Cool Poem

“We have the nicest garbage man,

He empties out our garbage can.

He’s just as nice as he can be,

He always stops and talks to me.

My mother doesn’t like his smell,

But mother doesn’t know him well.”

President Dahlquist, the General Young Men’s President quoted this neat little poem at a fireside last night. Unfortunately, he didn’t state the author. It sounds like something Shel Silverstein would write. If anybody can confirm or deny this I’d love to give the author credit.

A Day With the Kids

Woke up early this morning and loaded the kids in the truck and headed off to Sand Rock in Alabama. Victoria needed a day off so she stayed home and just chilled. I never set my hopes too high when I take the kids out. My goals are typically stay safe, keep the kids happy and try to get some climbing in. Today I was able to get all three as well as another accomplished. Aaron and Rachel did very well and Noah did pretty respectable for only his second time on rope too. One thing I was really proud of is that Aaron completed most of the requirements for his Climbing Merit Badge.
After we’d climbed a couple routes we met a very nice couple who were riding the trails around Sand Rock on horseback. In response to my girls saying, look at the pretty horses, Daddy, they stepped down and graciously gave the kids a quick ride around on horseback.
Later on we met up with a couple Georgia firemen who were climbing. They put up with the kids and actually seemed to enjoy the company and I even got to top-rope a 5.10a.

Thy Kingdom Come

When I’m reading a book the author will frequently reference another book. Whether they just refer to the book, take quotes from it, or unapologetically have a section titled “books that I recommend” one way or another they peak my interest in reading another book while I am reading theirs. Sometimes, friends and family members will recommend books that sound similar to others that I have read. Occasionally, my attention is brought to certain book as a direct challenge to my current beliefs. A few time I’ve had books recommended as responses to blog posting of other books that I’ve read. After this new book is brought to my attention my typical response is to log onto my local library website and reserve it. Frequently I also reserve just about everything else by the same author. By the time the book arrives at the library and I get my email that it’s there I have forgotten which of the methods above prompted me to read it in the first place. Such is the case with the book I read yesterday and this morning.
I had a different than normal day at work. I was asked to meet a technician out at a subdivision and be available in case he had any concerns in building one of my jobs. Much if this time just involved me waiting in my truck and answering the occasional question. We also deviated from our normal Friday routine of trucking the kids over to Granny’s to spend the night. All of this allowed for more time to just sit back and relax with a good book.
I’m not sure how I found this book but I’m glad I did. The book is Thy Kingdom Come an Evangelical’s Lament How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America by Randal Balmer.
Balmer is an Evangelical Christian and a contributing Editor of Christianity Today. He has found a very comfortable balance of politics, religion, and science. I agree with most of his opinions about where the compromise should be made if there is a conflict among the three. I have a few differences with him in the area of public education but nothing that would stop us from having a very cordial discussion on the topic. Outside of that most of his opinions mirror my own, although Blamer expresses them far more eloquently than I could hope to do.
If for no other reason this book is worth the read for the detailed history of religion and politics in the new world. The chapter titled Where Have All the Baptists Gone details the formation of the religion by John Williams and follows it right up to the present, pointing out how dissimilar and directly contradictory they two seem.
Other chapters go on to detail the many positons taken by the religious right and how they seem to go against the position that you’d expect from Biblical teachings. Abortion, the environment, divorce homosexuality, capital punishment, torture etc, Balmer explains the Religious Right’s position, and hypocrisy, on all of these issues and more.
The best part of this book is not the specific accusations, but the perspective. Unlike other books Balmer is not an outsider with a grudge against a group that he in no longer affiliated. He is deeply involved in the Evangelical movement and is doing his best to call them to repentance and get them back on a course that he feels is much closer to the true teaching of the gospel. Unlike Strobel’s book Balmer does not attempt to make his points through statistics or through science. His most frequent source used to criticize the movement is the New Testament and the teaching of Jesus Christ. I like his strategy and Blamer uses it as skillfully as I would expect from a Yale Divinity School professor.
As he points out in the first paragraphs of his conclusion, most of those who really need to listen to and respond to this book will likely resort to claims that Balmer is not really a Christian and attempt to “kick him out of the club”, so to speak. This is very unfortunate. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, Blamer teaches us that as a Country we still have a lot of work to do to truly apply the teaching of Christ in our lives.

