User:Mamgeorge

I use this space to clarify principles I use in wiki pages. In other words, this is about me and what believe. I include it so discussions about my comments have an accessible context.

Presupposition

I am a Christian, and I believe the Bible is literally Gods truth. If you are antagonistic to this, I ask you to try not to rely on stereotypes. A common accusation is that some Christians attempt to force their beliefs on others, or intolerant (which is simply demandingness). Another is that a committed literal Bible believer is uninformed (which is simply implying ignorance). I believe both of these conclusions are wrong, and weaken communication through ad hominem attacks. Hopefully, the following essays will clarify this.

As time has passed, and as I have observed how rational discussions progress, I am coming to the conclusion that truth (and it can be any truth) is often inexpressible, indefensible, but sharable.

Are these defenses refutable? Of course. Are the refutations arguable? Undoubtedly. Are the arguments debatable? No question. So, dear reader, you have a choice... Will you trust rationality to answer your questions and lead your life? Is the truth really so invisible, or unavailable to you?

inexpressible

Is it possible to have a belief that does not need to be defended? Consider the attempt of AI scientists to represent intelligence in symbolic form. Basically, the assumption was that a general problem solver was attainable in 10 years (the original GOFAI goal)*. The assumptions evolved over that time, but the original expectation clearly failed. Yet, there is no need to assume the work was useless, impossible, or that nothing was learned from trying. The drive to try has not dimmed. Perhaps defending beliefs is similar. I do not think one should give up trying to formalize philosophy or thinking, but perhaps we should examine what the goal of that work would be. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that truth is inexpressible.

Does this require believing truth is "elusive" (and therefore unattainable)?. Defining truth as "elusive" is often construed as a logical argument; but it appears that 6000 years of philosophy does not allow ANY consensus. To me, a historical view of "thought" supports a view that truth is "inexpressible", or indescribable. As in GOFAI, the logic, or perhaps just the vocabulary, just is often not there. This does not prevent us from acting on it; but it does appear to have limited our applications and may change our expectations in a discussion.

note: If the GOFAI topic interests you at all, please see Hubert Dreyfuss "What Computers Still Can't Do" A Critique of Artificial Reason (MIT Press, 1992)

indefensible

Saying truth is inexpressible may imply that "some have it, and some do not". Yet I suggest an even harder corollary exists: the possibility that defensibility is not a necessary component of truth. For example, consider a child who sees a tree and is told it is a beach ball. He may lack the "equipment" to defend his observation, but still be right. Incidentally, the childs ability simply to declare what he sees or knows can be viewed as a stage in defensibility (the ability to acknowledge and distinguish). Again, he need not be proficient at polemics to be right, and his truth can be debated, rebuffed, and ridiculed ad nauseum, but only because the mechanics of logic allow it. (Another example of this can be seen in the limitations of a mute person experiencing warmth, etc.)

sharable

Why should "inexpressible" or "indefensible" truths be shared? Assuming defensibility may not be available does not require silence. While other implications could be explored, the main thing I want to emphasize is the change in expectation it leads to in discussion. Whether communicating a truth is successful or not, there is a moral component to the discussion: the motivation for pursuing it.

mamgeorge 22:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Nonreligious

Can a secular Philosophy remove suffering? There is a strong trend in our world culture that suggests a rational, supposedly objective, scientific approach excludes religion. Often, the failures of religions are pointed to as the cause. Yet, the atheism of communist Russia or China proves clearly that "freethinking" or "values by choice" simply do not remove the ignorance, violence, and willfull injustice in our hearts.

Is it possible to actually be "nonreligious"? It is impossible for anyone to exist without deeply held beliefs that are unprovable. The man golfing on Sunday will kill for his right to do so; or kill the possibilities that prevent it. When pressed to defend his choices, his manner will exhibit the same irrationality of any self respecting fanatic. Such a one assumes his choices do not have eternal consequences, pretends he is not perpetuating a system, and in all cases, believes something unprovable about his rights.

Behavior ALWAYS comes from beliefs. It is impossible to act out a behavior without some internal expectation. In all areas of behavior, whether in business, politics, government, etc., your behavior is controlled by ultimately unprovable beliefs. Any fundamental view of the value and direction of humanity is endlessly debatable and rationally unprovable. Consider the assumptions choice, justice, and equality require in the following areas:

taxes

education

health care

abortion

justice

punishment

separation of church & state

burial

etc.

