tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38624751954796455882024-03-05T01:11:18.876-05:00Thoughts from The Real Matt DavisThe Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-42215969485269670662009-03-17T15:00:00.000-04:002009-03-17T15:10:28.171-04:00Buffet ReferenceSince it has been a long time since I posted a blog entry, I thought I would temper my return with a small update. Firstly, I have successfully completed my <a href="http://therealmattdavis.blogspot.com/2008/07/pelagic-biology-behavior-and-ecology-of.html">Capstone Review Paper</a>. That was the final obstacle to earning my master’s degree and I received my diploma little more than a week ago. Secondly, I am now actively looking for a new job, one that does not involve working at a library. Unfortunately, now is not the time to be job hunting. Even so, I am determined to leave my current position. Meanwhile, hiring managers are faced with massive amounts of nearly identical resumes and applications. <br /><br />So in an attempt to better determine what applicant is the best fit for the job, application packets ask for the usual (letter of intent, resume, transcripts, etc.) and sometimes a unique reference. One such employer (the state of Florida) asked that I include a Buffet Reference. Since I don’t frequent many buffets here, I asked the manager of the Mandarin House on Merchants Drive to compose a short Buffet Reference. After some cajoling, he finally penned the following: <br /><br /><blockquote>To Whom It May Concern:<br /><br />I am writing to express my endorsement of Mr. Matt Davis as the newest addition to your team. Matt’s talents and skills are very evident in his frequent visits to the Mandarin House. <br /><br />Matt’s skill as a biologist far outreaches any mere mortal. He begins every visit with a quick tour of our aquarium facilities. Unlike many of our visitors, he is quickly able to differentiate between what is an actual fish and what is merely a fish sticker inside the tank. He has also helped staff members determine dead fish from live fish, a task which is both intriguing and complex.<br /><br />Once he begins the buffet line his true prowess becomes obvious. In short, Matt is an excellent eater. His tastes vary across the board, but he has a strong love for the General Tso's Chicken. But Matt is by no means solely a carnivore. In addition to his love for our various, delicious chicken dishes, Matt is also fond of our fried rice and vegetable lo mein. Regardless of how he divides his culinary attention, his determination and hard work consistently result in him completing no less than two, and sometimes more than three, plates of food and two or more ice creams. <br /><br />Even though I am unsure why an employer would ask for such a strange reference, I also realize that in these hard economic times any information on prospective employees, however unorthodox, could prove to be vital in decisions of employment.<br /><br />Sincerely, <br />The Manager of Mandarin House<br />314 Merchants Drive, Knoxville, TN<br /></blockquote>The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-71746949313478856972008-07-09T15:42:00.000-04:002008-07-09T17:28:09.755-04:00The Pelagic Biology, Behavior, and Ecology of Tropical Reef Fish LarvaeDuring the last few months I have neglected to add any new material to my blog. The reason for this pause in my writing has been due in large part to my preparation to write my graduate capstone review paper. In order to complete my master’s degree, my school requires its students to either take fewer classes and write a thesis or take more classes and write a capstone review paper. I have chosen the later route. Since the end of February I have been busy collecting and reading over one hundred scientific articles in order to prepare my review paper. At this point in the process I have begun to write a rough draft of what will become my capstone review paper. What follows is the introduction to my paper and only the references cited therein (including all my references would easily double the length of this post). <br /><br /><center><strong>************************</strong></center><br /><center><strong>Introduction</strong></center><br />Nearly all bony reef fishes have a bipartite life history consisting of a reef associated adult period and a pelagic larval period spent in open water. The length of time spent in the pelagic zone, referred to as the pelagic larval duration (PLD) varies between and within species and can be as short as a week or as long as a few months. The duration of the PLD and the events occurring during that time can have a tremendous effect on reef fishes (Bay <em>et al.</em> 2006; Leis 1991, 2006; Leis and McCormick 2002).<br /><br />During the pelagic stage, larvae may disperse from their natal reef and thus affect the biogeographical distributions and diversity of fish species. Survival in the larval stage heavily influences recruitment rates and population sizes (Hjort 1914), and the individual condition of juveniles and the amount of post-recruitment growth is determined during this stage (Bay <em>et al.