The Case for a Creator part II

In the past year I have read two books that had the premise of providing proof that the universe has a Creator. Although I took issue with many of his conclusions The Language of God by Francis Collins was hands down the better of the two books. In The Case for a Creator it is obvious that Lee Strobel set out with his conclusion and then set out to prove it.

Collins is a scientist and understands the definition of evidence and the logical process that science follows. Strobel doesn’t seem to understand the scientific method or what constitutes evidence. He makes generalizations about atheists being nihilistic and immoral without any evidence to support these claims. He demonstrates his lack of understanding of evolution, natural selection and Darwinism by treating the three words as synonyms. They are not.

What Strobel seems to believe is proof of God is simply gaps in our current understanding. By pointing out disputed concerns in current evolutionary theory Strobel asserts that scientists are in disagreement as to the entire process. Nothing could be further from the truth. Strobel also quotes statements made by Carl Sagan in his book Cosmos and then shows that scientist disagree with his conclusions. He didn’t bother to point out that Sagan himself had gone against that same theory years ago. At the very least Strobel is not working with the most current information. At the worst, he is maliciously mining for details that are seem more damning to science without any further research. I seriously doubt many of Strobel’s readers would be aware of this. In fact, I believe he was counting on their ignorance.

Strobel has several chapters devoted to what he, and others, call the fine tuning of the universe; the privileged planet, the evidence of biological information systems, the evidence of physics, the evidence of cosmology, and the evidence of consciousness. Far from being evidence of a creator these chapters build upon each other to show that Strobel has no understanding of the anthropic principle. The fact that humans exist and can have a discussion about whether or not there is a creator proves that we must have consciousness. The fact that we have consciousness proves that we are alive. This in turn proves that we live on a planet which can support life, which in turn proves that we are in a solar system that can create planets. All this proves that were are in a universe that is capable of creating planets. As an outside observer placing a bet on whether life would be created if a random universe were created then this series of events would seem rather improbable. But the fact that we do exist only proves that, no matter how improbable, it has happened at least once. For instance, What if I were to make a prediction that the next time I go drive through my subdivision I will see a green Ferrari with yellow tires? On its face these seems to a very improbable event. However, what if I own a green Ferrari with yellow tires and I take this car out on my search? Can I step out of the car, look back and claim that the existence of that car is still improbable? No I can’t. The same holds true in the Universe we have to take into account that we do exist and so calculating how improbable our existence is proves nothing either way. Strobel’s 100+ pages dedicated to his misunderstanding of the anthropic principle do no better at proving a creator than my green Ferrari does.
I suppose that those who are true believers of Young-Earth creationism would simply add their "amen" to Strobel's book. I felt no such urge. For the record I enjoy reading books of faith. I just have a problem when faith oversteps its bounds and attempts to manipulate science. Many creationist would claim that scientist are attempting to destroy god. There are a few who do exactly that. However, the vast majority of scientists simply feel that religion is a matter of faith and is irrelevant to science. Personally, I think that most religions would be better off taking this same strategy with science. It is simply irrelevant to matters of faith.

Cool Website

I just wanted to let people know about a cool new website that is just getting off of the ground. The Encyclopedia of Life www.eol.org
The goal of the site is to have a page like the sample page here on polar bears about every single type of living thing on Earth. As an amateur science nut and a father of four I can see visiting this site frequently to satisfy my own curiosity as well as to assist the kids with homework and projects.
At first they wanted to do only living species but decided to eventually expand to include extinct species as well. Their thinking was that if they didn't have T-Rex included that they would loose the 8-year old male demographic.