Tolerance

Tolerance is NOT inclusiveness. However, the word "Tolerance" is usually used to minimize exclusiveness and demand conformance. It demands offending contradictions to be sterilized, and that unique claims have no value. This is merely another exclusive claim which in itself is an unprovable belief. Is inclusiveness bad? Like all things that can be twisted, not inherently. The issue is the boundary. The boundary is identified by the purpose.

COBs (Choice Oriented Believers) Without exclusive beliefs (beliefs that separate one truth from another, or beliefs that insist upon uniquely possessing truth) the result is picking & choosing what you believe. Such COBs (Choice Oriented Believers) use the human spirit as the guide. Is this reasonable?

Atheists, agnostics, nonreligious, new-agers, mystics, freethinkers, humanists, and any other non-formal religion ultimately share one essential similarity: reliance on the self. Yet the atheism of Russian & Chinese Communists certainly did not stem the flow of violent injustice. Countless millions were murdered for what is ultimately exposed as the drives of human nature: greed, power, money.

Spirituality

All religions are based on self. There are 6 major world religions that account for 93% of the worlds beliefs (Encyclopedia Britannica): Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, ChineseFolkReligions. Yet, there are really only 2 principles here: either you decide what is true, or something else tells you what is true. In reality, most "Christians", Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, & FolkReligionists pick and choose what they want to believe. 6000 years of philosophy has only proven there is nothing in the mind of the the human spirit that removes suffering or consistently answers mans deepest questions.

Can spirituality be separated from religion? From religion, yes, but not from the disease. Those claiming "I believe in spirituality, I just do not support organized religion"; such "nonreligious" sentiments hide uglier truths: human nature (or personally chosen values) have no moral authority. We see by example that atheism does not possess the authority to stop injustice. But spirituality is just as bad: what moral authority does choice oriented beliefs over the worshipers whose faith requires them to disembowel tortured innocents against their will (see Aztec, Korowai, etc.). The "nonreligious" person who disagrees with that has failed to think through the effects of their beliefs.

Why does this matter? The "human spirit", of course, is capable of much that is beautiful. The issue is that it is also the source of all pain. This is a particularly obvious conclusion atheists seem to ignore; and one religionists ignore when they blame "other religions".

mamgeorge 14:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Violence & Injustice

Where does human suffering, particularly injustice, come from? Clearly from humanity itself. Amazingly, the uninformed place this blame on religion. This accusation often takes the form that wars originate in religious zeal. This is merely a terrified denial of the root causes. Wars are born in the violence, lust, or foolishness of the "human spirit". None of the religious founders (Jesus, Mohammed, Vyasa, Buddha, Laozi, who account for 80% of human beliefs) intended to perpetuate war or violence. Consider:

What teaching of the Bible motivated Conquistadors to expel Jesuits?

What teaching of the Koran motivated GhengisKhan to pursue other faiths?

How did the Hindu Vedas permit the attacks on Muslim shrines?

How did the Buddhist Sutras permit the killing fields of Cambodia?

Why DID communism perpetuate mass killings in China? Why DID Hitler kill Jews? Not for any religion. But it did occur. Why? And especially why if there is no God? No "religion"? Does not all such violence occur from that which is already inside us"? From the "humanity" of man? From the natural "human" spirit?

The justifications for violence come from the human soul. Not even the devil is powerful enough to be blamed for that. It is our own "human spirit" that athiests, agnostics, and the "nonreligious" want to extol as worthy of setting a moral policy. If babies were born "inherently" good, then immorality could not perpetuate.

The effectiveness of ideologies may be debated; but not the source. Hostility never needed formalized ideology to breed, and no institutionalization removes it. It is in our soul; to deny this is to deny ourselves and make smokescreens to protect our wounded pride. Such accusations for any ideology is probably unintentional by the accuser. The frightening aspect of the demandingness of an undesired ideology is much easier to blame than facing the implications of what "freedom of choice" really means.

Sadly, what can be applied to "religious" wars can be applied to other atrocities; Inquisitions, Book burnings, Imperialism, Proselytizing, and other actions are merely the natural expressions of the "Human Spirit"; violence, control, greed, and pride come from us. The mere fact that someone can ask "What Would Jesus/Mohammed/Vyasa/Buddha/Laozi Do" shows that there is a distinction between an "enlightened" understanding and a "natural" one.

mamgeorge 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suffering

Why would a loving God kill 250,000 people in the tsunami in Indonesia? Wrong question. It is structured in the same tautology as "Why do you deny beating your spouse?" Everyone, not just the 250000, dies. Period. No exceptions. OK, then, Why does a loving God allow death? Here the assumptions become more obvious: What is death anyway? To judge it as useless assumes that its existence is understood fully as bad. What unprovable claim permits that? Here is a better question: Why does God let us live? What are we alive FOR? This question allows the understanding that we do not necessarily deserve our destiny, and that we may not fully have all the facts of our identity answerable.

