I have thought about this song over the last week, and am convinced that its opening line is characteristic of the antagonism to the apostles seen in Protestants, particularly those of independent mindsets.
Even my own Presbyterian hymnal completely misquoted the verse that should come to mind, which is Ephesians 2:20. It states that the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."
I found these lyrics on the website cyberhymnal--at least there it has the consistency to quote a passage from 1 Corinthians 3, which says, "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." Of course, that context is contrasting Christ with "wood" or "hay" or "stubble".
The question is, when we think it's honoring God to say that only Jesus matters, are we denigrating the means through which He works? Methinks YES.
Of course, this song brings up other thoughts about the unity of the church, the basis of which has been also heavily on my mind as of late. Overall, I read the lyrics and see some good things, and some good intentions that have gone awry in this world, as the ages have gone on......
The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.
She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.
The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.
Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!
’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.
Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.
O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!
Monday, September 3, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
What suicide really is...
I must admit that there has never been anyone close to me who has actually committed suicide, but the concept has fascinated me. No, I am not talking about gory scenes in abandoned rooms so much as I am thinking of certain individuals who had so much going for them but they ended up squandering their gifts. This more protracted form of suicide is pervasive in our day and age, and is something from which one should always run. Of course, there are also the famous people who have committed suicide and the public is well aware of them, whose deaths generally sadden and frustrate the world.
Last night I came across such a jaw-dropping quote on this matter from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy that I have to cite it in full. Read on, but please be ready for some serious analysis of this world:
....Grave moderns told us that we must not even say "poor fellow", of a man who had blown his brains out, since he was an enviable person, and had only blown them out because of their exceptional excellence. Mr. William Archer even suggested that in the golden age there would be penny-in-the-slot machines, by which a man could kill himself for a penny. In all this I found myself utterly hostile to many who called themselves liberal and humane. Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take and interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot by bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom is death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the crossroads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man's crime is different from other crimes-for it makes even crimes impossible.
Last night I came across such a jaw-dropping quote on this matter from G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy that I have to cite it in full. Read on, but please be ready for some serious analysis of this world:
....Grave moderns told us that we must not even say "poor fellow", of a man who had blown his brains out, since he was an enviable person, and had only blown them out because of their exceptional excellence. Mr. William Archer even suggested that in the golden age there would be penny-in-the-slot machines, by which a man could kill himself for a penny. In all this I found myself utterly hostile to many who called themselves liberal and humane. Not only is suicide a sin, it is the sin. It is the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take and interest in existence; the refusal to take the oath of loyalty to life. The man who kills a man, kills a man. The man who kills himself, kills all men; as far as he is concerned he wipes out the world. His act is worse (symbolically considered) than any rape or dynamite outrage. For it destroys all buildings: it insults all women. The thief is satisfied with diamonds; but the suicide is not: that is his crime. He cannot by bribed, even by the blazing stones of the Celestial City. The thief compliments the things he steals, if not the owner of them. But the suicide insults everything on earth by not stealing it. He defiles every flower by refusing to live for its sake. There is not a tiny creature in the cosmos at whom is death is not a sneer. When a man hangs himself on a tree, the leaves might fall off in anger and the birds fly away in fury: for each has received a personal affront. Of course there may be pathetic emotional excuses for the act. There often are for rape, and there almost always are for dynamite. But if it comes to clear ideas and the intelligent meaning of things, then there is much more rational and philosophic truth in the burial at the crossroads and the stake driven through the body, than in Mr. Archer's suicidal automatic machines. There is a meaning in burying the suicide apart. The man's crime is different from other crimes-for it makes even crimes impossible.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
How a Kinase Kills
Dead bodies are strewn across hospitals, and why?
Some philosophers attribute this to God's wrath for our first parents' choice of eating forbidden fruit.
Others might call this the harsh reality of a universe without plan or purpose.
Other hybrids of these extremes exist.
But that is neither here nor there to this blog. What we want to know is the how of death, on a molecular level. This may sound like chest-pounding propaganda, but my first exposé will be about the set of molecules that interested me during my Ph.D. studies.
Browsing the most recent contents of Nature, Science, and Cell, I realized that a new discovery has been made in that field. Call it coincidental, but I am back in my old stomping grounds, reading about my former favorite molecule, Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase.
So what is PI3K, and why should you care?
Like all kinases, PI3K's job is to add a phosphate molecule to some other molecule. As the name implies, PI3K puts a phosphate on the number 3 position of phosphoinositides.
What is a phosphoinositide, and why should you care?
It's a lipid--think about grease; no, not that tawdry musical with John Travolta, or McDonald's. We're talking about cells here, and lipids are found predominantly in the membranes of cells.
Ok--so phosphate molecules are being placed on lipids that are on the membranes of cells. Why should you care?
Physically speaking, YOU don't care, but some molecules do. For, you see, phosphate molecules are highly charged, and you know what people say about true love. Just as the air can be charged with romance, a phosphate's charge can attract new "mates" to the membrane of a cell. What does that do, and why should you care?
This photo is out of date, but I drew it for a publication, and I can't resist including it here. In this circumstances, PI3K is composed of two subunits, labeled as p85 and p110. But you should get the picture---many molecules are drawn to the membrane for a molecular conversation. Overall, that conversation has a pretty uniform message--grow, reproduce, and SURVIVE!
In this case, T cells receive messages through their receptors for foreign molecules, and one chief carrier pigeon is our friend, Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase, which makes those little plus signs (that signify the phosphorylated lipids), which starts the conversation between many molecules whose names are immaterial to this discussion. But again, the message is important---cells are told to grow, divide, and survive.
Now, if we think about what is so bad about growing, reproducing and surviving, our thoughts may turn to apocalyptic fears of the world's sustainability, but again, we are talking about cells and organisms.
The real problem behind too much growth and reproduction on an organismal level is, of course, cancer.
That word, which may be more stigma than understanding to some of my readers, is simply uncontrolled growth of cells. As scientists began looking for mutations in genes that were common to cancer patients, it was a beautiful but tragic fact that molecules related to PI3K were often found to be the culprits at hand in many instances of cancer. This image shows a breast cancer cell-dividing rapidly, which in this particular cancer, has over a 50% chance of being mutated in the PI3K pathway.
In my next installment, I will try to explain what the new findings are, and why they are interesting.
Hopefully this introduction will be enough to chew on for now. But the method to the madness is hopefully clear now.
Until then, I remain as always, your obedient servant.
Some philosophers attribute this to God's wrath for our first parents' choice of eating forbidden fruit.
Others might call this the harsh reality of a universe without plan or purpose.
Other hybrids of these extremes exist.
But that is neither here nor there to this blog. What we want to know is the how of death, on a molecular level. This may sound like chest-pounding propaganda, but my first exposé will be about the set of molecules that interested me during my Ph.D. studies.
Browsing the most recent contents of Nature, Science, and Cell, I realized that a new discovery has been made in that field. Call it coincidental, but I am back in my old stomping grounds, reading about my former favorite molecule, Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase.
So what is PI3K, and why should you care?
Like all kinases, PI3K's job is to add a phosphate molecule to some other molecule. As the name implies, PI3K puts a phosphate on the number 3 position of phosphoinositides.
What is a phosphoinositide, and why should you care?
It's a lipid--think about grease; no, not that tawdry musical with John Travolta, or McDonald's. We're talking about cells here, and lipids are found predominantly in the membranes of cells.
Ok--so phosphate molecules are being placed on lipids that are on the membranes of cells. Why should you care?
Physically speaking, YOU don't care, but some molecules do. For, you see, phosphate molecules are highly charged, and you know what people say about true love. Just as the air can be charged with romance, a phosphate's charge can attract new "mates" to the membrane of a cell. What does that do, and why should you care?
This photo is out of date, but I drew it for a publication, and I can't resist including it here. In this circumstances, PI3K is composed of two subunits, labeled as p85 and p110. But you should get the picture---many molecules are drawn to the membrane for a molecular conversation. Overall, that conversation has a pretty uniform message--grow, reproduce, and SURVIVE!
In this case, T cells receive messages through their receptors for foreign molecules, and one chief carrier pigeon is our friend, Phosphoinositide 3-Kinase, which makes those little plus signs (that signify the phosphorylated lipids), which starts the conversation between many molecules whose names are immaterial to this discussion. But again, the message is important---cells are told to grow, divide, and survive.
Now, if we think about what is so bad about growing, reproducing and surviving, our thoughts may turn to apocalyptic fears of the world's sustainability, but again, we are talking about cells and organisms.
The real problem behind too much growth and reproduction on an organismal level is, of course, cancer.
That word, which may be more stigma than understanding to some of my readers, is simply uncontrolled growth of cells. As scientists began looking for mutations in genes that were common to cancer patients, it was a beautiful but tragic fact that molecules related to PI3K were often found to be the culprits at hand in many instances of cancer. This image shows a breast cancer cell-dividing rapidly, which in this particular cancer, has over a 50% chance of being mutated in the PI3K pathway.
In my next installment, I will try to explain what the new findings are, and why they are interesting.
Hopefully this introduction will be enough to chew on for now. But the method to the madness is hopefully clear now.
Until then, I remain as always, your obedient servant.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
ave israel??
How can Revelation 12 not be about Mary? Help me out, here...
Read it for yourself:
The Woman and the Dragon
12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. 3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. 5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which she is to be nourished for 1,260 days.
Satan Thrown Down to Earth
7 Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers [1] has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11 And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 12 Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”
13 And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle so that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with a flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon became furious with the woman and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus. And he stood [2] on the sand of the sea.
Protestants generally vary between saying this is about either Israel, the Church, or both. But Roman Catholics see this as being Mary, the Mother of our Lord.
If I'm keeping track of score, this is one point for the Papists, in my book. But maybe you umpires would make another call from where you stand?
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
My problem with theonomy - 1?
It is far beyond the bounds my ability to adequately describe or defend theonomy, today at least. If you're not familiar with this term, here is a good start on the matter.
What I would simply like to do is invoke a familiar experience and hope to provide what it is that bothers me about an issue that I often find myself shamefacedly defending. Other times I go the route of the covert operative, and conceal my sympathy with my view.
Ultimately, the bumper sticker/t-shirt/cliche has it right.
What strikes me about this debate about ethics and law is that the precondition for living under a godly civil government, in terms of its explicit foundations and legislation is a plurality or majority of godly people who are dedicated to such a concept. Thus, I would like to argue that almost every problem associated with theonomy is an instance of the "5 year old with the car keys" fallacy. Just as Greg Bahnsen created a fallacy that became infamous (or famous, depending on your view) during his debate with Gordon Stein, in describing the "cookies in the cookie jar" fallacy, I would like to make a new term for the problem with theonomists as they have existed throughout the years. For, just as a small child thinks he or she knows what to do with a car, the boldness of most theonomists is actually based on an overemphasis on abstractions over reality.
