thoughts on reality and God's presence in it

Ever read 'Practising the Presence of God', by a man called Brother Lawrence? The idea, basically, is that God is present and very close and intimate with us and our whole issue of living "in" his presence is not to conjure him up somehow but to just recognize him more clearly, which comes easier with practice; the book is about Lawrence's thoughts on the matter and some wisdom from the dish "pit" of the monastery he lived in. It's a book worth reading, in my opinion.

My noteworthy thoughts on the matter are about feelings and the real reality.

God's presence is not wholly a feeling, not necessarily connected with that feeling of spiritual high, or the feeling of closeness, or even the feeling of being loved. For there is apparently a difference between being loved, which we are beyond measure or even imagination, and feeling loved. And this is true of God's presence in regards to any sort of feeling. Sometimes He brings feelings with him, I think to add concreteness to his existence and to encourage our faith that the things he says are true. For example, if he says he loves us, at times we will feel it strongly. If he says he is close to us, sometimes we will be overwhelmed by his nearness. And we get hints at the pleasures of heaven, when laying at his feet and worshiping him will involve some sort of sight which we now lack. (There are obviously other aspects to Him and what it feels like to be close to him, I have just avoided trying to make a comprehensive list.)

I have been foolish and claimed that these feelings marked that he was truly near. I then proceeded to complain that either he was not near me, and had abandoned me, when I did not feel anything or that if he was really close by he should give me the feelings so that I would know. This is foolishness and leads down a bad road, which I took a number of steps down. Fortunately, for my sake, I found out that true intimacy with God is not a prolongation of good feelings or state of being but really sharing with him the whole spectrum of feelings and states of mind which I pass through in a day. I assume this is true of real intimacy in any sort of relationship.

One of the dangerous rabbit runs I started down was connecting the spiritual/invisible with the sort of false experience I could conjure up using my imagination. I started believing that the spiritual was as real as that fake world I can conjure up in my head, which is not real at all. (Of course, in the ridiculous world according to Doug things always work out for me as I want them to and I am always the hero.) Then I started imagining things along the lines of the spiritual/invisible instead of a conversation with the girl I like. And that, my friend is awful. It is like shutting your eyes to the world and daydreaming when if you would just open your eyes you would see something even better, and it would be real. Because God really is Real!

And if he is real, I think that an important factor in experiencing Him is to live in reality ourselves. By this I kind of mean living in the present. We are always jumping forward in our minds to the future or lingering in the past. We miss the exact place where we are. I don't think we will live truly exactly where we are in time and space until we are on the Other Side of time and space, but we can get close for little spurts. I think God in his invisible, constant presence is found here: in the real reality.

It turns out to be kind of sensual. I guess as humans our contact with reality is based on the senses. I do mean more than 5, for I do mean more than the physical. We have senses of the invisible from some indistinct place in our invisibles. (And there is that weird sense of someone looking at you from across the room; you just know.) I think as Christians in our day we feel some residual effects of the Puritan era, which I brutally generalize as the classification of any pleasure as sinful and any sensual experience of the world as something to be mistrusted. I, at least, have felt some pressure to live in some haze-like existence of denying that we are on the earth and pretending that we are in the Heaven already. We are certainly not of the world, and oh, do I long for heaven, but we are undeniably in the world. This business of "feet on the ground, head in clouds" is, in my opinion, foolish. I think it is at least better put 'flesh on the ground where it actually is, heart in heaven where our treasure is'.
I think that learning to live where we are at is good practice for the hereafter. And since God is here in his own, very real way, it doesn't mean ignoring him. Just don't start loving the place or wanting to stay.
For me the 5 senses have begun to serve to pull me back to reality, and in the reality to find God. So instead of doing my best to hide from it, I can reach out to feel the bitter wind crossing the drillfield of VT in winter and know that I really am where I am. And God really is here with me.

new background for this thing

The previous one was just black, it made me feel emo or something.

Popular Science is Propaganda

Popular science is effectively propaganda, and since people do not recognize it as propaganda but as fact proven and accepted by more educated people it is accepted as a foundation worthy of building entire world-views on. Let me define the difference I mean by popular science and science (without adjective). Science would include all experimental and observational observations of the universe and the rules that govern it. Popular science includes only the findings and theories that trickle down to the public through engines like magazines, word of mouth, unspoken implications of educated people, and the like. And this is a poor, and biased, representation of the true collection of scientific findings and theories.

Poor, because the uneducated member of the mass is in fact uneducated and does not understand the language with which educated people communicate with other educated people in their respective field. Therefore, to be put in a language which the uneducated person can understand it must be translated, and important logical progressions are ‘lost in translation’. For the logical progression from experimental data or observations to theory and ‘fact’ to be communicated in its fullness the language of the educated must be used. Therefore the presentation that is in the language of the ignorant is inherently unwholesome. This puts the uneducated in a limiting position that as long as they remain uneducated their understanding of scientific theory and the method which was applied to reach it is going to be poor. This can only be changing by becoming educated enough to understand the language of the learned.