The core question is (as always) why does a loving God permit suffering if He is able to prevent it. Or, why does reaching His plan for us require difficult steps of development? I can no more answer this any better than anyone else. But I can point out two things:

1) The logic of the questions assumes our capacity to embrace it. Actually, this is an insurmountable barrier, one that is consistently avoided by disciples of rationality. Assuming God has an answer we can understand is, well, an assumption!

2) The question rarely reflects a genuine desire to understand. Instead, it really seems to have the purpose of questioning why we can not control our own destiny. With that question is the assumption we deserve to do so, or that we could effectively do so.

mamgeorge 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Judgmental

Beliefs come from our external shaping and internal tendencies. the history of human purity proves both must be judged. The concept that judgment is inappropriate is a culturally perpetuated myth apparently intended to defend a pluralistic world view. As shown above, such pluralism has no effect on reducing the damage to humanity. The idea that judgment is bad is often associated to a corrupt interpretation of the Christian scripture "Judge not..." (Matt 7:1).

Of course, this fallacy is exposed simply by reading the next few verses. In Matt 7:6 of the same chapter we see that Matt 7:1 identifies a different use of the word. This "dual use" is clearly identified in John 7:24. It includes two approaches;

1) Judgment used for control. This includes unfair comparisons, based on appearances, or personal standards. Matt 7:1, et. al. This is the "wrong judgment" of John 7:24.

2) Judgment used for evaluation. This includes measured comparisons, based on intent, or Godly standards. Matt 7:6, et. al. This is the "right judgment" of John 7:24.

Possibly this sloppy exegesis comes from the attempt to minimize moral reaction by the use of the phrase as an invective, thus amounting to an ad hominem attack.

mamgeorge 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Science

ILO (Inherit Limitation of Observation)

Science changes unreliably. Anyone who points to science (or philosophy, freethought, newage, humanism, etc.) without recognizing its frailities is avoiding their own ignorance. We know so little about the universe. Consider just a few discoveries in the last 5-40 years:

physics Hadrons no longer describe Elementary particles

troposphere Upper-atmospheric lightning (jets, sprites, & elves) and SuperLightning (TLEs)

botany Taxonomy fundamental revisions every 50 years since Conrad Gessner;

astronomy Pluto declassified as a planet ; the discovery of Eris ((136199) 2003 UB₃₁₃)

astronomy Dark energy considered 95% of the universe, yet unobserved

astronomy Big Bang theory replacing the Steady State cosmogony replacing aether

biology Dinosaur Extinction theories

biology 'Soft Tissue' discoveries in Paleontology.

And so on, and so on, to the next discovery. These are not simply advances; or "paradigm shifts", they are "rewrites" to the perception of scientific reality. In 50 years, we will laugh at our current understanding of the sciences. Science simply changes. 6000 years of science has only proven there is no consistent interpretation of observations; and no consensus of knowledge that consistently answers mans deepest questions.

Does not discovery reveal the transient nature of understanding? Is not every carefully documented observation ultimately open to a redefinition that under girds the assumptions such details are dependent upon? If so, observational truth appears as elusive as philosophical consensus. The use of science by those who reject religion is simply sad: without an external source of truth, we see such a community bound to reinvent itself in perpetual futility.

The book "Contact" (by Carl Sagan) exposes this quandary with appropriate vulnerability. In it, he portrays a scientist forced to describe something wonderful without evidence. He even rejects a secular conclusion (i.e. numinous ; ultimately a secular cause for religion). It was more than clever; it was honest.

mamgeorge 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Scripture

So what is a reliable source of truth? The Bible is reliably unique. Why? Because:

a) it is historically reliable:

b) it is bibliographically reliable:

c) it is scientifically reliable:

d) it is prophetically reliable:

a) it is historically reliable: from Genesis to Revelation, the Bible has historical evidences to support its claim of authority. This includes Universal Flood Traditions, (The Flood of Noah is affirmed by the Nuwa of China, Manu of India, Nu of Egypt, Deucalion of Greece, Nota of the Aztecs, etc.); Confirming extra biblical tablets: Armana Tablets, Merneptah Stele, Mesha Tablet, Taylor Prism, Cyrus Cylinder, many many more; Confirming extra biblical sites: Tyre, Sidon, Hazor, Megiddo, and hundreds more; Confirming extra biblical people: Shalmaneser, TiglathPileser, Sargon, MardukApalIddina, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, and many more; Confirming extra biblical reports: Josephus, Tacitus, Serapion, Phlegon, Thallus, and more.