For just as a 5 year old has no firm grasp or concept of what life would be like as someone who is old enough to drive, the theonomist who raises eyebrows with his or her outlandish claims has no firm grasp of what life would be like if Christians were living godly lives as the plurality/majority of society. Sure, one can look back to certain epochs, but in many ways that's just as helpful as the 5 year old looking at their siblings who drive. It may help one understand the shadow of the matter, without providing any substantial grasp of the matter.
As a result, we must be wary of any 5 year old who thinks they know exactly what they would do if they had a driver's license today. Similarly, the theonomist who ignores their status as a minority and focuses on Biblical ethics as an abstract principle becomes disconnected from reality to the point where the outlandish ideas and claims that have been made by some (but will not be recounted here) come up.
To be fully punny, what I am "driving" at is this: we should understand our place in the world and focus on that. There is no need to emphasize discussion of what the best Christian society would do, if there is not even consensus over the concept of one truth being good, let alone that of the Christians.
For now, we should nurture the things that we do have, which, as I hope this blog serves to illustrate, is more than a little.
What I would simply like to do is invoke a familiar experience and hope to provide what it is that bothers me about an issue that I often find myself shamefacedly defending. Other times I go the route of the covert operative, and conceal my sympathy with my view.
Ultimately, the bumper sticker/t-shirt/cliche has it right.
What strikes me about this debate about ethics and law is that the precondition for living under a godly civil government, in terms of its explicit foundations and legislation is a plurality or majority of godly people who are dedicated to such a concept. Thus, I would like to argue that almost every problem associated with theonomy is an instance of the "5 year old with the car keys" fallacy. Just as Greg Bahnsen created a fallacy that became infamous (or famous, depending on your view) during his debate with Gordon Stein, in describing the "cookies in the cookie jar" fallacy, I would like to make a new term for the problem with theonomists as they have existed throughout the years. For, just as a small child thinks he or she knows what to do with a car, the boldness of most theonomists is actually based on an overemphasis on abstractions over reality.
For just as a 5 year old has no firm grasp or concept of what life would be like as someone who is old enough to drive, the theonomist who raises eyebrows with his or her outlandish claims has no firm grasp of what life would be like if Christians were living godly lives as the plurality/majority of society. Sure, one can look back to certain epochs, but in many ways that's just as helpful as the 5 year old looking at their siblings who drive. It may help one understand the shadow of the matter, without providing any substantial grasp of the matter.
As a result, we must be wary of any 5 year old who thinks they know exactly what they would do if they had a driver's license today. Similarly, the theonomist who ignores their status as a minority and focuses on Biblical ethics as an abstract principle becomes disconnected from reality to the point where the outlandish ideas and claims that have been made by some (but will not be recounted here) come up.
To be fully punny, what I am "driving" at is this: we should understand our place in the world and focus on that. There is no need to emphasize discussion of what the best Christian society would do, if there is not even consensus over the concept of one truth being good, let alone that of the Christians.
For now, we should nurture the things that we do have, which, as I hope this blog serves to illustrate, is more than a little.
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Heart of the Matter
I recently heard a sermon on Chapter 14 of St John's Gospel. Being interested in learning languages, I regularly carry a Greek New Testament to church. Hoping to learn via immersion, I read the Greek while hearing the English.
At any rate, a grammatical curiosity struck me.
This is the Greek for John 14:1
μη ταρασσεσθω υμων η καρδια πιστευετε εις τον θεον και εις εμε πιστευετε
In English translations, there is a big divergence in translating the word καρδια, which, like cardiologist, deals with the heart.
As I read the Greek and heard the translation, I noticed an inconsistency between what I saw in Greek and what the pastor read. Checking multiple translations through my phone, the divergence was clear. Here are 2 examples that illustrate this, from the NKJV and the ESV.
1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. (NKJV)
1"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. (ESV)
It seemed like almost every translation preferred "hearts" over "heart".
Now, καρδια for "heart" is indubitably singular, and the υμων of "your" is certainly plural but the question arises, why would a singular word be translated as plural?
Why would there be just one heart for all of the disciples?
Knowing that there is nothing new under the sun, I checked google for any discussion of this matter. Indeed, this has been commented upon by others, with regard to a different part of John here.
It seems like modern translators are unhappy with many individuals having one heart.
But I would respond to any skepticism that "hearts" should be "heart" by pointing out that when Jesus talks about evil in the hearts of those who doubt him in Matthew 9:4, we read και ιδων ο ιησους τας ενθυμησεις αυτων ειπεν ινα τι υμεις ενθυμεισθε πονηρα εν ταις καρδιαις υμων.
Clearly, there are some occasions where a plural form of καρδια such as καρδιαις is acceptable. But again, what is the "heart" of the matter?
I think that meditating on the notion that Jesus spoke to his disciples and referred to them as having one heart is something we deeply need.
It would surely be fascinating if Jesus would use a singular heart to talk about our lives. In our day and age, it is almost impossible to believe that there is only one body of Christ, but this is the case. And I almost wonder if this issue of preferring multiple hearts is not due to our society's preference for individualism. Greek may just be more amenable to thinking more corporately, but I doubt it, given Matthew 9:4.
Perhaps if we thought of passages such as John 14:6 in a more holistic sense, we would have a better grasp of who we are as the Church. And it might point to one reason why images such as these were painted--for they serve to remind us of the one heart that really matters, and that we are joined it to as Christians.
At any rate, a grammatical curiosity struck me.
This is the Greek for John 14:1
μη ταρασσεσθω υμων η καρδια πιστευετε εις τον θεον και εις εμε πιστευετε
In English translations, there is a big divergence in translating the word καρδια, which, like cardiologist, deals with the heart.
As I read the Greek and heard the translation, I noticed an inconsistency between what I saw in Greek and what the pastor read. Checking multiple translations through my phone, the divergence was clear. Here are 2 examples that illustrate this, from the NKJV and the ESV.
1 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. (NKJV)
1"Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. (ESV)
It seemed like almost every translation preferred "hearts" over "heart".
Now, καρδια for "heart" is indubitably singular, and the υμων of "your" is certainly plural but the question arises, why would a singular word be translated as plural?
Why would there be just one heart for all of the disciples?
Knowing that there is nothing new under the sun, I checked google for any discussion of this matter. Indeed, this has been commented upon by others, with regard to a different part of John here.
It seems like modern translators are unhappy with many individuals having one heart.
But I would respond to any skepticism that "hearts" should be "heart" by pointing out that when Jesus talks about evil in the hearts of those who doubt him in Matthew 9:4, we read και ιδων ο ιησους τας ενθυμησεις αυτων ειπεν ινα τι υμεις ενθυμεισθε πονηρα εν ταις καρδιαις υμων.
Clearly, there are some occasions where a plural form of καρδια such as καρδιαις is acceptable. But again, what is the "heart" of the matter?
I think that meditating on the notion that Jesus spoke to his disciples and referred to them as having one heart is something we deeply need.
It would surely be fascinating if Jesus would use a singular heart to talk about our lives. In our day and age, it is almost impossible to believe that there is only one body of Christ, but this is the case. And I almost wonder if this issue of preferring multiple hearts is not due to our society's preference for individualism. Greek may just be more amenable to thinking more corporately, but I doubt it, given Matthew 9:4.
Perhaps if we thought of passages such as John 14:6 in a more holistic sense, we would have a better grasp of who we are as the Church. And it might point to one reason why images such as these were painted--for they serve to remind us of the one heart that really matters, and that we are joined it to as Christians.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
the ultimate signal to transduce
I started this blog to collate my thoughts on science. In the upcoming postings, my goal is to summarize the specific findings of a particular paper and make them intelligible to the non-scientist. My Ph.D. was focused on signal transduction, which is the idea of how cells receive, interpret and pass on messages. Similarly, I am here to receive, interpret and pass on messages to you.
We'll see how well this goes......
We'll see how well this goes......
Friday, June 15, 2007
Still a work in progress--but complete structurally
Is Derrida in the Mosque? Muslim Apologists as Quintessential Deconstructionists
Introduction
Among systems of thought, ideological evolution is far from uncommon. From the idealistic politician who promises never to change his views upon being elected to the simple farmer who wants to do things “the way things always were done”, the idea of change for the sake of change is opposed almost unanimously. This notion is exceptionally true in the world of classical religion, where eternal and timeless truths should be the tools of the trade. However, this is not true of many modern trends, as emphasized in schools of thought such as those inhabited by deconstructionist philosophers. In a manner akin to Pontius Pilate’s inquiry of Christ, these thinkers aim to ask “Quid est veritas?” by undermining the notion of veritas on a fundamental level. In response to this, Christianity has made many great strides towards defending itself, ultimately through pointing to the one who is truth itself. The idea of a supreme God as the source of truth and morality is appealed to by great thinkers throughout the religious thinkers of multiple faiths, such as Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, and Maimonides. In earlier centuries, this train of thought was echoed by scientific thinkers such as Isaac Newton. However, from the mid-19th century onwards, the role of philosophy and science as the handmaiden of religion was severed, as the intellectual establishment turned to a view of religion as an enemy of scientific progress. Further, the teachings of purportedly inspired religious texts were called into question by many scientific discoveries ranging from the age of the universe to the number of ribs in the different sexes. While treating the nature of the response to these challenges adequately is beyond the scope of this article, this historical vignette is important, for it shows the dialectical tension between religion and science. While Christianity has largely operated on the defensive in attempting to show the consonance between the Bible and modern religious findings, Islamic scholars have often gone on the offensive by attempting to demonstrate the prescience of the Qur’anic utterances. The purpose of this article is to analyze some of these claims, which operate on the premise that Muhammad could not possibly have known the scientific truths contained in the Qur’an apart from divine revelation. On the contrary, this article aims to demonstrate that this whole thesis is based on a deconstructionist assumption that language can be used without regard to historical context. As a consequence, these claims of foreknowledge fail the test of criticism, and call the inspiration of the Qur’an into question.
Religion and science-harmony, neutrality, or conflict?
Mankind’s search for the truth throughout the ages has taken on varied forms, from the austere realm of the monastery to the fast-paced but somewhat sterile view of the world embodied by modern laboratory science. The struggle over who ought to be the arbiter of truth has surely seen more peaceful days, when different fields of learning respected one another. In the modern age, the notion that studies of the natural world can coincide with theological and philosophical reflection is often challenged by both theologians and scientists alike. In prior centuries, the same conflict existed, but religious thinking was preferred over a more materialistic mindset. For example, Galileo challenged the validity of interpreting certain passages in the Bible in a geocentric manner. One such verse is Psalm 104:5, which states, “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” The Copernican revolution had taken place, but some religious thinkers would not accommodate such an interpretation of the world because the Bible seemed to contradict that view. Because of that, Galileo and his views were condemned.