Another unfortunate consequence of being uneducated, myself certainly being included, is that one is forced to believe on a person’s credential’s their conclusions. For the true validity of the conclusions, unless they were made by such gross logical error that is apparent in even an incomprehensive representation, can only be refuted in the logical progression from data to theory. The logical progression must, as is evident in the word progression used to describe it, consist of an order of steps where to go from one to the next makes sense. An educated person would understand the language that is used to describe the steps taken and therefore test its logic. If an assumption was made and then conclusions made founded on that assumption, it is obvious that the conclusions are only as reliable as the assumption. If the assumption was faulty, then even perfectly logical progression that follows reaches a faulty conclusion. But the uneducated man only sees the ‘dumbed down’ version of this logic, and must assume that it is based on reliable assumptions and logical progression. And this assumption is based on the belief that the author of scientific conclusions ‘knows what he is talking about’, for he surely does not.

This opens the door for propaganda, the engines of which I believe to be foolishness and devilishness. Foolishness comes from the scientist who made an incorrect assumption or an error in logic and presents his faulty conclusions to the public without knowing they are faulty. This man is not to blame, because if we humans were really responsible for our foolishness we would experience a great deal more negative consequences than we do. As it is, we ‘get away with it’ because there are people keeping us in check even when we don’t know it, cleaning up our messes, and bearing our consequences. A shepherd is needed to keep us foolish sheep, and fortunately for us we have One. Very fortunately, indeed. So this foolish scientist is not the blame for the foolishness that he propagates to the public, the fault falls to his community that confirms or approves of his findings and therefore affirming that this man ‘knows what he is talking about’. If the entire scientific community is made up of fools that cannot recognize a faulty assumption or poor logic or would present an untested conclusion to a public that will accept their word on their word then as the uneducated masses we are screwed. And this may be the case, but I am going to hope that there are people investigating the universe who can see clearly and are after the truth.

Unfortunately, there are people who care more about proving what they want to prove over the truth for the sake of the truth. These people take the conclusion that they want to reach and work backwards to fit the data they have in front of them to it. Of course this is what is done when proving or disproving a hypothesis and good science includes this backward working to see if data fits the conclusion. Devilishness is introduced though when the data is altered to fit the hypothesis because it is not acceptable for the hypothesis to be false. I am not making the accusation of straight falsifying of data, but that unacceptable data would be selectively swept under the rug. I am also not assuming that all people who consider themselves Christians are innocent of this crime, for there are a number of fools who chose what to see and what to pretend is not there because they cannot reconcile the whole spectrum of what is seen to what they need to be true. I am still a fool and most likely do not see the whole spectrum, but I do not do it intentionally for I am confident that everything is consistent with the Bible and the true character of God, so that everything may be looked straight in the face and God still be real and the recorded Word of God still perfect.

When this devilishness of setting out to prove a certain hypothesis and doing making whatever unfounded assumptions necessary to reach it is introduced into science, it is a mark of the Enemy who wishes to spread lies and confusion, and when it is trumpeted into the masses to have it accepted on the word of the ones who ‘know what they are talking about’ it is propaganda. And unfortunately, it seems that this Enemy is ruling what is acceptable in the scientific community, anything that is not ‘acceptable’ is censored out of respected scientific journals and the information that trickles down to the public. When this method of selective truth is applied to the furthering of public opinion in regards to politics, we do not hesitate in calling it propaganda. I simply extend this accusation to what has been done to public beliefs about what is scientific “fact”. Personally I cannot wait until the prince of this world is cast down and we live in the principality of the Prince of peace.

If this interests you, check out this website: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
I wrote this rant (that is what this is, isn't it?) after reading it. Stuff like this is not allowed to reach the public's ears from the "credible" sources (aka the media or education, basically). For some to read it on a website like the one linked to, or to have it's information promoted by one like this means nothing. For some this is because these sites are not "credible" sources of information, and for some they have just already decided what to believe and to be told that it might not be true is shrugged aside as foolishness and the ones endorsing it fools. As for me the wisdom of the ones the world hails as wise is usually not trustworthy, for they tend to have their hands in too many pockets. Perhaps it is good to consider the wisdom of fools every now and then.

fiddling

Strum guitar chords in this order C#m, E, B, B4, A4, A. It sounds cool.

Why is the sky blue?