b) it is bibliographically reliable: The Bible was preserved in such a way as to allow accurate copies. the careful manner of the writing of the OT Masoretic text was compared with the much older writing of the Dead Sea Scrolls to show it has remained basically the same. The abundance of copies of the NT Majority text (25000) permitted the reliable transmission of the words of Christ.

c) it is scientifically reliable: Although the Bible is not a science book, and although science continually changes, there are observations that it makes that align with accepted observations. Specifically, the claims of the Bible regarding speciation (Gen 1:11, 21-22, 24, 26 "kinds"), world oceans (Gen 1:9), earth roundness (Isa 40:22), gravity (Job 26:7), sea springs (Gen 7:11), air currents (Ecc 1:6), and many others.

d) it is prophetically reliable: Specifically, prophecies regarding Edom & Petra, Tyre & Sidon, the prophecies of Christ in the OT, and many more, all written in the OT, faithfully fulfilled in the NT.

Creationism

A) How can one determine if an individual is meaningfully qualified to discuss Creation/Evolution?

I propose that the person should have, as a minimum, the following qualifications:

1) historical perspective: awareness of changes in observations in any branch of science (at least biology, geology, astronomy) in 50 year increments since the enlightenment (1500s)

2) awareness of classification details: at least a familiarity with the taxonomy of animals; specifically the phyla, class, order, genus of 50 or so animals

3) awareness of classification systems: must be able to distinguish between shape based and relation based taxonomies

4) awareness of fossil record: at least a familiarity with 10 divergent animal types

B) Is the Creationism article NPOV?

It appears not. Structurally the artical does not match the Evolution article. It projects the variation of views, without any real discussion of evidences. Compare the approach to the Evolution article; could not the evolution article be similarly dissected? The Creationism article appears to be minimized by its emphasis on Sociology, rather than a description of evidences.

C) May I suggest the following outline?

Mathematics Physics Chemistry Troposphere Meteorology Geography Oceanography Geology Botany Taxonomy Astronomy Biology Physiology

mamgeorge 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Classification Links

Physics, Troposphere, Botany, Astronomy, Biology (esp. Taxonomy). GKT from George University

1 Mathematics Physics Chemistry

2 Troposphere Meteorology Geography Oceanography Geology

3 Botany Taxonomy

4 Astronomy

5 Biology Physiology

a Sociology Philosophy Language (Chinese) Politics Law Economics

b Arts Painting Drawing Music (Piano, Chopin, Jazz) Literature Dance

c Technology Agriculture Medicine Engineering (Computers) Military

d History World History Ancient World History Current

Contribution Summary

note: some articles included for completeness; asterisks represent special involvement

Astronomy

List of constellations, List of constellations by area, Serpens

Literature

Ancient

Ancient literature, Sacred Books of the East, Amarna Letters

Hebrew: Book of Proverbs

Egypt: Amenemhat Instructions, Amenemopet Instructions, Amenope Onomastica, Ani Papyrus, Tchaenhotep

India: Rigveda, Smriti, Darsana

Chinese: (see below)

Americas: Popol Vuh

Ancient Chinese

Chinese Authors

Shangdi related: 馬融 Mo Zi*, 馬融 Ma Rong, 鄭玄 Zheng Xuan

Pangu related: 徐整 Xu Zheng, 葛洪 Ge Hong*, 徐整, Ouyang Xun

Nüwa related: 列圄寇 Lie Yukou, 屈原 Qu Yuan*, 劉安 Liu An, 司馬遷 Sima Qian*,

許慎 Xu Shen, 李榮 Li Rong, 盧同 Lu Tong, 司馬貞 Sima Zhen, 李昉 Li Fang

Others: 左丘明 Zuo Qiuming, 劉向 Liu Xiang*, 郭璞 Guo Pu, 李東陽 Li Dongyang

Chinese Texts

東周: 春秋時代:五經 Wujing: 書經 Shujing, 詩經 Shijing, 禮記 Liji, 春秋 Chunqiu, 易經 Yijing, 樂經 Yuejing
東周: 春秋時代:四書 Sishu: 大學 Daxue, 中庸 Zhongyong, 論語 Lunyu*, 孟子 Mengzi*