The Case for a Creator

I just started reading one of the books that was recommended to me by my Young-Earth Creationist friend. The Case for a Creator is actually Lee Strobel's third book in the series however, it was the first one that the library had available.
I've read the first four chapters and so far I haven't seen anything that approaches the goal of the book's subtitle, A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That points Toward God. The books that I've been reading lately are science based books attempting to explain or disprove the concept of religion and reason. These books have been easy to follow because they do their best to stick to logical rules and orders. The very concept of emotional arguments are avoided for the most part. This book is dramatically different in that it is not written by a scientist, it is written by a journalist. Unlike scientists, journalists don't have to make a solid case backed up by evidence. It is enough for them to throw out several inconsistencies in a story, find some high profile "experts"to testify for your side and suddenly you have throw enough doubt on your subject that you have a story that will sell your newspaper. Strobel is using this strategy very well. I don't mean for this to sound like I am dismissing his message just because he's a journalist. That is not the case. I'm simply pointing out the differences in his rhetorical style from that to which I've grown accustomed.
Strobel points to a list of one hundred scientist who have doubts about evolution. On its face this may appear to be a solid case against. They point out some valid gaps in our understanding of the process. The insinuation with this list seems to be that an increasing number of scientists are abandoning Darwin's theories in favor of something else. I would recommend that anyone convinced by this list of 100 scientist also check out this list of scientist who still support Darwin's Theories. The catch with this list is that in order to join it your first name had to be Steve and they still got thousands more than Strobel's list.
List is the second book in a row that I've read that addresses Stephen J. Gould's idea of NOMA, Non-Overlapping MAgisteria. This is the idea that science and religion exist in ven diagrams that look like two non overlapping circles. Some questions are supposed to be answered by reliegion and others by science. As long as you use the right field to answer each question you will not have any paradoxes. The truth is that there is a significant overlap. Dawkins suggests that we chuck religion all together. So far, Strobel seems to be in the opposite corner preaching that we chuck science. Personally I don't think that either answer is the way to go. Rarely in life are things such a perfect dichotomy.
So far Strobel's strategy seems to be to simply appealing to ignorance. He has presented no evidence per se. He just points to gaps in our current understanding and implies that God fills those gaps.
I guess why I'm having trouble with this book so far is that his stated goal in the subtitle is a logical search for scientific evidence and so far I haven't seen any. One hundred scientist who disagree with evolution is not evidence. It's an appeal to popularity. Finding gaps in the current understanding is just an appeal to ignorance. By subtitling his book, A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God, Stobel accepted the rules of science and should stick to them if he wants to be taken seriously. Had his subtitle been something like, A Journalist Details his Faithful Pursuit of God, then I would not hold him to the same scientific standard.
In the spirit of giving him a fair shake I will continue to read this book and give a complete review when I finish.

Misinterpreting Parables

When I was reading the God Delusion, Dawkins pointed out the arrogance of many Christian religions. One of the examples given was the Jehovah’s Witness belief that only 144,000 will make it to heaven. He also points to one Baptist website that asks for volunteers from the “tribulation saints” to continue hosting and updating the site after the Rapture. Both groups arrogantly believe that they will be in the chosen group. I decided to keep my eyes open for similar examples of this type of arrogance in LDS circles.
I didn’t have to wait long. Yesterday in Sunday School we were studying the parables in Luke 15, the parable of the lost sheep, the woman who lost the coin, and the prodigal’s son. After discussing them for half an hour it occurred to me that with one notable exception everybody who spoke up was relating to the wrong character in the story. In the lost sheep story they were relating to the shepherd, in the coin story they were relating to the woman, and in the prodigal’s son story they were relating to the father or the good brother. All of these perspectives are not what Christ intended. In Luke 15:2 the reason for the parables is clearly established. The Scribes and Pharisees are accusing him of sinning by eating with sinners. He gives all three parable to explain why He is eating with the sinners. Christ is the shepherd and we are the one lost sheep. Christ is the woman and we are the lost coin. Christ is the prodigal and we are the son who fell away.
This struck a personal note with me because for years I resented the parable of the prodigal’s son. I always felt like I was the son who didn’t fall away and nobody was rejoicing for me. Those around me who had more obvious struggles with the church were celebrated while I was just consistently doing what I thought I was supposed to without any recognition. It was only after hearing a talk by Jeffery R. Holland in conference a few years ago that I realized that I was being arrogant and assuming that I was the “good” brother. Unless you are without sin then the only way to interpret all of these parables is as the one who fell away. If you have been looking at these parables from the perspective of the shepherd, the woman or the prodigal, seriously ask yourself if you feel qualified to step into the role that Christ was clearly saying was His.