An inquisitive child’s question to their parents, or the pondering college student who wonders ‘Why not red?’ Someone who has studied the mechanics of light or heard through the grapevine what others have studied, myself being one of the latter, could tell you that the atmosphere absorbs and scatters the blue wavelengths of light and as it bounces around the air molecules that make up the atmosphere and make the sky appear blue. But does this answer why the sky is blue? I propose that this only answers how the sky looks blue, when it comes down to the heart of the question.

Let’s examine the difference between the words “how” and “why” as they apply here. The word why means ‘for what reason, cause, or purpose’. The word how means ‘by what means’. (Trust me; I looked it up on dictionary.com) Now, seeing as one of the meanings to the word why is ‘the cause of the result’, it is not improper grammar to ask why the sky is blue and answer with the cause, which is very truthfully atmospheric absorption. But to take the fact that the word is properly used when talking of the cause of the resulting blue color and to extend that to mean the reason or purpose is cheating. It makes no sense to apply the word in all manners of its definition when one manner of definition applies. For example, the word “ran” in the English language has many usages. Two in particular are to move or roll and to melt or flow. Let us consider a car driven by a man who has recently committed a robbery, which did not go unnoticed or unreported to the authorities, and is now being chased by the cops. In an effort to cut a corner more sharply and hopefully make more distance between him and his pursuers, the driver runs the car over the curb. Now (at this point we will depart from the narrative of the fleeing robber, use your imagination to finish the story, for the point of telling it was simply to use the word run in context) let’s consider the statement “The wheel of the car ran over the curb.” It is appropriate to apply the definition of moved/rolled in this context, but to take the fact that the wheel rolled over the curb and to now say that it is melting makes no sense. I argue that it is the same illogical situation when the cause of the blue sky is extended, without any reason than another definition of the word why, to mean the reason or purpose.

Now, what exactly did I mean by the ‘heart of the question’? I meant what is really being asked, at times despite the words used. People make fun of women all the time for often asking a question where the words chosen and the heart of the question are entirely different. Personally, I am alright with this, and aspire to answer the words asked and as well tend to the heart of what was asked, as is appropriate to the situation. And so I try very hard to see the heart of every question that I am asked. But that is an aside. The question that is being answered when one starts talking about atmospheric absorption is in the sense that the word “why” is interchangeable with the word “how”. For example, the answer to ‘why the lamp is broken’ is that ‘a baseball went through it’, and the answer to ‘why a baseball went through it’ is that ‘there was an errant throw made while the kids were playing baseball in the house’, it follows that the answer to ‘why the lamp is broken’ is that ‘an errant throw made while the kids were playing baseball in the house’. Up to this point the words “why” and the definition of how ‘by what means’ are completely interchangeable. But if we go further to “why were the kids playing baseball in the house, even when they were told not to’ and the answer something like ‘it was raining outside and they would rather be dry than wet’ or ‘they are disobedient punks and did it just because they were told not to’ the word “why” stops meaning ‘by what means’ and enters the realm of reason or purpose; it starts pertaining to the motivation behind it. And so, to respond with the theory of atmospheric absorption to the question ‘why is the sky blue’ and to really mean the reason, purpose, or motivation behind it is completely illogical. This is why I think the question should be rephrased to “How is the sky blue?”, or “By what means do our eyes perceive the atmosphere as blue?” To phrase it this way says more accurately what you really meant, if an answer about atmospheric absorption satisfies your curiosity.

I think that the true answer to why the sky is blue comes down along these lines of reason, purpose, and motivation, and is very alike to the motivation for behavior. As another example, when the question is asked ‘why did the man wash the dishes?’, the answer is not ‘he filled the sink with hot water and applied soap and friction with a sponge’. The answer to why is something like ‘he likes a clean apartment’, or ‘because he is supposed to’, or even that ‘he is embittered at his roommates for not cleaning and wants a way to rationalize feeling superior to them by cleaning their mess’. And I think that this other sense of the word “why” that speaks of purpose and motivation really does apply to the question ‘why is the sky blue?’ If there is a person that made the earth, the answer to why is something like ‘he felt like it’, or ‘in setting up the mechanics of refraction and absorption of light the way that they have been would produce beauty in the sky’. But this requires there to be a person behind it all, for only a person has motivations.

first post

I am by long standing habit an imitator. I pick out qualities in people or my understanding of God that I find virtuous or appealing and try to emulate them. I find it to be a very crippling habit, but I am experiencing freedom from it as I learn to walk in step with the truth that I have been set free to be myself. My real self, my second self; one far different and far fuller than the one I grew up knowing. And as this applies to what I write, I, without knowing any way to not, try hard to imitate the literary voice of an author I admire and respect. If you know me and my preferences well, or are familiar with his voice and I do a good job of faking it, then it should not be hard to tell who I mean. But perhaps as I write, even in the steps of trying to sound like someone I am not, I will find my own voice.