</em> 2006). Due to the potential for dispersal in the pelagic stage, genetic and demographic connectivity are intricately linked with what occurs to the larvae in open water. Researchers are often interested in the evolutionary and biogeographic significant genetic connectivity, while managers of fisheries and marine protected areas depend on the scale of demographic connectivity. As a result of its importance in affecting so many processes on the reef, a solid knowledge of the pelagic phase of reef fish life cycles is crucial to understanding and caring for reef ecosystems (Leis 2006).<br /><br />Pelagic reef fish larvae have been known for over 100 years. For example, the highly specialized larvae of chaetodontids, called tholichthys, were first described in the late 19th century (Leis 1989). At the beginning of the 20th century scientists began to appreciate the importance of the pelagic larval. Fisherman had long noted annual variations in catches and fish abundance. These fluctuations were thought to be a result of migrations of adult fishes (Dower <em>et al.</em> 1997). Johan Hjort (1914) first proposed that the annual fluctuations in the abundance of commercially important species in Europe were due to variation in the recruitment success of juvenile fishes into the population and not mass migrations. Hjort (1914) suggested that larval mortality and, subsequently, recruitment success were due to sufficient food being present during the “critical period” when larvae exhausted their yolk sacs and began feeding on external sources. Thus starvation mortality was thought to be the main factor in controlling population abundances.<br /><br />Hjort (1914) proposed that another factor controlling mortality, but to a lesser degree than starvation, was the transport of larvae away from suitable juvenile habitat. This suggestion was based on the assumption that larvae drift passively on the currents. The belief that fish larvae did not have the ability to influence their position in the water and that their behavior could be regarded as irrelevant grew into what has been termed “the simplifying assumption” (Leis 2006; Leis and Carson-Ewart 1998). The tenets of the simplifying assumption dictated that 1) larvae are poor swimmers, 2) the pelagic larval duration is the only biological variable influencing dispersal, 3) all larvae behave the same, and 4) once competent, larvae settle on the first suitable habitat they chance upon after drifting on the currents. It was not until the 1980s and 1990s that the tenets of the simplifying assumption in tropical species began to be evaluated and found wanting (Leis 2006). <br /><br />Detailed studies on commercially important larval fishes in freshwater and temperate marine climates began in the 1950s and have outnumbered studies on tropical species ever since. With the lopsided knowledge of tropical and temperate species it was natural to apply what had been learned about temperate species to tropical species. Although some general assumptions may still be valid, as our knowledge about tropical species has grown, reasons to doubt the accuracy of assumptions based on temperate species have developed (Leis 2006; Leis and McCormick 2002). <br /><br />The majority of temperate and tropical species belong to distinctly different taxonomic orders. The few species of fishes that have attracted the most attention in temperate waters belong to the orders Clupeiformes, Gadiformes and Pleuronectiformes. While the majority of tropical reef fishes belong to the order Perciformes. These orders have been separate lineages for at least 50-60 million years. Therefore, it is unsound to believe that the behavioral or morphological development of perciforms should be identical to clupeiform, gadiform and pleuronectiform fishes. To do so would be equivalent to believing that data on rodents would apply to primates (Leis 2006; Leis and McCormick 2002). <br /><br />In addition to taxonomic differences, differences in adult habitat make assumptions based on temperate studies questionable. Tropical reef fish are demersal as adults and live on relatively small areas of hard bottom substrate on the continental shelf. The temperate species which are demersal live on vast, easy to find areas of soft bottom. Furthermore, some heavily studied temperate species are not demersal at all, but are pelagic and live in coastal or oceanic zones (Leis 2006; Leis and McCormick 2002). <br /><br />The reliance on assumptions and estimations based on temperate studies has been shown to be misleading in a number of studies. Tropical species have a shorter incubation time than temperate species and hatch at smaller sizes and less developed states. Thus they have a longer average pelagic larval duration (Houde and Zastrow 1993; Leis and McCormick 2002). However, tropical species appear to develop more quickly (Job and Bellwood 1996) and possess better swimming performance than would be assumed with temperate species (Leis and Carson-Ewart 1998; Stobutzki and Bellwood 1997). These results may be due in part to the benefits of living in warmer water (Leis 2006).