In more recent centuries, the tables have turned. As the intellectual heavyweights of the world have become increasingly skeptical of classical religion, it is the religious establishment that must answer the heresy trials of the church of the academic world. What can be said in response to this? While this issue is too lengthy to adequately address here, it is important to point out that ultimately when passages such as Psalm 104:5 are criticized, one must understand them within their historical and grammatical context. Thus, the term “foundation” is improperly understood when taken in the staunchly literalistic sense that was done by geocentric thinkers. Considering the Hebrew language and culture, it is clear that one can understand this phrase in a more simple sense, in considering the fact that our physical world is relatively stable, despite being ultimately quite motile. Again, delving into the details of this sort of argumentation is beyond the scope of this discussion. The important thing to grasp is that those who hold the Bible to be inspired by God must have an answer; is the passage in question in conflict with science because science has misinterpreted the data, or has the message of Scripture been misunderstood? The only other option would seem to be that advocated by those skeptical of the sacred book in question, which is that the scientific findings are proof of the man-made nature of the purportedly sacred book. Thus, in defending one’s faith, these matters are of paramount importance. It is to these matters that our attention is turned, in the context of the Islamic faith.
The conflict of the Qur’an and modern scientific understanding
Like Jews and Christians, Muslims hold that their God has revealed truth about the spiritual and physical aspects of the world through their sacred books. In understanding Islam, one critical challenge to the scientific understanding of the world provided from the Qur’an is the problem of embryological development. In discussing the nature of fetal development, several Suras in the Qur’an repeat a description of the nature of the growing baby using a specific word which when transliterated using Roman letters is ‘Alaqa. A typical Sura is 23:12-14, which reads:
"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the drop a clot (‘alaqa), and of the clot (‘alaqa) We fashioned a lump, and of the lump We fashioned bones, and We clothed the bones (with) meat. Then We produced it as another creation."
As Dr. William Campbell documents in his book The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, the notion that the embryo is a clot is heavily dependent upon Greek philosophers such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen, for these thinkers made similar descriptions of the developing fetus. In this scenario of embryogenesis, the menstrual blood is not released during pregnancy because it comprises one aspect of the fetus’ body, while the more essential characteristics of the baby are derived from the sperm of the father. To cite one of these thinkers to elucidate this point, the following quotes from Hippocrates are collated in Campbell’s work:
Semen
“Sperm is a product which comes from the whole body of each parent, weak sperm coming from the weak parts, and strong sperm from the strong parts.” Section 8, p 321
Coagulation of Mother's blood
“The seed (embryo), then, is contained in a membrane ... Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. For once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate...” Section 14, p. 326
Flesh
“At this stage, with the descent and coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed, with the umbilicus.” Section 14, p. 326
Bones
“As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath ... The bones grow hard ... moreover they send out branches like a tree ...” Section 17, p. 328
Thus, the argument is that this progression from semen to clot to bones as seen in Sura 23 is derived from the common but inaccurate medical understanding of ancient Greek thinkers. Of course, there are many Muslim doctors today who are well acquainted with the Qur’an and embryology. What has their response been?
Muslim apologists strike back-should scientists kneel in submission to the Qur’an?
As stated above, Dr. William Campbell has been one of the main critics of the inspiration of the Qur’an, especially with regard to the scientific claims contained therein. What is important to note is the basis for his writing The Qur’an in the Light of Science and the Bible, was in response to a book with a similar title. As a medical doctor, Campbell was offering a refutation of a book, The Bible, The Quran and Science, which was written by another medical doctor, Dr. Maurice Bucaille. Here, Dr. Bucaille states his reasons for seeing no conflict between the Qur’an and modern scientific understanding.
“ I had to stop and ask myself: If a man was the author of the Qur'an, how could he have written facts in the Seventh century A.D. that today are shown to be in keeping with modern scientific knowledge?....What human explanation can there be to this observation? In my opinion there is no explanation; there is no special reason why an inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula should....have had scientific knowledge on certain subjects that was ten centuries ahead of our own.”
Instead of merely showing that the verses of the Qur’an do not say something that is enmeshed in the flaws of the medical understanding its time, Bucaille and others take the offensive in the argument and try to demonstrate that the Qur’an is not simply lacking in scientific error. No, their claim is based on the thought that many Suras contain scientific knowledge that was unattainable in the 7th century. So, how do they deal with the problem of embryology? Dr. William Campbell notes these arguments, and points out that the solution lies in refusing to translate ‘Alaqa as clot. Instead, Dr. Bucaille translates the word to be “thing which clings”, while another apologist, Dr. Keith Moore considers an even better translation to be “leech-like” substance. This seems to be especially apropos because the developing embryo does bear a superficial resemblance to a leech at one point.
What is Dr. Campbell’s rebuttal to this? He points out the consistent translation of ‘Alaqa as a clot in older versions of the Qur’an, and shows Islamic scholars treating ‘Alaqa as a clot. First, he collates the following translations of the Qur’an from multiple languages, and shows no precedence of translating ‘Alaqa as a leech-like substance or a thing that clings:
* French, un grumeau de sang (a small lump of blood) - Kasimirski, 1948 (last Ed. during life of author was 1887)[3]
* a leech-like clot - Yusuf Ali, (translation of 1938) 1946[4]
* a clot - Pickthall, (translation of 1940) 1977[5]
* a clot - Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1951[6]
* a clot - Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, 1971[7]
* French, de caillot de sang (clot of blood) - Hamidullah, 1981[8]
* French, un caillot de sang - Masson, 1967
* a clot of blood - N. J. Dawood, 1980[9] Approved by the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon
* Indonesian, segumpal darah (lump of or clot of blood) - Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs, 1984
* Farsi, khoon basteh (a clot of blood) - Mehdi Elahi Ghomshehi
* Chinese, xue kuai (blood clot)
* Malay, darah beku (blood clot)
Furthermore, Campbell documents hadiths and writings of thinkers such as Avicenna, who translate ‘Alaqa in a manner consistent with the classical usage of clot. What is the reply made by Muslim apologists such as Dr. Bucaille?
Campbell quotes Dr. Bucaille’s response:
“What is more likely to mislead the inquiring reader is, once again, the problem of vocabulary ...The majority of translations describe, for example, man's formation from a 'blood clot' or an 'adhesion'. A statement of this kind is totally unacceptable to scientists specializing in this field... This shows how great the importance of an association between linguistic and scientific knowledge is when it comes to grasping the meaning of Quranic statements on reproduction."
Overall, Campbell has stated his objections to inconsistencies, but I would argue that he has not contextualized them appropriately. While holding to inconsistencies is notable, the implications of doing so are unclear if the nature of doing so is not appropriately explained. To clarify the situation, our thoughts will turn to analyze this phenomenon in the context of modern philosophical developments. In doing so, the underlying basis this strategy will be revealed.
The cure is worse than the disease-the flaw of deconstructionist thinking
In calling the standard translation of ‘Alaqa into question, the Muslim apologist produces a rebuttal that seems intriguing. Indeed, how could such difficult aspects of biology be grasped by a simple illiterate Arab living in the 7th century? In a world where Christians tend to fly from defending their holy book from defense largely from fleeing debate, the boldness shown by these Muslim apologists is convicting, but how did they arrive at such boldness? In considering the solution offered by these defenders of the Qur’an, we do not encounter the work of philosophers such as Averroes and Avicenna. Instead, we are meeting the work of a modern day philosopher who was no Muslim-and his name is Jacques Derrida. Often called the founder of the deconstructionist school of thought, Derrida emphasized the importance of subjectivity in understanding literature, which challenged the relevance of studying literature within a particular mindset of the author, as a means to find the meaning of the text. Instead, he challenged the fixity of meaning by arguing that one cannot read a text as though it was a fixed thing. In his work entitled “Plato’s Pharmacy”, Derrida discussed the correct translation of the Greek word pharmakon. The discussion bears a striking similarity to the work of Muslim apologists on interpreting ‘Alaqa as a thing that hangs or a leech-like substance.
“We hope to display in the most striking manner the regular, ordered polysemy that has, through skewing, indetermination, or overdetermination, but without mistranslation, permitted the rendering of the same word by "remedy," "recipe," "poison," "drug," "philter," etc. It will also be seen to what extent the malleable unity of this concept, or rather its rules and the strange logic that links it with its signifier, has been dispersed, masked, obliterated, and rendered almost unreadable not only by the imprudence or empiricism of the translators, but first and foremost by the redoubtable, irreducible difficulty of translation. It is a difficulty inherent in its very principle, situated less in the passage from one language to another, from one philosophical language to another, than already, as we shall see, in the tradition between Greek and Greek; a violent difficulty in the transference of a non-philosopheme into a philosopheme. With this problem of translation we will thus be dealing with nothing less than the problem of the very passage into philosophy. (71-72)”
In Derrida’s work, the intellectual justification of pluralism is fulfilled, because any piece of literature is open to the active interpretation by the reader. In this process, the meaning of every word can be altered and will inevitably be altered by the background that the reader brings to the text. He argued that the word Pharmakon is not mistranslated when any of the multiple possible definitions are provided. Thus, objectivity is lost for the sake of the creative activity of the reader.
As a result, when we consider the argument that if one imposes a new meaning to words like ‘Alaqa one arrives at modern scientific truth, we must realize that the Muslim apologist is borrowing from the worldview of the deconstructionist. But in accepting that perspective to defend one aspect of the truth of Qur’an, the integrity of all truth is lost. As a result, the cure to the challenge against the historical interpretation of the Qur’an, which was based on a scientifically untrue Greek philosophy comes via a view of the Qur’an that is based on a modern philosophy that has no basis for supporting ultimate truth of any kind.
Conclusions
In analyzing the response to a scientific challenge to the inspiration of the Qur’an, we have seen that the argument for understanding the word ‘Alaqa in a manner that is outside of its historical context is a classic move made by deconstructionist thinkers. Of course, discussing embryonic development is only one aspect of Qur’anic teachings on the natural world. It is helpful to note in passing that other critical examples of Suras that are argued to have supernatural knowledge of scientific details include descriptions of water flow in oceans (Sura 55:19-20), the orbits of the planets (Sura 81:15-16), and even genetics (Sura 80:18-20). What is striking is in all of these cases the Muslim apologists arrive at apparently modern conclusions by deconstructing the text of the Qur’an, with no regard to historical interpretation or literary analyses. Because of this, a vast disconnect between Islam as a religion of truth and the deconstructionist thinking that defends it emerges, and calls the whole scheme into question. As our Muslim friends and colleagues try to defend the integrity of the Qur’an, we must humbly endeavor to demonstrate that the philosophical foundations behind such defenses are completely inconsistent with the particular claims of Islam as truth and beauty. Without such an approach, we will be divorced from our religion’s greatest principle of love. With it, we will shine as lights.
