Thursday, October 28, 2010
Francis loves me
Sometimes I think that Francis Chan loves me more than just about anyone I know. He loves me enough to wake me up to reality. (Reading "Forgotten God")
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
God's love, our suffering
Saw this quote from an acquintance on facebook. I liked it alot.
"Perhaps we are the objects of suffering we do not understand because we are the objects of a love we do not understand."
"Perhaps we are the objects of suffering we do not understand because we are the objects of a love we do not understand."
Monday, October 25, 2010
God and Science (2)
What lay ahead for Darwin's theory? While naturalists cheered on the Miller experiments of the 1952, another puzzle was being unearthed that would open questions far bigger than any that Miller's experiments could purport to solve. Scientists were just beginning to realize the significance of a nucleic acid they would coin "DNA".
DNA, we found, was the stuff of life. It contained genetic information, without which, reproduction, and life, could not be possible. "What's the big deal?" you ask. The problem lies in how information arrives in a strictly naturalistic paradigm. Without intelligence, we are relegated to chance and law. There's much to unpack here, but just think about the problem in principle. If merely chance is at work, we would expect the building blocks of DNA to be arranged randomly- no repetition, no rhyme or reason, simply randomness.
KHFALKSDHFKSDNFKJNSDFSDFASKDBA SJKDFHFSLKH D SDAFJH SDFH AH
Well, perhaps there are laws that helped align the information? Well, if there are laws at work what we would expect would be repeating segments of information. What the biological determinism would render would be simply repeated instances.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Or, coupled with chance:
AHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHB
However, information is of a different strain entirely. What we find in DNA is more like this:
HELLO, MY NAME IS FRED.
Actually, it's more like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Think on this question- where else do we find information? What is required for information? When you see a note that says, "Hey, Honey. I'll be in late tonight", what comes to mind? How the wind might have blown the ink on to the paper? Not quite. We know that someone with intelligence has engineered our note. Without even digging into biology, we know that it's impossible even in principle for information to arise without intelligence.
Had we stopped in 1859, we'd still be entrenched with a clean and simple Darwinian gradualism. And yet this is where scientific progress has led us...
DNA, we found, was the stuff of life. It contained genetic information, without which, reproduction, and life, could not be possible. "What's the big deal?" you ask. The problem lies in how information arrives in a strictly naturalistic paradigm. Without intelligence, we are relegated to chance and law. There's much to unpack here, but just think about the problem in principle. If merely chance is at work, we would expect the building blocks of DNA to be arranged randomly- no repetition, no rhyme or reason, simply randomness.
KHFALKSDHFKSDNFKJNSDFSDFASKDBA SJKDFHFSLKH D SDAFJH SDFH AH
Well, perhaps there are laws that helped align the information? Well, if there are laws at work what we would expect would be repeating segments of information. What the biological determinism would render would be simply repeated instances.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Or, coupled with chance:
AHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHBAHB
However, information is of a different strain entirely. What we find in DNA is more like this:
HELLO, MY NAME IS FRED.
Actually, it's more like the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Think on this question- where else do we find information? What is required for information? When you see a note that says, "Hey, Honey. I'll be in late tonight", what comes to mind? How the wind might have blown the ink on to the paper? Not quite. We know that someone with intelligence has engineered our note. Without even digging into biology, we know that it's impossible even in principle for information to arise without intelligence.
Had we stopped in 1859, we'd still be entrenched with a clean and simple Darwinian gradualism. And yet this is where scientific progress has led us...
God and Science
I don't believe in God, I believe in science.
Thus goes the worn line suggesting that somehow the study of the material world is negating the case for an immaterial being. Of course, the irony in the last statement is thick. I think, though, that the irony approaches absurdity as we look at just a brief overview of a few different branches.
-Biology: In 1859, a pinnacle was reached as the naturalistic worldview was completed. Naturalists now had a creation story that could rival any account from Genesis. In the words of Richard Dawkins, it was Darwin who "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
However, since then, this creation story has taken some unexpected turns... leaving many to render it improbable, some, impossible.
Thus goes the worn line suggesting that somehow the study of the material world is negating the case for an immaterial being. Of course, the irony in the last statement is thick. I think, though, that the irony approaches absurdity as we look at just a brief overview of a few different branches.