<br /><br />Further complicating the study of the early life history stages of fishes is the complex, sometimes misleading, and arbitrary terminology present in the literature (Bond 1996; Choat <em>et al.</em> 1993; Leis 1991, 2006). The early life history of fishes is generally divided among egg, larva, and juvenile stages. The larval stage begins with hatching from the egg. During this stage larvae develop into yolk-sac larvae, preflexion larvae, flexion larvae, and postflexion larvae, based on morphological differences (see ‘Biology’ for more in-depth discussion of larval development). What determines the end of the larval stage depends on whether a morphological or ecological definition is used. Utilizing a morphological definition, the larval stage ends with metamorphosis. Metamorphosis is considered to occur once the fins are fully formed, squamations begin and larval characteristics are lost. This process can be abrupt or gradual and may occur independently of the ecologically defined end of the larval stage. The ecological end of the larval stage is called and settlement and occurs when the larva leaves the pelagic realm and moves to a demersal juvenile or adult environment. This review will use a combination of ecological and morphological definitions and refer to larvae as the pre-metamorphic fishes that have yet to settle from the pelagic realm. Thus, post-metamorphosis juveniles which have remained in the pelagic zone (e.g. some carangids and caesionine lutjanids) and the few species that do not have pelagic stages (e.g. <em> Acanthochromis polyacanthus</em>) will not be considered (Bond 1996; Leis 1991).<br /><br />The acceptance of the “simplifying assumption” has led to larval reef fishes being often termed plankton (Leis 1991, 2006). However, the term plankton carries with it two connotations 1) being of small size, usually <1cm, but sometimes up to a few centimeters and 2) having insignificant swimming and orientation abilities relative to surrounding currents. The larvae of demersal fishes hatch at a small size (a few millimeters) and settle at only a few centimeters, thus fulfilling the size definition of plankton. However, current research has shown that larvae do have the ability to swim against ambient currents and orient themselves to reefs. Although they may be planktonic at the time of hatching, they are clearly nektonic at the time of settlement and some time before. Therefore, the references in the literature to the “planktonic larval stage” and “ichthyoplankton” are both misleading and counterproductive. The neutral term “pelagic” which means resident of the water column more accurately describes the entire presettlement stage of reef fish larvae (Leis 1991, 2006). <br /><br />Even with generally agreed upon terminology established studying pelagic larval fishes is difficult. Fish larvae occur at very low densities. Even in the protected waters of the Biscayne Bay where larvae are fairly abundant densities only average 1.8 larvae per cubic meter of sea water (Houde and Lovdal 1984). In offshore locations, densities are even lower (Leis 1991). Furthermore, temporal abundance between seasons and even times of the lunar month can complicate sampling programs (Choat <em>et al.</em> 1993; Rooker <em>et al.</em> 1996). Larval fishes are also small (often only a few millimeters in length). But as they grow and develop changes in behavioral capabilities and size differences necessitate that different techniques and tools be used to fully sample the larval ichthyofauna (Choat <em>et al.</em> 1993). Larvae are also difficult to rear and maintain in the laboratory making detailed experimentations challenging (Leis and McCormick 2002). <br /><br />Once sampling difficulties are overcome and larvae are acquired there is still the problem of the dearth of taxonomic information on larval fishes. The taxonomic knowledge of larvae is very far from complete when compared to the total diversity of fishes (~24,000 teleost species of which about 60% are marine) (Leis 2006). Descriptions of larval development is still ongoing and work that has been done in the past is often incomplete or incorrect (Brogan 1996; Murphy <em>et al.</em> 2007). Species which have been the basis for many scientific studies, even larval studies, have only recently been described. For example, the pomacentrid, the Ambon damselfish, <em> Pomacentrus amboinensis</em> , has been studied in numerous ecological and larval studies, but has only lately been described (Murphy <em>et al.</em> 2007). Species in common and highly conspicuous reef fish families such as Chaetodontidae (Leis 1989), Lutjanidae (Brogan 1996), and Serranidae (Kohno <em>et al.</em> 1993) have been described, but many still lack descriptions. <br /> <br />Despite the obstacles, researchers have learned a great deal about the pelagic stage of larval reef fishes. This review will describe some of the current tools which have been used successfully to study this life history stage of reef fish larvae. After which, the current state of research on the biology, behavior, and ecology of larval reef fishes will be examined. Afterwards, the advantages of a pelagic larval stage will be discussed. Finally, directions for future research will be enumerated. <br /><br /><center><strong>References:</strong></center><br />Bay, L. K., <em>et al.