do today.

I look forward to the effects that ideas like smart grid will have on customer use of energy. As W. E. Deming reminded us long ago, "what gets measured gets done." Once we can easily see how much energy they are throwing away, will we perhaps start using it better?

Hypotheses Non Fingo

2009-02-15T18:00:00.000-08:00

It is not uncommon for those in the scientific community to criticize those of faith for the lengths we have been willing to go to in opposition of their most closely held beliefs (see, for example, the debate over Intelligent Design. For myself, I am inclined to take a view akin to the one Jesus took on taxes; to give scientific matters over to the scientific method, and to give religious matters over to faith. In saying this, I do not mean to yield the questions of human origins to the evolutionary biologists; instead, I mean to point out the absurdity of any attempt to argue the question of origins as if it were a scientific matter.

In writing his Principia Mathematica Sir Isaac Newton was careful to lay out his laws of motion while expressing Hypotheses Non Fingo ("I make no guesses" regarding the reason for those laws to be true. Noting that the culture in which Newton lived was not inclined to think scientifically, I feel that it was precisely this decision which allowed him to be successful in communicating his Principia to the world.

Modern society, on the other hand, appears to be as dependent on scientific reductionism as Newton's world was dependent on religion. Those who follow the scientific method want evidence and testability, and only those who are willing to submit to that kind of rigor will be welcomed in that discussion.

The problem with that situation is that we don't serve a God who will submit to testing. Other than tithing, I am not aware of any approved topic for testing God. Likewise, if He is really invisible or infinite (or both), measurement would not be possible either. You should also expect that miracles -- including the resurrection of Christ -- are by definition not reproducible.

Taking this one step further, those of us in the community of faith should not expect those in the community of science to be able to span the gap between science (describing what can happen) and history (describing what did happen). Thus, if you want to talk about Christ, you should expect to take some heat from those who don't follow your system of logic. This doesn't mean that your cause is hopeless; you simply have to wait for the "aha moment" when people are willing to speak about the bigger picture.

As a man who lives with one foot in each community, I run into this dichotomy on an almost daily basis. Does this make me bilingual?

Breaking Up is Hard to Do

2009-02-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

In a previous post, I spoke at length about the significance of marriage and its implications for me as a man. Despite this, we live in a culture rampant divorce where one-third of people who get married eventually divorce, a rate that is shared between Christians and non-believers alike. This bothers me. And I don't think I'm the only one who shares that opinion.

A strong view of marriage and divorce was taught by Jesus, even when it wasn't popular. God hates divorce, plain and simple. If I want to be biblical in my views, then, I need to agree with him.

When I say that, however, I need to be very careful not to let any one misinterpret that sentence, and think I said that God hates divorced people. I didn't say that. And if you're one of those people who had to leave a marriage because of an abusive or adulterous spouse, I particularly feel for you, because you're the victim. For other cases, yes, the Bible calls it sin. But (big shock here, folks), I have sinned too -- my sins just aren't quite so visible.

Having said that, though, I want to get back to the original point of this post, which was to explore the reasons why God would be so strongly pro-marriage and anti-divorce. While I certainly don't claim exclusive access to the throne of God on this topic, here's a couple of thoughts that might explain what He's up to:

Guys aren't terribly relational. Even the highly-interactive ones like me could just shut down and refuse to tell anyone anything deeply personal. Having my wife around forces me to relate, and that's good for me.

Marriage is good for kids. Fathers hear this: regular child support payments aren't enough. Your sons need to see what it takes to be a man, and your daughters need to know how to relate to a man. Deal with it.

Marriage is one of those images on earth that are supposed to show us how God relates to us. If we break up a marriage, we imply that God might cut us off -- and that's not how he works.

This last item is a delicate subject, and perhaps one of the more controversial points I have expressed here. It is a popular conviction that people can believe in Christ, become a Christian, and later fall away and stop believing. I just don't see it. From what I can see, salvation is a concept embedded in eternity; if God can see that we won't be saved on the Last Day, we never were, even if people thought we were.

From a perspective of marriage, however, God has a distinct advantage over us. That is, He knows our hearts, and He doesn't start a bad marriage. The rest of us make mistakes, and sometimes we have to live with the result of those mistakes. And despite what MasterCard says, "for the rest of us, there's grace."