Recommended Reading:
A Website Critical of the Qur’an and Science:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Science/index.htm
A website defending the Qur’an’s view of science: www.miraclesofthequran.com
The Qur’an in the Light of Science and the Bible-Dr. William Campbell
The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
Bibliography
The Qur’an in the Light of Science and the Bible-Dr. William Campbell
The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
Plato’s Pharmacy – Jacques Derrida
Introduction
Among systems of thought, ideological evolution is far from uncommon. From the idealistic politician who promises never to change his views upon being elected to the simple farmer who wants to do things “the way things always were done”, the idea of change for the sake of change is opposed almost unanimously. This notion is exceptionally true in the world of classical religion, where eternal and timeless truths should be the tools of the trade. However, this is not true of many modern trends, as emphasized in schools of thought such as those inhabited by deconstructionist philosophers. In a manner akin to Pontius Pilate’s inquiry of Christ, these thinkers aim to ask “Quid est veritas?” by undermining the notion of veritas on a fundamental level. In response to this, Christianity has made many great strides towards defending itself, ultimately through pointing to the one who is truth itself. The idea of a supreme God as the source of truth and morality is appealed to by great thinkers throughout the religious thinkers of multiple faiths, such as Thomas Aquinas, Averroes, and Maimonides. In earlier centuries, this train of thought was echoed by scientific thinkers such as Isaac Newton. However, from the mid-19th century onwards, the role of philosophy and science as the handmaiden of religion was severed, as the intellectual establishment turned to a view of religion as an enemy of scientific progress. Further, the teachings of purportedly inspired religious texts were called into question by many scientific discoveries ranging from the age of the universe to the number of ribs in the different sexes. While treating the nature of the response to these challenges adequately is beyond the scope of this article, this historical vignette is important, for it shows the dialectical tension between religion and science. While Christianity has largely operated on the defensive in attempting to show the consonance between the Bible and modern religious findings, Islamic scholars have often gone on the offensive by attempting to demonstrate the prescience of the Qur’anic utterances. The purpose of this article is to analyze some of these claims, which operate on the premise that Muhammad could not possibly have known the scientific truths contained in the Qur’an apart from divine revelation. On the contrary, this article aims to demonstrate that this whole thesis is based on a deconstructionist assumption that language can be used without regard to historical context. As a consequence, these claims of foreknowledge fail the test of criticism, and call the inspiration of the Qur’an into question.
Religion and science-harmony, neutrality, or conflict?
Mankind’s search for the truth throughout the ages has taken on varied forms, from the austere realm of the monastery to the fast-paced but somewhat sterile view of the world embodied by modern laboratory science. The struggle over who ought to be the arbiter of truth has surely seen more peaceful days, when different fields of learning respected one another. In the modern age, the notion that studies of the natural world can coincide with theological and philosophical reflection is often challenged by both theologians and scientists alike. In prior centuries, the same conflict existed, but religious thinking was preferred over a more materialistic mindset. For example, Galileo challenged the validity of interpreting certain passages in the Bible in a geocentric manner. One such verse is Psalm 104:5, which states, “He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved.” The Copernican revolution had taken place, but some religious thinkers would not accommodate such an interpretation of the world because the Bible seemed to contradict that view. Because of that, Galileo and his views were condemned.
In more recent centuries, the tables have turned. As the intellectual heavyweights of the world have become increasingly skeptical of classical religion, it is the religious establishment that must answer the heresy trials of the church of the academic world. What can be said in response to this? While this issue is too lengthy to adequately address here, it is important to point out that ultimately when passages such as Psalm 104:5 are criticized, one must understand them within their historical and grammatical context. Thus, the term “foundation” is improperly understood when taken in the staunchly literalistic sense that was done by geocentric thinkers. Considering the Hebrew language and culture, it is clear that one can understand this phrase in a more simple sense, in considering the fact that our physical world is relatively stable, despite being ultimately quite motile. Again, delving into the details of this sort of argumentation is beyond the scope of this discussion. The important thing to grasp is that those who hold the Bible to be inspired by God must have an answer; is the passage in question in conflict with science because science has misinterpreted the data, or has the message of Scripture been misunderstood? The only other option would seem to be that advocated by those skeptical of the sacred book in question, which is that the scientific findings are proof of the man-made nature of the purportedly sacred book. Thus, in defending one’s faith, these matters are of paramount importance. It is to these matters that our attention is turned, in the context of the Islamic faith.
The conflict of the Qur’an and modern scientific understanding
Like Jews and Christians, Muslims hold that their God has revealed truth about the spiritual and physical aspects of the world through their sacred books. In understanding Islam, one critical challenge to the scientific understanding of the world provided from the Qur’an is the problem of embryological development. In discussing the nature of fetal development, several Suras in the Qur’an repeat a description of the nature of the growing baby using a specific word which when transliterated using Roman letters is ‘Alaqa. A typical Sura is 23:12-14, which reads:
"Verily We created man from a product of wet earth, then placed him as a drop of seed in a safe lodging, then We fashioned the drop a clot (‘alaqa), and of the clot (‘alaqa) We fashioned a lump, and of the lump We fashioned bones, and We clothed the bones (with) meat. Then We produced it as another creation."
As Dr. William Campbell documents in his book The Qur’an and the Bible in the Light of History and Science, the notion that the embryo is a clot is heavily dependent upon Greek philosophers such as Hippocrates, Aristotle, and Galen, for these thinkers made similar descriptions of the developing fetus. In this scenario of embryogenesis, the menstrual blood is not released during pregnancy because it comprises one aspect of the fetus’ body, while the more essential characteristics of the baby are derived from the sperm of the father. To cite one of these thinkers to elucidate this point, the following quotes from Hippocrates are collated in Campbell’s work:
Semen
“Sperm is a product which comes from the whole body of each parent, weak sperm coming from the weak parts, and strong sperm from the strong parts.” Section 8, p 321
Coagulation of Mother's blood
“The seed (embryo), then, is contained in a membrane ... Moreover, it grows because of its mother's blood, which descends to the womb. For once a woman conceives, she ceases to menstruate...” Section 14, p. 326
Flesh
“At this stage, with the descent and coagulation of the mother's blood, flesh begins to be formed, with the umbilicus.” Section 14, p. 326
Bones
“As the flesh grows it is formed into distinct members by breath ... The bones grow hard ... moreover they send out branches like a tree ...” Section 17, p. 328
Thus, the argument is that this progression from semen to clot to bones as seen in Sura 23 is derived from the common but inaccurate medical understanding of ancient Greek thinkers. Of course, there are many Muslim doctors today who are well acquainted with the Qur’an and embryology. What has their response been?
Muslim apologists strike back-should scientists kneel in submission to the Qur’an?
As stated above, Dr. William Campbell has been one of the main critics of the inspiration of the Qur’an, especially with regard to the scientific claims contained therein. What is important to note is the basis for his writing The Qur’an in the Light of Science and the Bible, was in response to a book with a similar title. As a medical doctor, Campbell was offering a refutation of a book, The Bible, The Quran and Science, which was written by another medical doctor, Dr. Maurice Bucaille. Here, Dr. Bucaille states his reasons for seeing no conflict between the Qur’an and modern scientific understanding.
“ I had to stop and ask myself: If a man was the author of the Qur'an, how could he have written facts in the Seventh century A.D. that today are shown to be in keeping with modern scientific knowledge?....What human explanation can there be to this observation? In my opinion there is no explanation; there is no special reason why an inhabitant of the Arabian Peninsula should....have had scientific knowledge on certain subjects that was ten centuries ahead of our own.”
Instead of merely showing that the verses of the Qur’an do not say something that is enmeshed in the flaws of the medical understanding its time, Bucaille and others take the offensive in the argument and try to demonstrate that the Qur’an is not simply lacking in scientific error. No, their claim is based on the thought that many Suras contain scientific knowledge that was unattainable in the 7th century. So, how do they deal with the problem of embryology? Dr. William Campbell notes these arguments, and points out that the solution lies in refusing to translate ‘Alaqa as clot. Instead, Dr. Bucaille translates the word to be “thing which clings”, while another apologist, Dr. Keith Moore considers an even better translation to be “leech-like” substance. This seems to be especially apropos because the developing embryo does bear a superficial resemblance to a leech at one point.
What is Dr. Campbell’s rebuttal to this? He points out the consistent translation of ‘Alaqa as a clot in older versions of the Qur’an, and shows Islamic scholars treating ‘Alaqa as a clot. First, he collates the following translations of the Qur’an from multiple languages, and shows no precedence of translating ‘Alaqa as a leech-like substance or a thing that clings:
* French, un grumeau de sang (a small lump of blood) - Kasimirski, 1948 (last Ed. during life of author was 1887)[3]
* a leech-like clot - Yusuf Ali, (translation of 1938) 1946[4]
* a clot - Pickthall, (translation of 1940) 1977[5]
* a clot - Maulana Muhammad Ali, 1951[6]
* a clot - Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, 1971[7]
* French, de caillot de sang (clot of blood) - Hamidullah, 1981[8]
* French, un caillot de sang - Masson, 1967
* a clot of blood - N. J. Dawood, 1980[9] Approved by the Supreme Sunni and Shii Councils of the Republic of Lebanon
* Indonesian, segumpal darah (lump of or clot of blood) - Indonesian Department of Religious Affairs, 1984
* Farsi, khoon basteh (a clot of blood) - Mehdi Elahi Ghomshehi
* Chinese, xue kuai (blood clot)
* Malay, darah beku (blood clot)
Furthermore, Campbell documents hadiths and writings of thinkers such as Avicenna, who translate ‘Alaqa in a manner consistent with the classical usage of clot. What is the reply made by Muslim apologists such as Dr. Bucaille?
Campbell quotes Dr. Bucaille’s response:
“What is more likely to mislead the inquiring reader is, once again, the problem of vocabulary ...The majority of translations describe, for example, man's formation from a 'blood clot' or an 'adhesion'. A statement of this kind is totally unacceptable to scientists specializing in this field... This shows how great the importance of an association between linguistic and scientific knowledge is when it comes to grasping the meaning of Quranic statements on reproduction."
Overall, Campbell has stated his objections to inconsistencies, but I would argue that he has not contextualized them appropriately. While holding to inconsistencies is notable, the implications of doing so are unclear if the nature of doing so is not appropriately explained. To clarify the situation, our thoughts will turn to analyze this phenomenon in the context of modern philosophical developments. In doing so, the underlying basis this strategy will be revealed.