</em> 2006. Intraspecific variation in the pelagic larval duration of tropical reef fishes. <em>Journal of Fish Biology</em>. 68(4): 1206-1214.<br /><br />Bond, C. E. 1996. Biology of Fishes. Toronto: Thomson Learning. 750pp.<br /><br />Brogan, M. W. 1996. Larvae of the eastern Pacific snapper <em>Hoplogagrus guntheri</em> (Teleostei: Lutjanidae). <em>Bulletin of Marine Science</em>. 58: 329-43.<br /><br />Choat, J. H., <em>et al.</em> 1993. A comparison of towed nets, purse seine, and light-aggregation devices for sampling larvae and pelagic juveniles of coral reef fishes. <em>Fishery Bulletin</em>. 91: 195-209.<br /><br />Hjort, J. 1914. Fluctuations in the great fisheries of northern Europe. <em>Rapports Proces-Verbaux des Reunions, Conseil Permanent International Pour L’exploration de la Mer</em>. 20: 1-13.<br /><br />Houde, E. D. and C. E. Zastrow. Ecosystem- and taxon-specific dynamic and energetics properties of larval fish assemblages. <em>Bulletin of Marine Science</em>. 53(2): 290-335.<br /><br />Job, S. D. and D. R. Bellwood. 1996. Visual acuity and feeding in larval <em>Premnas biaculeatus</em>. <em>Journal of Fish Biology</em>. 48: 952-963. <br /><br />Kohno, H. <em>et al.</em> 1993. Morphological development of larval and juvenile grouper, <em>Epinephelus fuscoguttatus</em>. <em>Japanese Journal of Ichthyology</em>. 40: 307-16.<br /><br />Leis, J. M. 1989. Larval biology of butterflyfishes (Pisces, Chaetodintidae): What do we really know? <em>Environmental Biology of Fishes</em>. 25: 87-100.<br /><br />Leis, J. M. 1991. The pelagic stage of reef fishes: The larval biology of coral reef fishes. In: The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Ed. P. F. Sale. San Diego: Academic Press. 183-230.<br /><br />Leis, J. M. 2006. Are Larvae of Demersal Fishes Plankton or Nekton? <em>Advances in Marine Biology</em>. 51: 57-141.<br /><br />Leis, J. M. and B. M. Carson-Ewart. 1998. Complex behaviour by coral-reef fish larvae in open-water and near-reef pelagic environments. <em>Environmental Biology of Fishes</em>. 53: 259-266.<br /><br />Leis, J. M. and M. I. McCormick. 2002. The biology, behavior, and ecology of the pelagic, larval stage of coral reef fishes. In: Coral Reef Fishes. Ed. P. F. Sale. San Diego: Academic Press. 171-200. <br /><br />Murphy, B. F., <em>et al.</em> 2007. Larval development of the Ambon damselfish <em>Pomacentrus amboinensis</em>, with a summary of pomacentrid development. <em>Journal of Fish Biology</em>. 71: 569-84.<br /><br />Rooker, J. R., <em>et al.</em> 1996. Sampling larval fishes with a nightlight lift-net in tropical inshore waters. <em>Fisheries Research</em>. 26: 1-15.<br /><br />Stobutzki, I. C. and D. R. Bellwood. 1997. Sustained swimming abilities of the late pelagic stages of coral reef fishes. <em>Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology</em>. 175:275-86.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-33395670349009474962008-04-08T22:10:00.000-04:002008-04-09T11:27:50.728-04:00Belize 2008For eight days last week I had the opportunity to take a class that allowed me to snorkel and dive the barrier reef off the coast of <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize> Belize</a>. And I would like to take a moment to tell a little bit about my trip. <br /><br /><a href="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2400053372_7d271f7f0d.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2400053372_7d271f7f0d.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a> The trip began on Saturday, March 29 with me, our professor, the TA and eight of my local classmates flying out of Miami International Airport into <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize_City> Belize City, Belize</a>. Once in the country we rendezvoused with two distance students, and took a single engine Cessna on a 15 min flight to <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangriga> Dangriga, Belize</a>. From there we piled tightly into a bus on a short trip to the boat that would take us to our final destination. The boat delivered us to the <a href= http://www.ize2belize.com/belize/ize/island/southwatercaye.html> IZE resort on South Water Caye</a>, an island 16 miles off the coast and within a stone’s throw of the <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belize_Barrier_Reef> second longest coral reef system in the world</a>. (Group on South Water Caye, photo credit: Katie Shade)<br /><br /><a href="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2400081606_9a9974d2a9.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2400081606_9a9974d2a9.