Higher Mathematics

2009-01-30T15:48:00.000-08:00

God's mathematics are nothing like ours. You only have to look at Gideon's army or the story of the loaves and fishes to realize that He doesn't think about numbers the way we do. Having said that, I don't think anything is as incomprehensible as the "1 + 1 = 1" mathematics behind a biblical marriage:

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

It's a fairly well known verse, and we quote it readily when talking about marriage; but have you ever considered the implications? When Job loses everything he has, all of his possessions are stolen or destroyed, and his children die. But only when Satan is allowed to attack his body do we hear Job's wife say "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die."

As a man, this is particularly poignant to me; whether I like it or not, discord between me and my wife tears at who I am. For years we've been reading about studies that show how married men live longer than those who are single. Some assert that this is because married men are more likely to take care of their own health. IMHO, that's one reason, but another might be simpler: "It is not good for the man to be alone." (Genesis 2:18).

I've been thinking hard about this for a bit, and I'm convinced that God wasn't correcting a mistake when He made the need for marriage. I think it was part of the original design specification.

This has significant implications for our view of marriage and divorce, but this post has gone on long enough, and I'll have to save those thoughts for another time.

A new year's resolution

2009-01-01T06:09:00.000-08:00

Generally speaking, I don't like New Year's resolutions. They seem somehow false to me, so I haven't done them in the past. It's similar to the celebration of Lent, which I gave up (for Lent) before I ever started. But I digress...

Having had a week to cool off over the whole Mark Teixeira free-agency signing, I know understand that there is no way Boston could ever have signed him. He was apparently still upset at the Sox for how Dan Duquette treated him in the draft, and was playing them to get more money from NYY, where he really wanted to go. I'm not surprised that a limbless reptile like Scott Boras would be involved in such a ploy, but I'm disappointed in Tex, whom I'd heard was a stand-up guy.

Knowing this, I hereby make my first-ever New Year's resolution: "I will trust Theo Epstein and John Henry this year."

Repeat it with me, Red Sox Nation. Theo knows more than I do about the business of baseball. When John Henry says we're out of the running on the Teixeira sweepstakes, he knows what he's talking about. They got us a pair of World Series titles, and they can do it again. If not in 2009, then soon.

Given that my tax dollars are helping to fund the Yankees' new stadium, though, I might need another resolution, to be patient. That could be hard.

Immigration Reform

2008-12-02T16:51:00.000-08:00

While driving to work this morning, I happened to hear an NPR article on deported immigrants who immediately attempt to re-enter the USA. To be honest, I find approximately 50% of the political news on my local public radio station entirely unpalatable (perhaps due to the influence of Alan Chartock), but this article got my attention. I'd like to think I care about the poor, no matter what their nationality, and seeing them suffer from our desire for increased national security is something I can't tolerate in silence.

Nearly four hundred years ago, my ancestors landed near Plymouth, MA, and established a colony; we ate our Thanksgiving dinner at Plimoth Plantation, a reproduction of that colony, just last week. I also had a chance to visit Ellis Island this past summer, where we found the records of my wife's family entering the US. With very few exceptions, each one of us in the USA is at least partly descended from immigrants, and I am saddened to hear people cry for us to close these doors on new immigration when we ourselves have benefited from an open immigration policy.

One of the biggest complaints I hear about opening our borders is the concern about criminals entering the country. Like most suburbanites, I favor law and order, too. But when I read the history of my family, I find their arrival in this country is likewise suspect -- they violated their Charter with King James, by settling too far north of the Jamestown colony, and apparently did so with intent. This crime was never prosecuted, to my gain. Knowing this, I wonder if perhaps the nonviolent criminal acts of others might likewise be overlooked to our national good.

Another concern (most often raised by organized labor) is that immigrant workers would take American jobs. The fact is, immigrants have been taking the low-wage jobs in this country for hundreds of years. These are not typically jobs that our workers want to do, so why not let others do them legally? I would much rather see low-wage workers living in the US, paying US taxes, and giving their strengths to our country, than to watch businesses move overseas in search of those same workers.

The problem as I see it is not the presence of foreign workers, it is the fact that so many of these foreign workers are undocumented. As illegal aliens, they rightfully fear our law enforcement agencies, which empowers other criminals to take further advantage of them. Moreover, the flood of illegal immigrants to this country makes it easier for dangerous criminals — terrorists, or those who import illegal drugs — to sneak in unnoticed. This is just wrong.

If we really want to have a successful immigration policy, we need to be generous with the number of people we allow to enter the US, especially from Mexico. Document them, track them, and refuse those few who commit violent crimes — but let the honest people come. I'm not saying this would be a popular thing to do, but I'm convinced it's the right thing to do.