-Biology: In 1859, a pinnacle was reached as the naturalistic worldview was completed. Naturalists now had a creation story that could rival any account from Genesis. In the words of Richard Dawkins, it was Darwin who "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
However, since then, this creation story has taken some unexpected turns... leaving many to render it improbable, some, impossible.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Laments from an ENTP/INTP
*Note: If you don't know anything about Myers-Briggs, this may be a tough post for you.
I'm frustrated with the fact that I'm a blend of ENTP and INTP. If you want to know more about me than most, read this summary of ENTPs or this summary of INTPs.
I just feel like follow-through is really hard. For every hundred ideas I have, I maybe follow-through on three. It just seems like the times I actually do decide to do something, I am fighting uphill while thinking and analyzing are downhill ventures that I will default to and gravitate towards if left unchecked.
I sometimes get locked up in my head, completely oblivious to the present moment and all that is actually going on around me. This is when I get into "I" mode. Honestly, how I am doing depends very little on what's going on in my world externally. It's very hard for me to get out of my head and just be where I'm at.
This is why some of my best, happiest moments are socially related or in a new or beautiful place. These situations jar me out of my head and into the moment.
This is why I'm so impressed by J's I think. I see their follow-through and I admire and want that ability to line things up and get stuff done!
I've heard people tell me that they wish they had the penetrating analytical mind or depth of thought that I have. They don't realize that they have blessings too- and I have my own curses...
I'm frustrated with the fact that I'm a blend of ENTP and INTP. If you want to know more about me than most, read this summary of ENTPs or this summary of INTPs.
I just feel like follow-through is really hard. For every hundred ideas I have, I maybe follow-through on three. It just seems like the times I actually do decide to do something, I am fighting uphill while thinking and analyzing are downhill ventures that I will default to and gravitate towards if left unchecked.
I sometimes get locked up in my head, completely oblivious to the present moment and all that is actually going on around me. This is when I get into "I" mode. Honestly, how I am doing depends very little on what's going on in my world externally. It's very hard for me to get out of my head and just be where I'm at.
This is why some of my best, happiest moments are socially related or in a new or beautiful place. These situations jar me out of my head and into the moment.
This is why I'm so impressed by J's I think. I see their follow-through and I admire and want that ability to line things up and get stuff done!
I've heard people tell me that they wish they had the penetrating analytical mind or depth of thought that I have. They don't realize that they have blessings too- and I have my own curses...
Top Three from Desiring God
Here are what I felt were the top three talks of the Desiring God Conference. The first was a "main speaker" from Saturday night. The last two were actually from the afternoon session on Friday. For everyone: I'd recommend the first two. For anyone interested in social justice issues of any sort, I'd strongly recommend the third.
Francis: A convicting, spirit-filled kick in the pants about loving others and the life of the mind. Why are you reading? Why are you learning? Is it for the love of God and others? Is it to puff yourself up? Is it to bludgeon those less learned than you? Like Francis seems to do so easily, in this talk he makes me reconsider some of the fundamental aspects of my life.
Tullian: This was an afternoon talk about the gospel. He addresses gospel-centeredness and then says we need to go further to see how the gospel addresses motivation, identity, and idolatry. Towards the beginning it's very pastoral and objective but by the end... he is preaching the gospel.
Kevin: This was an afternoon session that addressed something that I've been thinking about: namely, what is the mission of the church? He talks about the priority of the church especially with regards to social justice and other issues. If you're interested or involved in social justice issues, this is very pertinent. As I've been getting some "emergent" vibes from the program I'm involved with (Urban Homeworks), this caught me at just the right time.
Francis: A convicting, spirit-filled kick in the pants about loving others and the life of the mind. Why are you reading? Why are you learning? Is it for the love of God and others? Is it to puff yourself up? Is it to bludgeon those less learned than you? Like Francis seems to do so easily, in this talk he makes me reconsider some of the fundamental aspects of my life.
Tullian: This was an afternoon talk about the gospel. He addresses gospel-centeredness and then says we need to go further to see how the gospel addresses motivation, identity, and idolatry. Towards the beginning it's very pastoral and objective but by the end... he is preaching the gospel.
Kevin: This was an afternoon session that addressed something that I've been thinking about: namely, what is the mission of the church? He talks about the priority of the church especially with regards to social justice and other issues. If you're interested or involved in social justice issues, this is very pertinent. As I've been getting some "emergent" vibes from the program I'm involved with (Urban Homeworks), this caught me at just the right time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)