The God Delusion

My review of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins

Several years ago in the mist of the whole "Harry Potter books are satanic" craze I decided that rather than base my opinion of the books on the hearsay of others that I should find out for myself. I have since read all of the series and do not share the opinions of the doomsayers. It is with this same attitude that I decided to read Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9-11, the Oklahoma City bombings and other religiously based irrational acts Dawkins’ book gives us many highly thought provoking questions to consider.
Dawkins’ expertise is in the field of biology. For decades he has been somewhat of a science superstar in England. In my opinion Dawkins has done as much for the field of biology as Carl Sagan did for astronomy. This book is best when it focuses on the evolutionary causes and effects of human and animal behaviors. Chapter after chapter details the likely origins of many of our social behaviors, including religion. Far from being overly bogged down in scientific jargon and Latin genus species names his decriptions and analogies of how natural selection shapes the world are amazingly clear and easy to follow. If you were to read this book looking for a proof that God did not design the universe it is likely that these chapters would confirm that belief.
Focusing primarily on Islam, in the next chapters Dawkins creates a very graphic picture of our modern world. He details many archaic laws and traditions that are based on religious dogma of Islam. Example after example show that, at least in practice, Islam is far from the religion of peace that many apologists assert. It was hard not to be repulsed by the influence of this religion. These chapters seemed very similar to stories that I’ve read in books by Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity.
If any Christian conservative were singing Dawkins’ praises after the sections on Islam they would find them quickly rethinking that when he continues on to Christianity to decry the offenses committed in the name of Christ. Deliberately avoiding the cliché references to the crusades he paints an equally chilling picture of what life would be like under a Christian theocracy. Admittedly most offense are not to the level of the Taliban but, Dawkins believes that this is only because Christianity has not yet gained the complete government control that the Taliban had.
Many scientist are content to accept that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisterial”. Meaning that science should not attempt to prove or disprove matters of faith and religions should not be attempting to decide matters of science. For the most part I share this philosophy. As I have pointed out in other posts the problem typically comes when religion and science are not content to let each other co-exist in peace. When a religious person take offense at the age of the Earth posted on signs at the Grand Canyon and attempts to get the geologists to change the signs to reflect an age consistent with a literal interpretation on the Old Testament you have a conflict. There are multiple such conflicts, the most inflammatory of these being abortion. The point is that there will always be at least some conflict no matter how hard the parties try to avoid it. Dawkins suggests that the only way to truly and permanently avoid this conflict is to abandon religion all together. Dawkins and I parted ways here, if only slightly. Although I felt that many of his explanations were very persuasive I still think that he is attempting to apply logical proofs to matters of faith. Faith is, by definition, illogical. Spoken like a strict positivist Dawkins make the claim that if something is not testable by empirical means then it, in this case religion, should be avoided. Personally, I think that Dawkins has not looked at the other edge of that same sword. A person of faith could just as well claim that because science does require evidence then it should be avoided with the same zeal as Dawkins would avoid religion.
In spite of the title and the examples that I’ve stated I did not feel as other reviews have that the book was nasty and mean-spirited. Quite the opposite is true. I have no doubt that Dawkins wrote this book with a sincere heart and a genuine concern for the future of the human race. It took me months to read the book because I wanted to really give it a far shake and not just a cursory read. After I finished reading it through I checked out a CD copy and listened to it at work. Dawkins read it himself so the original feeling an inflection that he, the author, intended was represented. He is British and those who think that British accents sound snobby will not be disappointed. I have never felt this way so I did not get that at all. In fact his gentle voice made me at ease and in many ways reassured me that what I had read earlier was not meant in a gruff tone at all.
Although I disagree with some of his more extreme conclusions I really enjoyed this book. That being said, I would not recommend it to anybody who is very sensitive about having their beliefs challenged, because it definitely will. The very fact that I have been reading it has made for a few awkward moments with friends and family members. Unlike many I do not have to agree 100% with an author in order to give his work a fair hearing. As uncomfortable as they are to hear, many of the points raised in the book will not be easy to ignore, nor should they be.

Closed-Minded Liberal

I am a closed-minded liberal. Or at least that is what I was accused of recently. I tend to take any criticism very personally regardless of the source. So resisting the childish urge to ad hominem attack I looked inward to see if there was any truth to the matter. I’ll break the accusation into its two parts and analyze them both separately. Am I closed-minded? Am I a liberal? Today I’d like to address my alleged closed-mindedness.