The Three Circles

2008-11-23T20:24:00.000-08:00

A friend asked me to clarify the difference between essentials, convictions, and preferences, which I will attempt to do here. First, a picture to cover my first thousand words of explanation:
These circles represent three different categories of personal opinion. Since I have previously defined convictions as requiring grace from us, I should probably clarify how I decide what those things are.

If the issue is necessary for salvation, it's essential. The question I would ask is, "Can someone not believe this and still go to heaven?" If not, it's essential.

If the issue is related to doctrine, it's a conviction. The question I would ask is, "Can I legitimately say I don't care, and still base my beliefs on the Bible?" If not, it's a conviction.

Other opinions are preferences by default.

An example of an essential would be the divinity of Jesus. An example of a conviction would be the role of women in the church. An example of a preference would be styles of music to use in worship. Even though most believers would, I think, agree with the examples I have just given, there will certainly be differences of opinion on which issues fall into which circles, especially when dividing between convictions and preferences.
Differences between believers can be sustained, however, if we hold an attitude of grace towards one another. I am bold enough to believe that I am correct in my beliefs, but not so arrogant as to believe that I can't be wrong. Recognizing this fact, I depend on the grace of God to cover my human limitations. If I am unwilling to show the same grace to others, I find myself a wicked servant; and that is one prospect that terrifies me.

When does grace become stupidity?

2008-11-20T21:21:00.000-08:00

I just made it back from my trip, and right away my friend E asked me one of those hard questions for which this blog was born. He expressed to me quite elegantly the need for strong doctrinal statements on a number of topics -- that certain beliefs were what we might call "essential" to the Christian faith. I on the other hand, considered these same topics to be "conviction" areas -- that is, issues that it is important for us to believe, but on which Christian believers might legitimately disagree while still considering one another to be "saved."

This distinction is important because essentials are things we don't back down on, whereas we need to have grace towards one another on conviction issues. I am big on grace; I consider it to be absolutely vital to my Christian walk. Since I teach teens in our church, however, it is particularly relevant that E has challenged me with this question, which I paraphrase below:

When does grace become stupidity?

The intent of this question is to divine where I draw the line on doctrinal issues; am I willing to let someone believe something I feel to be wrong, simply because I don't think it's essential to salvation? To be honest, my answer surprised me: grace became stupidity when God decided to save me.

I am old enough, and have seen enough of my own sin, that I have no comprehension why a holy God would want anything to do with me. In human terms, then, saving grace is "stupidity" -- it makes no sense. This sounds insulting to God, though, so perhaps I should call it "outrageous." Let me proclaim, therefore, that all grace is outrageous. If there is even one good reason why God would be good to me, I would deserve it, and it wouldn't be grace. That doesn't mean I'm not saved by grace, it simply makes my salvation outrageous.

If you have ever been wounded in the church (or even without) by rejection from other people, I strongly recommend Philip Yancy's book What's so Amazing about Grace? If we're honest with ourselves, I think we'll find that salvation makes no rational sense, nor do any of the small mercies we receive in our lives. That is grace. And I am persuaded that Christian believers can do more to spread the gospel by demonstrating that grace towards others than we ever could do through preaching and teaching alone.

Perhaps there are others whose callings in Christ require them to challenge mature believers to deeper faith. Perhaps we need people like E to force us to think hard about everything we believe, and not just a few essentials. Even so, I am still so overwhelmed by the grace of God that I can not imagine a need to preach anything more than Christ crucified and risen again (for me? For me!!).

Standards of Evidence

2008-11-15T08:04:00.000-08:00

It looks like I have a few minutes before I run out to Supercomputing 2008, so I guess I'll raise one of the "big problems" for which I first started this blog: the need for faith.

Depending on whether you're primarily Reformed or Methodist in your soteriology, we may disagree to the extent to which free will plays a role in our decision to follow Christ, but I think it is generally agreed that at some point it is just that: a decision. The problem I have is not with the decision, which I think is correct, but the quantity of evidence we find necessary to make that decision.

In business, I teach Six Sigma, and generally expect my students to demand a 95% confidence in the evidence used to back up any improvement efforts they make. This level of confidence is certainly not a universal requirement; in Physics, I understand that 99%+ confidence levels are typically required.

My "beef", however, is that confidence levels like that aren't generally available to me in real life. Whether we're talking about the origins of man, the reality of miracles, or some other question of faith, we find that the evidence is is never sufficient to give me that elegant 95% confidence level.

Saying this is probably going to irritate some of my fellow believers. I hear from people all the time about a sequence of events that persuades the speaker beyond a shadow of a doubt that what they say is true. Generally, I will often agree. Despite this, however, I find an annoying lack of hard proof; if someone really doesn't want to believe, they aren't forced to do so.