The cure is worse than the disease-the flaw of deconstructionist thinking
In calling the standard translation of ‘Alaqa into question, the Muslim apologist produces a rebuttal that seems intriguing. Indeed, how could such difficult aspects of biology be grasped by a simple illiterate Arab living in the 7th century? In a world where Christians tend to fly from defending their holy book from defense largely from fleeing debate, the boldness shown by these Muslim apologists is convicting, but how did they arrive at such boldness? In considering the solution offered by these defenders of the Qur’an, we do not encounter the work of philosophers such as Averroes and Avicenna. Instead, we are meeting the work of a modern day philosopher who was no Muslim-and his name is Jacques Derrida. Often called the founder of the deconstructionist school of thought, Derrida emphasized the importance of subjectivity in understanding literature, which challenged the relevance of studying literature within a particular mindset of the author, as a means to find the meaning of the text. Instead, he challenged the fixity of meaning by arguing that one cannot read a text as though it was a fixed thing. In his work entitled “Plato’s Pharmacy”, Derrida discussed the correct translation of the Greek word pharmakon. The discussion bears a striking similarity to the work of Muslim apologists on interpreting ‘Alaqa as a thing that hangs or a leech-like substance.
“We hope to display in the most striking manner the regular, ordered polysemy that has, through skewing, indetermination, or overdetermination, but without mistranslation, permitted the rendering of the same word by "remedy," "recipe," "poison," "drug," "philter," etc. It will also be seen to what extent the malleable unity of this concept, or rather its rules and the strange logic that links it with its signifier, has been dispersed, masked, obliterated, and rendered almost unreadable not only by the imprudence or empiricism of the translators, but first and foremost by the redoubtable, irreducible difficulty of translation. It is a difficulty inherent in its very principle, situated less in the passage from one language to another, from one philosophical language to another, than already, as we shall see, in the tradition between Greek and Greek; a violent difficulty in the transference of a non-philosopheme into a philosopheme. With this problem of translation we will thus be dealing with nothing less than the problem of the very passage into philosophy. (71-72)”
In Derrida’s work, the intellectual justification of pluralism is fulfilled, because any piece of literature is open to the active interpretation by the reader. In this process, the meaning of every word can be altered and will inevitably be altered by the background that the reader brings to the text. He argued that the word Pharmakon is not mistranslated when any of the multiple possible definitions are provided. Thus, objectivity is lost for the sake of the creative activity of the reader.
As a result, when we consider the argument that if one imposes a new meaning to words like ‘Alaqa one arrives at modern scientific truth, we must realize that the Muslim apologist is borrowing from the worldview of the deconstructionist. But in accepting that perspective to defend one aspect of the truth of Qur’an, the integrity of all truth is lost. As a result, the cure to the challenge against the historical interpretation of the Qur’an, which was based on a scientifically untrue Greek philosophy comes via a view of the Qur’an that is based on a modern philosophy that has no basis for supporting ultimate truth of any kind.
Conclusions
In analyzing the response to a scientific challenge to the inspiration of the Qur’an, we have seen that the argument for understanding the word ‘Alaqa in a manner that is outside of its historical context is a classic move made by deconstructionist thinkers. Of course, discussing embryonic development is only one aspect of Qur’anic teachings on the natural world. It is helpful to note in passing that other critical examples of Suras that are argued to have supernatural knowledge of scientific details include descriptions of water flow in oceans (Sura 55:19-20), the orbits of the planets (Sura 81:15-16), and even genetics (Sura 80:18-20). What is striking is in all of these cases the Muslim apologists arrive at apparently modern conclusions by deconstructing the text of the Qur’an, with no regard to historical interpretation or literary analyses. Because of this, a vast disconnect between Islam as a religion of truth and the deconstructionist thinking that defends it emerges, and calls the whole scheme into question. As our Muslim friends and colleagues try to defend the integrity of the Qur’an, we must humbly endeavor to demonstrate that the philosophical foundations behind such defenses are completely inconsistent with the particular claims of Islam as truth and beauty. Without such an approach, we will be divorced from our religion’s greatest principle of love. With it, we will shine as lights.
Recommended Reading:
A Website Critical of the Qur’an and Science:
http://www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Science/index.htm
A website defending the Qur’an’s view of science: www.miraclesofthequran.com
The Qur’an in the Light of Science and the Bible-Dr. William Campbell
The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/
Bibliography
The Qur’an in the Light of Science and the Bible-Dr. William Campbell
The Bible, The Quran and Science, by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
Plato’s Pharmacy – Jacques Derrida
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
21st Century Emancipation Proclamations, Part Four
This report comes to you via Ronald Reul Neiklot, friend of the reporter Clive Staples, who wrote "21st Century Emancipation Proclamations". He posts the last part of this series here on the internet because, tragically, Clive had fallen in the shower and passed away. It is to the memories of Clive Staples held dearly by his family and friends that this last article is dedicated.
Dear readers,
I had promised to report on my experiences of late after the war to protect the unborn, but have thus far been unable to find the avenue to do so. Rueters has suppressed all attempts to report it. I hope at some point to find some means to transmit this report to you. It has not faced the rigours of editorial amelioration, and for that I must ask your apologies. For now, I must find some means to stay alive before it is too late-but is it already?
----------------
I clambered up the steps of the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Church, where I was to meet the Archbishop of that region, Pontius Canterbury. We were to discuss how the research done at the National Institutes of Health had repudiated the legitimacy of abortion while showing that the dogmas of mainline Christianity were vindicated, when I realized that there was much more to this rendezvous than would have been clear from my initial phone call.
For you see, Pontius Canterbury was on a mission. That may sound like stating the obvious, but when I say this I am not talking about saving souls or helping the poor.
Entering his office, I saw what looked more like a battlefield station than a place of monastic study and reflection. Before I had the chance to ask what his large collection of maps, flowcharts, and photographs represented, he instantly began interviewing me, as it were.
"Is it too late? Have they gotten to you already?", wavered his deep voice. "I have read your recent Rueters articles on the war, and by all accounts, you do not seem to be one of those who have been 'infiltrated'."
I hesitated, and questioned his sanity, responding, "Why sir, I don't know the meaning of this. If you're referring to the SMU, or Suppression of the Murderers of the Unborn, as President Greyback calls it, I'm not quite sure I follow. My articles have discussed the, shall we say, less pleasant aspacts of the liberation of the unborn. But you, after all, are a Catholic bishop. Are you not pro-life? Shouldn't this be a moment of celebration?"
"Ah, my dear lad, do you not see that the title given to these late events is in and of itself sufficient to show you that something is awry?"
And it was from this point that he began to talk about people as people, and not political pawns. Those who had clung to now outdated notions of choice vs. oppression, as opposed to death vs. life, as we all now freely admit, were sincere in their understanding of jurisprudence. They just happened to have missed the boat intellectually on the matter of biology.
What was worse was to hear more about the Hiram Smith massacre--that Smith's view of injustice could be justified solely because he was right about abortion made no sense to this pro-life bishop.
And as the catalogue of atrocities grew larger and larger, it became clear that to Archbishop Canterbury, and myself, this was not a thing of the past.
He documented how people driving hybrid cars were being taxed out of suspicion that they were once pro-choice. Further, those who did not attend church were harassed by the police, minorities were subjected to government mandated ultrasounds to see if they were pregnant (as abortions were performed on this group more than others), and if so, special monitoring would ensure that these pregnant women would not take steps to perform an illegal abortion. In the meantime, Greyback-sponsored companies that made those ultrasound machines and police cars were growing richer.
It was too much to take in. Vertigo and nausea swept over my soul and I fell to the ground, thinking of the immensity of this program.
"My dearest lad, if by now you cannot see by now that there is a movement to alter the structure of this government where anyone who does not support Greyback's agenda will continue to be oppressed in new avenues--not just abortion--I'm afraid I will never convince you."
"But Mr. Canterbury, what can I do?"
And here, dear readers, I must interrupt and tell you that the answer to this question never came in. A knock at the door broke the flow of our conversation, and a flood of some sort of tear gas entered in the room, masked officers came and handcuffed us.
Neither Archbishop Canterbury nor myself were able to move. What is worse was the fact that some property in this chemical was able to produce a blindness and deafness. All I knew then was that large hands grasped me and I was placed in some lorry of sorts. I was taken back to my flat and awoke some time later--time was a blur, but as I turned on the boob tube I realized that it was now 4 days after my interview with the Archbishop. Checking for the news, horror found new limits in my mind as I read that the Archbishop had been reported to be dead. In this account, he had committed suicide for having been one who was supporting back-alley abortions.
It seemed impossible, and any doubts that this was a cover for something larger were assuaged by a note on my desk.
It read:
"If you stop talking,
you will start living."
I came to the point where I realized that if I were to continue living as though what I had heard from Archbishop Canterbury was accurate, that I would be living life on the run forever. There would be no parley with this enemy that would keep him pacified. And so I set to write this last report. Will it find you, dear readers? I can only hope and pray that it does. It sounds odd of me to refer to praying, as I never had before I began this series. But stranger things have happened in the world.
--------------
Note from RR Neiklot: The text ended here, and I imagine Clive had more to say, but we will never know how he wanted this story to end.
----Clive Staples, Ronald Reul Neiklot et al., are fictitious people, as is all of this tommyrot.
Dear readers,
I had promised to report on my experiences of late after the war to protect the unborn, but have thus far been unable to find the avenue to do so. Rueters has suppressed all attempts to report it. I hope at some point to find some means to transmit this report to you. It has not faced the rigours of editorial amelioration, and for that I must ask your apologies. For now, I must find some means to stay alive before it is too late-but is it already?
----------------
I clambered up the steps of the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Church, where I was to meet the Archbishop of that region, Pontius Canterbury. We were to discuss how the research done at the National Institutes of Health had repudiated the legitimacy of abortion while showing that the dogmas of mainline Christianity were vindicated, when I realized that there was much more to this rendezvous than would have been clear from my initial phone call.
For you see, Pontius Canterbury was on a mission. That may sound like stating the obvious, but when I say this I am not talking about saving souls or helping the poor.
Entering his office, I saw what looked more like a battlefield station than a place of monastic study and reflection. Before I had the chance to ask what his large collection of maps, flowcharts, and photographs represented, he instantly began interviewing me, as it were.
"Is it too late? Have they gotten to you already?", wavered his deep voice. "I have read your recent Rueters articles on the war, and by all accounts, you do not seem to be one of those who have been 'infiltrated'."
I hesitated, and questioned his sanity, responding, "Why sir, I don't know the meaning of this. If you're referring to the SMU, or Suppression of the Murderers of the Unborn, as President Greyback calls it, I'm not quite sure I follow. My articles have discussed the, shall we say, less pleasant aspacts of the liberation of the unborn. But you, after all, are a Catholic bishop. Are you not pro-life? Shouldn't this be a moment of celebration?"
"Ah, my dear lad, do you not see that the title given to these late events is in and of itself sufficient to show you that something is awry?"
And it was from this point that he began to talk about people as people, and not political pawns. Those who had clung to now outdated notions of choice vs. oppression, as opposed to death vs. life, as we all now freely admit, were sincere in their understanding of jurisprudence. They just happened to have missed the boat intellectually on the matter of biology.