If I were to find any evidence to support that I am closed-minded this would be a very damning blow for me personally. To me a closed-minded person is one who restricts the information that they allow into their mind. Or when some stray bit of information that they disagree with makes it into their mind they categorically renounce it without subjecting it to any internal debate at all. I have always prided myself in being very open-minded. I absolutely enjoy exposing myself to essays, books, movies and art that presents opposing views to my own. A cursory scan of my previous posts here and posts on www.celestialfamily.org will show that I pretty much will read anything if I feel there is any chance that it will bring me to a better understanding of my own opinions or at least a better understanding of why the other side may feel the way they do.
There was a time in my life, not all that long ago, when I must now confess that I was very closed minded in both matters of religion and politics. Whenever a point that contradicted my faith was brought up I simply resorted to the standard defensive tool kit employed by most apologists. “The truth with always have its persecutors.” “That scripture is only figurative. You’re taking it out of context.” “Well, consider the source.” etc. I now understand the logical problems with these responses, but they sufficed me at the time. I mentally moved the idea off the table and would consider no further debate.
Thanks to an incident a few years ago, I believe that I have shed many of those apologetic reflexes. In fact many would, and have, claimed that I have gone too far to understand the other side.
While preparing for a new church assignment to teach my son’s Sunday School class I concentrated on memorizing the 13 Articles of Faith of the LDS church. These have been modified slightly since I first learned them as a child and I wanted to make sure I was teaching the students the most up to date versions. Most of the modifications were relatively harmless adaptation to more modern language. Shortly after I had committed them to memory the Church magazine, the Ensign, published the Wentworth letter. This is a letter written by Joseph Smith to a Chicago journalist detailing some of the beliefs of the LDS church. It is also, according to LDS church history, the origin of the Articles of Faith. I was glad to see the letter published and I looked forward to taking it to my class so they could see the Articles of Faith in the form that I had memorized them when I was their age. However, to my shock and dismay I found that the article had revised this historical document to reflect the newer versions of the articles. How can they do that? This was a historical document. It had been published in multiple newspapers at the time.
In a quest to find a copy of the original Articles of Faith I scanned conference talks on lds.org. My goal was to find some other reference that read as I had remembered them. I became very disillusioned when I found talks that were thirty-years old and, like the Wentworth letter in the Ensign, had been updated to reflect the more recent forms of the Articles of Faith. At that moment I had a chilling image of the “historians” in Orwell's 1984 revising and updating the newspapers to “newspeak”. Frustrated I shared my concerns with my wife and she lovingly agreed to help me sort this out.
Until I went to Victoria I had confined my search to official LDS sites. Like a good Mormon is supposed to I, avoided anything that might even have a chance of saying something “anti-Mormon.” Victoria did not feel this need to stick to the official sites and supplied me with site after site that showed the multiple progressions of the Articles of Faith. I also learned that there were originally 14 articles rather than 13 and that Joseph was not the original author of them. Since I now had evidence that the church was polishing up its history, from that moment on I became obsessed with understanding the “real” history of the church and not just the sanitized version that is put into our lesson manuals. Since then I take everything I hear from the pulpit with more than a few grains of salt. This new open attitude towards studying theology has caused me to grow spiritually in way that I never have before. I credit Victoria for showing me that it was okay to look outside the narrow box that the official sites and books. Those were the first steps on my journey towards making my logical brain deal with and make sense of the paradoxes that were before me when it came to church doctrine and behavior.

I share the previous story not to challenge anybody else’s faith or to suggest that you should take the same path. I intended simply to illustrate my progression from being relatively closed-minded to a more open-minded approach to studying this subject. I have no doubt that many members of the church would not support my extra-curricular studies. Although it has not been easy, it has been a very stimulating and uplifting journey. Others would likely not receive the same results.