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Our living arrangements for the week consisted of two connected “cabins,” cold showers, and a communal dining hall. On either side of our compound were resorts with easier access to the reef. We began work early Sunday with a snorkel in the area south of the island. After our lunch our task was to map that part of the reef and document the dominant species of fishes, corals, algae, and invertebrates in each zone of the reef. Using one of my classmate’s GPS unit we were able to easily map the area. Everyone else worked to document the species on the reef. And by 9pm we had finished collecting and organizing our data. (Our Cabin, photo credit: Katie Shade)<br /><br />In addition to our mapping we also had the responsibility to read a few scientific papers everyday. Someone would then be chosen to present a summary of the paper to the class. On Monday, we took a boat out to the fourth cut south of our position. While at “Fourth Cut” we were able to see all the <a href=http://www.thesea.org/coral_reef/reef_zones/reef_zones.php> parts of the reef</a>: from the peaceful back reef and lagoon to the more violent reef crest and even the tongue and groove structure of the deeper fore reef. <br /><br />That afternoon, we took a boat out to the <a href= http://invertebrates.si.edu/ccre.htm> Smithsonian lab on Carrie Bow Cay</a>, and traveled even further south to an area called Whale Shoals, which we mapped in a similar fashion as the reef on Sunday. That evening was filled with the fun and sometimes taxing work of identifying fishes, corals, sponges, and (for me) algae. <br /><br />After working so efficiently together we were rewarded with a morning to catch up on our reading and have a little free time. Some people walked around the island, some went ocean kayak, and some (me included) decided to attempt to snorkel off the west side of the island. The tide was low and the back reef area was only knee deep at best. My three fellow classmates and I made it to the reef crest and, dodging the fire coral, were able to swim out to the fore reef. We spent a little while swimming about and decided to go back to shore. We were too far north to swim to the easy access on the south of the island so we decided to head back the way we came. Finding a groove in the reef crest I swam forward with waves crashing above and rocking me forward and back. In only a couple feet of water I had to grab hold of the fire coral (thankfully we all wore our dive gloves) to keep from being thrown about. We made it out but everyone had his or her own little scrape or damage from our little outing.<br /><br />That afternoon the entire class went slopping through the deep mud of the mangroves. If you like hot, deep sulfur smelling mud, then the mangrove swamps are for you. We rinsed off with a snorkel in the channel that cuts through the mangroves and found many interesting juvenile fishes, sponges and even <a href= http://www.starfish.ch/Fotos/cnidarians-Nesseltiere/jellyfish-Quallen/Cassiopea-andromeda1.jpg> upside-down jellyfish</a>. <br /><br /><a href="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2398951972_dd8271ebc5.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px;" src="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2398951972_dd8271ebc5.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>Wednesday, most of the class went on an all day scuba diving trip to <a href= http://www.glovers.com.bz/glovermap.html> Glover’s Reef</a>, an atoll 26 miles off the coast. We made three dives and saw <a href= http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/hawksbill.htm> hawksbill turtles</a>, a field of <a href= http://fishbase.se/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=9062> garden eels</a>, schools of <a href= http://fishbase.se/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=3642> blue chromis</a> and a <a href= http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=2532> nurse shark</a>, among many other species. (Underwater View, Whale Shoals, photo credit: Erik DeMicco)<br /><br />Thursday, was reserved for our individual projects. Everyone did their own data collection on things like grazing rates, fish behavior, diurnal/nocturnal assemblage changes, etc. I helped a classmate mark off a patch reef and do a fish count. He then helped me to mark off a 3,000 m2 where I looked for a damselfish called a <a href= http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=3651> Beaugregory</a> guarding eggs in discarded queen conch shells. <br /><br />That night we geared up for a night snorkel. We found many sleeping parrotfish, squirrelfish on the prowl and an enormous number of invertebrates out on the reef. Squid, shrimp, and amphipods were everywhere. They were attracted to our lights and in some places cut visibility to under a foot. In most places we could see clearly and catch glimpses of animals like <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slipper_lobster> slipper lobsters</a> that stay hidden during the day. At the end of the dive we found that <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptocephalus> leptocephalus</a> (tarpon larvae) and <a href= http://www.imagequest3d.com/pages/current/pictureoftheweek/stomatopod/stomatopod.htm> mantis shrimp</a> larvae had started washing up on shore. <br /><br />Our final full day included us traveling back to the mainland and through <a href= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belmopan> Belmopan</a>, the capital, and finally arriving at the Radisson in Belize City. It wasn’t safe to leave the hotel after dark, but the hotel had a bar and that’s really what most biologists are searching for anyway. <br /><br /><a href="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2399241203_c02aee37a8.