What was worse was to hear more about the Hiram Smith massacre--that Smith's view of injustice could be justified solely because he was right about abortion made no sense to this pro-life bishop.
And as the catalogue of atrocities grew larger and larger, it became clear that to Archbishop Canterbury, and myself, this was not a thing of the past.
He documented how people driving hybrid cars were being taxed out of suspicion that they were once pro-choice. Further, those who did not attend church were harassed by the police, minorities were subjected to government mandated ultrasounds to see if they were pregnant (as abortions were performed on this group more than others), and if so, special monitoring would ensure that these pregnant women would not take steps to perform an illegal abortion. In the meantime, Greyback-sponsored companies that made those ultrasound machines and police cars were growing richer.
It was too much to take in. Vertigo and nausea swept over my soul and I fell to the ground, thinking of the immensity of this program.
"My dearest lad, if by now you cannot see by now that there is a movement to alter the structure of this government where anyone who does not support Greyback's agenda will continue to be oppressed in new avenues--not just abortion--I'm afraid I will never convince you."
"But Mr. Canterbury, what can I do?"
And here, dear readers, I must interrupt and tell you that the answer to this question never came in. A knock at the door broke the flow of our conversation, and a flood of some sort of tear gas entered in the room, masked officers came and handcuffed us.
Neither Archbishop Canterbury nor myself were able to move. What is worse was the fact that some property in this chemical was able to produce a blindness and deafness. All I knew then was that large hands grasped me and I was placed in some lorry of sorts. I was taken back to my flat and awoke some time later--time was a blur, but as I turned on the boob tube I realized that it was now 4 days after my interview with the Archbishop. Checking for the news, horror found new limits in my mind as I read that the Archbishop had been reported to be dead. In this account, he had committed suicide for having been one who was supporting back-alley abortions.
It seemed impossible, and any doubts that this was a cover for something larger were assuaged by a note on my desk.
It read:
"If you stop talking,
you will start living."
I came to the point where I realized that if I were to continue living as though what I had heard from Archbishop Canterbury was accurate, that I would be living life on the run forever. There would be no parley with this enemy that would keep him pacified. And so I set to write this last report. Will it find you, dear readers? I can only hope and pray that it does. It sounds odd of me to refer to praying, as I never had before I began this series. But stranger things have happened in the world.
--------------
Note from RR Neiklot: The text ended here, and I imagine Clive had more to say, but we will never know how he wanted this story to end.
----Clive Staples, Ronald Reul Neiklot et al., are fictitious people, as is all of this tommyrot.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
21st Century Emancipation Proclamations, Part Three
Rueters, Fakehamshire, England
In the roughly 6 months that have passed since the USA's presidential election, so much has happened, as you are well aware. No longer do I write to you, dear readers, from the plush Rueters office towers of downtown Los Angeles. While media outlets have sent a deluge to your eyes, ears, and hearts, I have been on a voyage to find refuge. For I was part of an anti-administration "liberation action" which led to my temporary paralysis, blindness, and deafness caused by something much harsher than pepper spray. And that experience of tyranny was so severe that I needed to find a new, undisclosed location to report on just how frightening things are in the US of A.
When the governor of Massachusetts declared that as a state, they could not support President Greyback because of what they wittily described as "a long train of abuses", which included a 5000% tax on books without pictures, a threat to end abortion without passing any laws on the matter, and so on, my office in LA was anxious to see what that statement from Boston would exactly mean.
What came as an utter shock to those watching the legislature of the US government was the fact that in response to these harsh words from Massachusetts, the Homeland Security Act version 5.1 was enacted unanimously by Congress. However, what was striking about the votes on this bill was that those senators who had been dragging their heels in the sand in opposition to previous versions of the Homeland Security act were all absent from the vote. Conservative pundits blamed this on the "lazy socialist tendencies of the liberals who would dare go against the president". Whatever the reason, they were gone--but what would be the results of passing this new version of the bill?
This became clear when in a matter of hours, all phone records, e-mails, credit card purchases, and some would argue, thoughts of every inhabitant of the USA, citizen or not, were uploaded for access and analysis on the "Universal Freedom Database", or UFD.
National Guard troops swept through Massachusetts, and in outrage, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and even little Rhode Island joined their side, vainly attempting to stop these actions. Citing references to the US civil war of 1860-1865, they decided that they would take objection to the words of the pledge of allegiance, which state that the republic for which the flag stands is "indivisible", and try to undo the indivisible nature of the USA by creating what some have called the inverse of the CSA, or Confederate States of America. For this confederacy was called the LSA, or Liberal States of America. Alas, this only led to a more thorough application of Homeland Security version 5.1 in those states.
But oh, the pledge of allegiance. That "indivisible" clause suddenly became the talk of all towns, especially as news started pouring in from the opposite coast. California Governor Hercules Terminator found himself locked into a cell with no warrant and no charges in Guantanamo Bay. When he arrived, it was clear that any anti-Greyback member of the California state legislature was already there, as well as both federal senators, who were among the most vocal opponents of Greyback.
Walter Reed Hospital, in Washington DC, was converted to a penitentiary (as the conditions were too harsh to support actual patients), and East Coast "dissidents" were shipped there for further questioning, and, in President Greyback's words "to be sure that this tide of revolt and anarchy is quelled by peace and justice."
At the same time as this whirlwind of politically important events, scientists at the National Institutes of Health determined, using new techniques of stem cell analysis, that a zygote truly is a human being. Among peer reviewers of both pro-life and pro-choice persuasions, the data were compelling. Thus, scientifically, the debate for abortion was over, as long as you trusted those scientists.
There were those who cried out with glee, and said that this was all done to end abortion. In states such as Colorado, cries of "victory for the unborn!" rang through church sanctuaries and town halls. The imprisonment of those in power in pro-choice states was described by prominent pro-life pastor Dudley Hibbes as "a necessary nuisance that was needed to give liberty to all, including the unborn. With those new findings by scientists, it's clear that we were right all along."
As the Liberal States of America decayed into nothingness, and new leaders of those states were put into power by the Greyback administration, we have undoubtedly all read his 21st Century Emancipation Proclamation. I have no need to cite it all at length, as it as been sent to every house and been broadcast on TV day and night.
But as I sat in my office at Rueters, I had to ask an important question, which I must try to impress these questions upon my readers, now that I am able to write you again:
At what cost will we provide liberty for all?
Do we provide it for all when we oppress others in the process?
Does discussion of these matters matter, now that the question of indivisibility is answered?
In my next account, the answer to these questions will be provided,
for I will tell you of my own experiences in California. The story of how I got to flee from the limelight to the cover of night will explain why I and thousands of others have fled for refuge, in many cases to other countries. The 3 months of rebellion against Greyback's administration may be over, and abortion is now illegal everywhere in the world, but I would argue that we are only beginning to feel the effects of this administration's actions.
But if these accounts have not provided any cause for concern, my last installment will, as long as your conscience is not dulled by the drudgery of the day.
---Rueters is a fictitional news source. If only its reportings did not bear a resemblance to aspects of reality past, present or future.
In the roughly 6 months that have passed since the USA's presidential election, so much has happened, as you are well aware. No longer do I write to you, dear readers, from the plush Rueters office towers of downtown Los Angeles. While media outlets have sent a deluge to your eyes, ears, and hearts, I have been on a voyage to find refuge. For I was part of an anti-administration "liberation action" which led to my temporary paralysis, blindness, and deafness caused by something much harsher than pepper spray. And that experience of tyranny was so severe that I needed to find a new, undisclosed location to report on just how frightening things are in the US of A.
When the governor of Massachusetts declared that as a state, they could not support President Greyback because of what they wittily described as "a long train of abuses", which included a 5000% tax on books without pictures, a threat to end abortion without passing any laws on the matter, and so on, my office in LA was anxious to see what that statement from Boston would exactly mean.
What came as an utter shock to those watching the legislature of the US government was the fact that in response to these harsh words from Massachusetts, the Homeland Security Act version 5.1 was enacted unanimously by Congress. However, what was striking about the votes on this bill was that those senators who had been dragging their heels in the sand in opposition to previous versions of the Homeland Security act were all absent from the vote. Conservative pundits blamed this on the "lazy socialist tendencies of the liberals who would dare go against the president". Whatever the reason, they were gone--but what would be the results of passing this new version of the bill?
This became clear when in a matter of hours, all phone records, e-mails, credit card purchases, and some would argue, thoughts of every inhabitant of the USA, citizen or not, were uploaded for access and analysis on the "Universal Freedom Database", or UFD.
National Guard troops swept through Massachusetts, and in outrage, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, New Jersey, New York, and even little Rhode Island joined their side, vainly attempting to stop these actions. Citing references to the US civil war of 1860-1865, they decided that they would take objection to the words of the pledge of allegiance, which state that the republic for which the flag stands is "indivisible", and try to undo the indivisible nature of the USA by creating what some have called the inverse of the CSA, or Confederate States of America. For this confederacy was called the LSA, or Liberal States of America. Alas, this only led to a more thorough application of Homeland Security version 5.1 in those states.
But oh, the pledge of allegiance. That "indivisible" clause suddenly became the talk of all towns, especially as news started pouring in from the opposite coast. California Governor Hercules Terminator found himself locked into a cell with no warrant and no charges in Guantanamo Bay. When he arrived, it was clear that any anti-Greyback member of the California state legislature was already there, as well as both federal senators, who were among the most vocal opponents of Greyback.
Walter Reed Hospital, in Washington DC, was converted to a penitentiary (as the conditions were too harsh to support actual patients), and East Coast "dissidents" were shipped there for further questioning, and, in President Greyback's words "to be sure that this tide of revolt and anarchy is quelled by peace and justice."
At the same time as this whirlwind of politically important events, scientists at the National Institutes of Health determined, using new techniques of stem cell analysis, that a zygote truly is a human being. Among peer reviewers of both pro-life and pro-choice persuasions, the data were compelling. Thus, scientifically, the debate for abortion was over, as long as you trusted those scientists.
There were those who cried out with glee, and said that this was all done to end abortion. In states such as Colorado, cries of "victory for the unborn!" rang through church sanctuaries and town halls. The imprisonment of those in power in pro-choice states was described by prominent pro-life pastor Dudley Hibbes as "a necessary nuisance that was needed to give liberty to all, including the unborn. With those new findings by scientists, it's clear that we were right all along."
As the Liberal States of America decayed into nothingness, and new leaders of those states were put into power by the Greyback administration, we have undoubtedly all read his 21st Century Emancipation Proclamation. I have no need to cite it all at length, as it as been sent to every house and been broadcast on TV day and night.
But as I sat in my office at Rueters, I had to ask an important question, which I must try to impress these questions upon my readers, now that I am able to write you again:
At what cost will we provide liberty for all?
Do we provide it for all when we oppress others in the process?
Does discussion of these matters matter, now that the question of indivisibility is answered?