It has been my experience that when somebody accuses me of a certain trait that they are projecting a fear that they may harbor that same trait. High profile cases like the homophobic Ted Haggard’s encounter with a male prostitute just reinforce this in my mind. Granted I don’t think that this is a universal law. However, I have seen the correlation too often to write it off completely. A previous supervisor accused me of being too defensive about everything. I agreed with him because I realize that I get very defensive sometimes. Later on another coworker commented that this supervisor had accused him of being defensive too. Recognizing that these correlations are not necessarily causations, I have simply seen too many instances where people parrot the same criticisms they are accused of in attacking others.
The recent issue that caused me to be called a closed-minded liberal was a debate on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism and Biblical Literalism. As a result of the discussion I dismissed both of these on the grounds that they are not supported by evidence. My accuser then went on to dismiss the work of millions of geologists, biologists, anthropologists, astronomers, and physicists as just being part of the liberal conspiracy to conceal the truth about God. He quoted one physicist and one journalist as his basis for his beliefs. My immediate response was to stop by the library and put every book by both men on hold so I could read them and evaluate the claims on their merits. I thought about challenging my accuser to read an equally extreme book against his position. In retrospect I think that this rhetorical name calling was not used logically. I would suspect that he throws out the closed-minded liberal argument against anyone who does not mirror his own opinions. Considering his beliefs he must use this defense rather often. After considering the event I just wonder what else I could have done to show that disagreement does not equate to closed-mindedness. I heard his arguments and asked to read the evidence. Is there possibly a way I could have been more open-minded to his comments?

I share these events and revelations only as an attempt at introspection. I do not want anything in my character that impedes my relationships with my fellow beings. How can I get better? If I am indeed closed-minded, I have not dismissed that option, what steps can I take beside what I have been already doing?

Look for a future introspective post to evaluate whether or not I am guilty as charged on the remaining count of being a liberal.

Weird

Yesterday, Victoria and I were having a discussion about the day’s events. She was sharing her experiences about the 100+ educational videos that she’d checked out from the library. I was telling her about my apheresis appointment and giving her a breakdown of some of the conversations that I’d had with coworkers. Then out of the blue she asked if I thought that other people think we are weird. I think what brought it up is that several times in the past couple of months we’ve gotten strange responses when we’ve told other people little facts about or family. The short answer to her question is simply, “Yes, Absolutely”. If by weird she means not in the same rut and pattern as most of the rest of the world I gladly and unapologetically proclaim my family’s weirdness. Here are just a few of the many things that make us weird:

We don’t have cable and we can’t pick up anything but one PBS station at home and everybody is cool with it.

The only programs we watch with any regularity at all are Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs.

The kids actually fight over whose turn it is to pick the next TV program and both options are educational; Cyber-chase vs. Eyewitness.

Our 12-year old has well defined political, social and religious views that are different than his parents’.

I have read more non-fiction books this week than I have watched football games in my entire life.

I have no desire to ever play a fantasy game of any sport.

On vacations we are known to stop and take pictures of cemeteries for hours.

Victoria wears no jewelry except for a wedding ring and an occasional necklace that we picked up on the Navaho reservation that may have set us back $15.00.

When she’s just killing time Victoria will do elaborate Photoshop layouts of family pictures, sometimes not even our family.

When I’m just killing time I like to surf youtube.com for philosophical and political debates.

We both enjoy discussing the hard questions about life that most others simply avoid.

Our 6-year old correctly uses introductory words to his sentences like theoretically, presumably, and technically.

Our 9-year old would rather get a blank book for a journal than a book that already had words in it. She is a published author and spends one week each summer learning how to improve her writing ability at a local college.

We have a medium sized three bedroom house but on a typical night all four kids sleep in the same twin bed in the boy’s room.

I’ve had calls at work from the kids to remind me to pick up some tofu for dinner. “Remember to get two packages ‘cuz we like to double up on the portions.”

I could continue on ad nausea. My only point here is that I would not change one thing that I’ve mentioned. My concern is that many if not all of these issues may distance us from other members of our family and friends.
People have a natural tendency to be drawn to things that are similar to them. Perhaps an acquaintance of ours who loves football, online poker and never misses an episode of the favorite soap opera might understandably feel a little bit hesitant to try to get to know us. I fully recognize that this is a two-way street. I too would be at somewhat of a loss as to what to talk about with such a person. In spite of what each of us might perceive as weird I think it is best that all parties continue the attempt. The illusion that our difference matter more than our common humanity can be very dangerous and isolating.