More and more I'm finding this to be true: that God goes out of his way to not force us to believe. Think about it: how hard would it be for Him to raise a dead man again like he did for Lazarus? I'm not talking about someone drowning in icy water for a few hours: I mean well and truly dead. He did it in a time when people would be impressed, but not overwhelmed; and today, when real proof would overwhelm skeptics, he doesn't do it.

This is just a brief thought for now, as I have to fly (literally); but as I find more examples of God's frustrating decision not to prove things absolutely, I'll send them your way. Stay tuned.

Christian Nationalism

2008-11-11T05:43:00.000-08:00

It's Veteran's Day here in the US, a day to remind ourselves of the price paid by the many members of our armed forces. He's Canadian, and I'm a US citizen, but I think that Illiad said it far better than I could in his cartoon. The next time you're in an airport and happen to see a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine waiting for a flight, I suggest you shake his or her hand and say "Thank You." From what I can tell, it's the least we can do.

Having said that, and recognizing the incredible price that these men and women have been willing to pay for my nation, I must admit that I find the whole concept of Christian nationalism somewhat troubling. I have a lot to say about the baggage we often pile onto the gospel, and by grace I hope to do so. For now, let me just say this: the gospel is not an American construct. The gospel isn't even a Western idea. It's God's idea.

Don't get me wrong, I am grateful to be an American. I also believe that Christians should be committed citizens of whatever nation they live in. I must remind you, however, that in the grand scheme of things, this nation (and indeed the whole earth) will pass away. We hold dual-citizenship with a kingdom that will never fail.

All I really need to know I learned at Fenway Park

2008-11-10T16:46:00.000-08:00

For those who don't know me personally, I grew up on the South Shore of Massachusetts (near Plymouth). My family has only been in that area for about 350 years, but it's been long enough that we picked up certain Bostonian characteristics -- like a love of the Red Sox. Since I now live in upstate NY, this runs me into occasional light-hearted conflict with the local Yankees fans. It is regarding one of them (L) that I write today.

Some time ago I received from my sister two tickets to a regular-season game at Fenway Park. For those of you not familiar with what that means, these things are *gold*. Thanks to the scalpers, you just can't buy them without divine intervention (or perhaps a second mortgage on your house). Since L is a good friend of mine, I invited him to join me for the trip.

When we arrived at the family abode, he was greeted by my parents (both Sox fans) and my aunt (a true die-hard, I hope her heart holds out now that Manny is gone). We all had our Sox gear, and L had enough sense to leave his NYY hat at home. L was welcomed in and treated as part of the family.

Our seats were on the 3rd base side, quite a way up, but still, we were IN. It was great. We sat between two guys who discussed fervently whether or not Tek needed a day off, and a woman with whom I attempted to determine who was warming up in the bullpen based on his delivery. Everyone was polite and clearly knowledgeable. And everyone had passion.

When our day was done (the Sox lost), and we began the long drive home, L said something to me that I never thought I'd hear -- that he was thinking of becoming a Sox fan because of our this trip. Certainly the metaphor of Fenway as a temple of baseball is overused, but it got me thinking about this situation as it applies to evangelism.

Every Sox fan he met was willing to be known as a Sox fan. We love our team.
We fans don't just carry empty passion for the Sox, we know what we love, and why.
Every fan L met was kind towards him -- something he had never experienced in the Bronx.

We Evangelical Christians want people to become believers, and study books, tapes, and seminars to try to learn how. Maybe all we need to do is know whom we love, and why, and live in love towards other people. When someone does that to you, it's only natural to say "I want to be like that guy."

On the Nature of Truth

2008-11-09T14:54:00.000-08:00

Ah, irony. It would appear that one man's philosophy is another man's spam, as I have somehow been identified as a spam blogger before I even managed to write my first blog entry. How's that for efficiency? In any event, it segues nicely into a discussion of the question raised by Pontius Pilate at Christ's arraignment, namely, "What is Truth?"
( John 18:38 )

As an engineer, I'm expected to deal regularly with scientific truth -- where the question is what can happen. People measure scientific truth by testing it. That is, we test the implications made by a theory, and if we can reproduce the predicted results, we say that the theory holds.

If we assume, however, that all truth is scientific in nature, we miss the point. History, for example, is not reproducible -- instead of being interested in what can happen, it is more interested in what did happen. This difference in orientation is only a problem when we attempt to use the scientific method to prove a historical event.

When I get a few moments, I hope to discuss this difference both as it applies to biblical history and the origins of the universe.