In my next account, the answer to these questions will be provided,
for I will tell you of my own experiences in California. The story of how I got to flee from the limelight to the cover of night will explain why I and thousands of others have fled for refuge, in many cases to other countries. The 3 months of rebellion against Greyback's administration may be over, and abortion is now illegal everywhere in the world, but I would argue that we are only beginning to feel the effects of this administration's actions.
But if these accounts have not provided any cause for concern, my last installment will, as long as your conscience is not dulled by the drudgery of the day.
---Rueters is a fictitional news source. If only its reportings did not bear a resemblance to aspects of reality past, present or future.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
21st Century Emancipation Proclamations, Part Two
Rueters, Fakehamshire, England
Washington DC and the rest of the USA is abuzz with news, for it appears that Stan Greyback, the one time senator from Kansas, has been elected their president.
Through 2008 the battle for chief executive emerged as one of great proportions. Greyback, the Red state diehard, has continuously supported tax breaks for farming and manufacturing while being in opposition to industries prevalent in the blue states, such as biotechnology, moviemaking, wineries and other such marks of "haute couture" that abound on the coasts.
In fact, his membership in and support of the newly founded Freedom Party was cause alone for concern. Its deceased founder Patty DuCannon once described Hiram Smith as a great man who "strove for freedom and equality". This sort of concern eventually led to Greyback's actual exclusion from the ballots of California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire, a practice not seen for over one hundred years. In other blue states, he received dismally low votes, with most percentages in the single digits. Somehow, this protest from such prominent states was insufficient to keep him from winning the electoral college. And as a result, a nation which was once divided in terms of colors on a map stands in even more disunity than before.
There are even murmurings that his agenda may be as staunchly anti-abortion as those of Hiram Smith. Speaking from his Topeka estate, Greyback had these words for concerned Americans, blue state and red state alike.
"America was founded as a democracy and will only flourish as a democracy. The proud people of these fifty states have striven to provide freedom for all peoples of all lands. While some view the cause of abortion as part and parcel of this move towards providing consistent liberty to people of all walks of life, it is in the hands of the lawmakers who represent you citizens to make such decisions. Therefore, people of all states may rest assured that I have no intention to injure the normal course of law for any party preferences. I wish you all the best, and am excitedly preparing for what promises to be a term of great progress and growth for this great country of ours. May God bless you, and this land."
Pundits and bloggers alike have analyzed this brief speech to their wits' ends. On the side of those who support Greyback, conservative radio announcer Bush Extremitybough had this to say:
"I can't see why these tax and spend liberals in California and other places want to kill babies, but listen people, this is America. And Greyback has made it clear that he won't be a tyrant like old Slick Willy and his VP Igor did. Hopefully Congress can change things, but seriously, read up on Greyback. As a trial lawyer he defended several abortion doctors in Kansas--he's not going to try to outlaw abortion outside the normal process of law and order that this new Freedom Party stands for. So grow up and come see me at my next book signing. And if you know what's good for you, you'll bring me a Cohiba. That's a cigar, for those of you out in Adelanto."
In agreement with this, more serious analysts like Filliam W. Duckley have pointed to campaign speeches of Greyback. As Duckley observed, in one debate with Shmancy Pelozzi, Greyback stated, "look folks, a fetus is a meaningless ball of cells, if that's what you think it is. You can't call flour and eggs a cake--you have to bake it. And we all know that this is just like the issue of whether a fetus is a child or not. If that's your perspective, that is what it is. But I should say, if you believe life begins at conception, it begins at conception."
Will these and many other words, which point to Greyback as not only a member of the Freedom Party, but as one who has championed the cause of choice, assuage the fears of those states which refused to support Greyback?
There are many who say that this is inadequate. "After all," remarked former Republican governor of California Hercules Terminator, "this man is coming from the party that opposes the great people of California. My movies have been taxed to the point of starvation. You are driving the big companies to places like Canada, and my wife Miriam O'Kennison's family in Massachussetts is also worried about this guy. They didn't vote for him because the Freedom party has put a 5000% tax on books without pictures. And don't get me started on this abortion issue-it drives me crazy, just like how those Latina women get."
The firebrands are waving their flags on both sides of this issue. And we Britons, as observers of a nation divided can only ask:
What will Greyback do when he is in the White House? Will he bring peace and reconciliation, or will resentment and division grow? We can only hope and pray that this does not occur.
------Rueters is a fictitious news source. In most cases, names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty.
Washington DC and the rest of the USA is abuzz with news, for it appears that Stan Greyback, the one time senator from Kansas, has been elected their president.
Through 2008 the battle for chief executive emerged as one of great proportions. Greyback, the Red state diehard, has continuously supported tax breaks for farming and manufacturing while being in opposition to industries prevalent in the blue states, such as biotechnology, moviemaking, wineries and other such marks of "haute couture" that abound on the coasts.
In fact, his membership in and support of the newly founded Freedom Party was cause alone for concern. Its deceased founder Patty DuCannon once described Hiram Smith as a great man who "strove for freedom and equality". This sort of concern eventually led to Greyback's actual exclusion from the ballots of California, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire, a practice not seen for over one hundred years. In other blue states, he received dismally low votes, with most percentages in the single digits. Somehow, this protest from such prominent states was insufficient to keep him from winning the electoral college. And as a result, a nation which was once divided in terms of colors on a map stands in even more disunity than before.
There are even murmurings that his agenda may be as staunchly anti-abortion as those of Hiram Smith. Speaking from his Topeka estate, Greyback had these words for concerned Americans, blue state and red state alike.
"America was founded as a democracy and will only flourish as a democracy. The proud people of these fifty states have striven to provide freedom for all peoples of all lands. While some view the cause of abortion as part and parcel of this move towards providing consistent liberty to people of all walks of life, it is in the hands of the lawmakers who represent you citizens to make such decisions. Therefore, people of all states may rest assured that I have no intention to injure the normal course of law for any party preferences. I wish you all the best, and am excitedly preparing for what promises to be a term of great progress and growth for this great country of ours. May God bless you, and this land."
Pundits and bloggers alike have analyzed this brief speech to their wits' ends. On the side of those who support Greyback, conservative radio announcer Bush Extremitybough had this to say:
"I can't see why these tax and spend liberals in California and other places want to kill babies, but listen people, this is America. And Greyback has made it clear that he won't be a tyrant like old Slick Willy and his VP Igor did. Hopefully Congress can change things, but seriously, read up on Greyback. As a trial lawyer he defended several abortion doctors in Kansas--he's not going to try to outlaw abortion outside the normal process of law and order that this new Freedom Party stands for. So grow up and come see me at my next book signing. And if you know what's good for you, you'll bring me a Cohiba. That's a cigar, for those of you out in Adelanto."
In agreement with this, more serious analysts like Filliam W. Duckley have pointed to campaign speeches of Greyback. As Duckley observed, in one debate with Shmancy Pelozzi, Greyback stated, "look folks, a fetus is a meaningless ball of cells, if that's what you think it is. You can't call flour and eggs a cake--you have to bake it. And we all know that this is just like the issue of whether a fetus is a child or not. If that's your perspective, that is what it is. But I should say, if you believe life begins at conception, it begins at conception."
Will these and many other words, which point to Greyback as not only a member of the Freedom Party, but as one who has championed the cause of choice, assuage the fears of those states which refused to support Greyback?
There are many who say that this is inadequate. "After all," remarked former Republican governor of California Hercules Terminator, "this man is coming from the party that opposes the great people of California. My movies have been taxed to the point of starvation. You are driving the big companies to places like Canada, and my wife Miriam O'Kennison's family in Massachussetts is also worried about this guy. They didn't vote for him because the Freedom party has put a 5000% tax on books without pictures. And don't get me started on this abortion issue-it drives me crazy, just like how those Latina women get."
The firebrands are waving their flags on both sides of this issue. And we Britons, as observers of a nation divided can only ask:
What will Greyback do when he is in the White House? Will he bring peace and reconciliation, or will resentment and division grow? We can only hope and pray that this does not occur.
------Rueters is a fictitious news source. In most cases, names have been changed to protect the innocent and the guilty.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
21st Century Emancipation Proclamations, Part One
Rueters, Fakehamshire, England
Hiram Smith was like most average Americans. Rather, until last year he was just like your neighbor down the street. This father of five who lived in Provo, Utah, was an avid golfer who loved to coach his children's sports teams. However, a shadow on one man's life grew to cause an alarming trend that has grown into the maelstrom which threatens an entire nation.
For Hiram Smith was last seen in Anaheim, California, where he entered a Planned Parenthood office and shot 12 people to death.
His subsequent apprehension by a mob that led to his death is all but a memory in the minds of Americans. Little would we know that this debate which once strode across Supreme Court and on the Mall of Washington DC would now lead to murmurings that there should be revolts against the "wicked Blue States".
More shocking was the revelation that his legacy is part of a growing movement that is by no means uncommon.
Unlike the abortion doctor killings of the 1980's and 1990's, which were almost unanimously condemned, Smith's death was cause for celebration among town halls and pulpits of red states, far and wide.
"Smith's courage to be brave and serve God's law in opposition to the godless laws of men has shown us that we have all been asleep at the wheel", commented Pastor Dudley Hibbes, of Creek Chapel Christian Church, which is located in Anaheim Hills, California.
This coexistence of pro-life and pro-choice individuals in the US has, like other parts of the world, been a cause of friction and debate. But it was not until these last few weeks has it been feared that the impasse might be irremediable.
Some have gone so far as to speculate that if abortions continue, sections of California and other blue states with more pro-life constituents may leave their homes and settle in with those of the red states, where abortion is more frequently condemned. Even more severe are calls of secession.
As a cautioning voice, Episcopalian minister the Right Reverend St. Francesca de District de Castro commented and said, "Let the hate mongering cease forevermore. We have seen that the laws of this land have decided in favor of choice. We are only acting in accord with the laws forever settled by Roe v. Wade. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one."
The growing fear is that this sort of progressive argument will not always pacify those of pro-life interests. In the minds of the growing clamor for more reactionaries like Hiram Smith, it seems certain that the tides may change, whether those who are pro-choice choose to agree or not.
-----------Rueters is a fictional news source. Reuters is an actual news source, though some would prefer to view their reports as fictional.
Hiram Smith was like most average Americans. Rather, until last year he was just like your neighbor down the street. This father of five who lived in Provo, Utah, was an avid golfer who loved to coach his children's sports teams. However, a shadow on one man's life grew to cause an alarming trend that has grown into the maelstrom which threatens an entire nation.
For Hiram Smith was last seen in Anaheim, California, where he entered a Planned Parenthood office and shot 12 people to death.
His subsequent apprehension by a mob that led to his death is all but a memory in the minds of Americans. Little would we know that this debate which once strode across Supreme Court and on the Mall of Washington DC would now lead to murmurings that there should be revolts against the "wicked Blue States".
More shocking was the revelation that his legacy is part of a growing movement that is by no means uncommon.
Unlike the abortion doctor killings of the 1980's and 1990's, which were almost unanimously condemned, Smith's death was cause for celebration among town halls and pulpits of red states, far and wide.
"Smith's courage to be brave and serve God's law in opposition to the godless laws of men has shown us that we have all been asleep at the wheel", commented Pastor Dudley Hibbes, of Creek Chapel Christian Church, which is located in Anaheim Hills, California.
This coexistence of pro-life and pro-choice individuals in the US has, like other parts of the world, been a cause of friction and debate. But it was not until these last few weeks has it been feared that the impasse might be irremediable.
Some have gone so far as to speculate that if abortions continue, sections of California and other blue states with more pro-life constituents may leave their homes and settle in with those of the red states, where abortion is more frequently condemned. Even more severe are calls of secession.
As a cautioning voice, Episcopalian minister the Right Reverend St. Francesca de District de Castro commented and said, "Let the hate mongering cease forevermore. We have seen that the laws of this land have decided in favor of choice. We are only acting in accord with the laws forever settled by Roe v. Wade. If you don't agree with abortion, don't have one."
The growing fear is that this sort of progressive argument will not always pacify those of pro-life interests. In the minds of the growing clamor for more reactionaries like Hiram Smith, it seems certain that the tides may change, whether those who are pro-choice choose to agree or not.
-----------Rueters is a fictional news source. Reuters is an actual news source, though some would prefer to view their reports as fictional.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Prayers for Zombies (stolen words from my dead mouth)
THIS BOOK looks very interesting.
This prayer is excerpted from the book:
Dear God, it’s me—Your servant in science. I wanted to thank You that my latest paper was accepted by such a prestigious journal. We put a lot of work into it, and it was nice to see our work recognized.
Lord, you got me through grad school, and by Your grace I’ve been doing well in research—for which I’m grateful. But, when it gets down to it, I’m just not feeling easy about this whole direction for me. I’m not sure how exactly I ended up with this particular research focus. I have learned a lot, but sometimes I have to ask myself, “Who really cares?” If no one ever found out about what I’m researching, the world would still go on. Lord, You’ve given me a good marriage, blessed me with kids, a good church, but ... Lord, I don’t want to sound ungrateful ... but what I really want is to do something significant for the kingdom of God. I mean, the time is going by. The years fly now, and it doesn’t seem like I’m doing much of eternal significance.
Oh, I have taught my share of Sunday school classes. And there was that short-term mission trip the year before last. And, yes, there was the meeting in Chicago where I was able to share my faith with several folks in my field. They were kind of surprised that a good scientist could be a believer.
Maybe I ought to quit the research game and join a student ministry. I seem to have a good rapport with college students. Or maybe, as we just heard at the missions conference at church last month about the great need for missionaries in third-world areas, and last week a representative from a relief agency made a presentation, my heart just went out to those needy people. Maybe I should explore the missions direction.
Lord, I just want to do something significant for the kingdom. I long to hear You say at the end, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Please direct me to something that really counts.
The prayer encapsulates my thoughts on my vocation--to me, considering the significance of one's job as a scientist (or a plumber) is much more than a direct addressing of God's existence. So many times we look at religion and science as polar opposites, and most people attempt to resolve this by agreeing with that basic premise and pitting our favorite fighter against the foul foe that we prefer. But is this justified? I would say no, and that futher, it is not the way to show someone else that their deification of science or hatred of science is unjustified.
In fact, consider these words by Pascal in Pensee #473:
"It is a remarkable fact that no canonical author has ever used nature to prove God. They all try to make people believe in him. David, Solomon, etc. never said: 'There is no such thing as a vacuum, therefore God exists." They must have been cleverer than the cleverest of their successors, all of whom used proofs from nature. This is very noteworthy.
To me, the whole idea of being the person who attacks this or that atheistic position based on one's scientific background is so superficial, when compared to what science is actually about. Have we learned more about the world, and can that help people live a better or healthier or insert the appropriate adjective life? If so, we are showing as Christians that we care about others. That is more of our mission than any "Blasphemy Challenge", or inverse correlation thereof.
So I say we blow off Richard Dawkins and think more about what matters in the world, which is truth as truth. As my previous blog on hamartology stated, if evil is a non-entity, then these errors of others should not be our hangups. Instead, we should focus on the light that we have--and we shouldn't be surprised if we see light from heaven and earth, from God and nature.
This prayer is excerpted from the book:
Dear God, it’s me—Your servant in science. I wanted to thank You that my latest paper was accepted by such a prestigious journal. We put a lot of work into it, and it was nice to see our work recognized.
Lord, you got me through grad school, and by Your grace I’ve been doing well in research—for which I’m grateful. But, when it gets down to it, I’m just not feeling easy about this whole direction for me. I’m not sure how exactly I ended up with this particular research focus. I have learned a lot, but sometimes I have to ask myself, “Who really cares?” If no one ever found out about what I’m researching, the world would still go on. Lord, You’ve given me a good marriage, blessed me with kids, a good church, but ... Lord, I don’t want to sound ungrateful ... but what I really want is to do something significant for the kingdom of God. I mean, the time is going by. The years fly now, and it doesn’t seem like I’m doing much of eternal significance.
Oh, I have taught my share of Sunday school classes. And there was that short-term mission trip the year before last. And, yes, there was the meeting in Chicago where I was able to share my faith with several folks in my field. They were kind of surprised that a good scientist could be a believer.
Maybe I ought to quit the research game and join a student ministry. I seem to have a good rapport with college students. Or maybe, as we just heard at the missions conference at church last month about the great need for missionaries in third-world areas, and last week a representative from a relief agency made a presentation, my heart just went out to those needy people. Maybe I should explore the missions direction.
Lord, I just want to do something significant for the kingdom. I long to hear You say at the end, “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Please direct me to something that really counts.
The prayer encapsulates my thoughts on my vocation--to me, considering the significance of one's job as a scientist (or a plumber) is much more than a direct addressing of God's existence. So many times we look at religion and science as polar opposites, and most people attempt to resolve this by agreeing with that basic premise and pitting our favorite fighter against the foul foe that we prefer. But is this justified? I would say no, and that futher, it is not the way to show someone else that their deification of science or hatred of science is unjustified.
In fact, consider these words by Pascal in Pensee #473:
"It is a remarkable fact that no canonical author has ever used nature to prove God. They all try to make people believe in him. David, Solomon, etc. never said: 'There is no such thing as a vacuum, therefore God exists." They must have been cleverer than the cleverest of their successors, all of whom used proofs from nature. This is very noteworthy.
To me, the whole idea of being the person who attacks this or that atheistic position based on one's scientific background is so superficial, when compared to what science is actually about. Have we learned more about the world, and can that help people live a better or healthier or insert the appropriate adjective life? If so, we are showing as Christians that we care about others. That is more of our mission than any "Blasphemy Challenge", or inverse correlation thereof.
So I say we blow off Richard Dawkins and think more about what matters in the world, which is truth as truth. As my previous blog on hamartology stated, if evil is a non-entity, then these errors of others should not be our hangups. Instead, we should focus on the light that we have--and we shouldn't be surprised if we see light from heaven and earth, from God and nature.
Friday, March 9, 2007
the chalice of evil is NOT half full, it is fully empty.
We have seen it all too many times-some kid with a new toy struts with pride and shows off his new prized possession. As the other children stand around, the rivalry and jealousy ensues, and parents are often left telling kids to share, or worse, end up taking that toy so that no one can have it.
But imagine life in some other universe not quite like ours. The scene changes and shifts to a boy who stands with empty hands, gloating nonetheless.
You or I might be tempted to give a quizzical look and wonder if this is a child suffering from some deranged sense of reality, but that would only be at first, for as time would roll on, we would see his childhood companions look with great envy at their friend with nothing in their hands. You might wonder if you lacked the ability to see some magical item that this lucky one held, but when you ask one of his devotees what is so special about this spoiled child, you are told that he is one of the few who has been given nothing by his parents.
Now, take your mouse and zoom out on this google earth, and you see two nations. One leader waves his arms at the other and shouts obscenities, with pomp and circumstance surrounding crowd of his denizens. To his own glory he proclaims that he lacks any weapons, and is thus the stronger of the two countries.
Again, you or I would most likely be puzzled beyond imagination to see the response of this other leader, who trembles at the sight of an empty silo. And if you asked this quaking queen (or king), you would find out that this great nemesis is to be feared because of the nothing that they hold.
Now, you may ask me why we should devote even a moment's thought to such a silly nightmare.
To answer that, I must point back in time to a great thinker who showed that much of what we do as we walk on earth is as foolish as those who covet the lives of those who have nothing ultimately.
That man is St. Augustine, whose works are inspirational for many reasons. For the sake of today's inspiration, we are dealing with what is technically referred to as hamartology. This term, derived from the greek word for sin, is an understanding of evil. And the title to this blog is to state that if we agree with Augustine on the matter of what evil is, we would realize that what evil is, as an entity, is a non-entity. Here are his words on the matter from what is also considered the first autobiography, the Confessions. I will start with the Latin because it has a vivacious character that is lacking in our clumsy language du jour.
ubi ergo malum et unde et qua huc inrepsit? quae radix eius et quod semen eius? an omnino non est? cur ergo timemus et cavemus quod non est? aut si inaniter timemus, timor ipse malum est, quo incassum stimulatur et excruciatur cor; et tanto gravius malum, quanto non est, quod timeamus, et timemus.
Where, then, is evil, and whence does it come and how has it crept in? What is its root and what its seed? Has it no being at all? Why, then, do we fear and shun what has no being? Or if we fear it needlessly, then surely that fear is evil by which the heart is unnecessarily stabbed and tortured--and indeed a greater evil since we have nothing real to fear, and yet do fear.
So we see here that it could be argued that evil, in Augstine's mind, is really the absence of existence. It is a twisted version of the way things should be. Now, when I first learned of this philosophical concept, frequently referred to as a view of evil as a privation of good, I thought this to be merely semantic.
But when I consider how most people view the wrong in this world, so much time is spent looking at what is being done in terms of positive evil. But if wickedness is failing to be what it ought to be, we should view it more in terms of what it lacks instead of what it does. Christians walk around talking about the bad that people do so much that they forget that the real crime and tragedy is the good that has been abandoned.
That places the sinner in a position of one who is not some demon dwelling in misdeeds, but instead, it is something fractured and, to be frank, in poverty.
We turn back to the first analogy, and realize that for too long we have viewed the grass as always greener in the lives of those who live with reckless abandon when really we should see that those who do so have abandoned themselves, and the lives that they could have.
We see the fear that we have with those that are our enemies, and realize that the battle between good and evil is really one between those who have something, and those who do not. And we wonder why we ever cringed.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