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/Belize/2399241203_c02aee37a8.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a>On Saturday, we travelled back to the states. One of the girls and I had been booked on an earlier flight so we made our way back by ourselves via the TriRail and my friends at work. Overall, this trip was probably the highlight of my Nova career. I saw a fairly healthy coral reef first hand and the amazing abundance of life on the reef. I made some good friends and learned a good deal. I only wish that it could have lasted longer. (The Pier, South Water Caye, photo credit: Katie Shade)<br /><br />-------------------<br /><br />Other photos from the trip can be<a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/696568@N20/"> viewed here</a>The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-9866879531271386122008-02-20T12:13:00.000-05:002008-02-20T12:22:02.121-05:00The AbsurdIn my previous blog about <a href=“http://therealmattdavis.blogspot.com/2008/02/good-art.html”> good art</a>, I claimed that one of the prerequisites for good art is that it provides an escape from reality. And I would like to clarify precisely why I have come to think that way. This idea is not one I’ve invented, but rather comes from the realm of existential philosophy. I don’t consider myself an existentialist, but I do think that there is some truth to what some existentialists have said. One such idea is that of the absurd, spelled out most notably by the French author <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus”> Albert Camus.</a><br /><br />Camus defined the absurd as ‘a confrontation between ‘rational’ human beings and an ‘indifferent’ universe” (Solomon 15). Camus saw that we live in a world which is quite honestly indifferent to us and our expectations of it. We unconsciously expect from the world around us what we consciously expect from the people around us. We expect justice (that good be rewarded and bad be punished) and a satisfaction in understanding. But the truth is the universe in unfeeling.<br /><br />We expect justice from the world, but the age-old problem of theodicy (the problem of evil) reminds us that although we expect justice, the world seems to be suspiciously lacking in that department. This is the absurd in action. Our rational minds project a desire (namely the desire for justice) on to a non-rational universe which, in reality, does not care. <br /><br />The absurd shows up in another way. Many “scientific minded westerners” hold out the hope that we will find satisfaction and fulfillment in our understanding of the natural world. We expect that if only we could know a little more we could find satisfaction. But the truth is we won’t find satisfaction this way. We can understand much about the world around us, but it will always leave us wanting more. Once again our rational expectations are not fulfilled by the universe.<br /><br />Our rational minds are at odds with the non-rational world around us. And Camus rightly saw that seeing the absurd can be a depressing thing. Left unchecked, living with the absurd can even lead to despair. But that is not usually the case. Why? Because we can escape from the absurd, if only for a little while, through art. We can, and probably should, also accept the absurd. What accepting the absurd fully means and where that leads is not completely clear to me at this point, but the alternative, despair, is not a viable option as far as I or Camus are concerned.<br /><br />Albert Camus was an atheist and claimed that even “if there were a God, it would not matter¬– life would still be absurd” (Solomon 15). I agree with him on this point. Even though there is a God, life is still absurd. Looking around I can’t help but notice that the universe does not care about justice or providing human beings with meaning or purpose. The universe is absurd and there is no hope in it. But that is not to say there is no hope at all. There is hope, but to look for it in the universe, to expect that Nature will somehow provide us with a source of hope and meaning is to find absurdity. <br /><br />Reference:<br />Solomon, Robert. 2000. <a href=“http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=437&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History”> <em>No Excuses: Existentialism and the Meaning of Life.</em></a> The Teaching Company.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-43709139070936425312008-02-09T22:38:00.000-05:002008-02-09T22:57:15.552-05:00Good ArtNot long ago, as I was trolling through the blogosphere, I happened upon <a href="http://erraticwisdom.com/2008/01/07/imperfect-art">an article </a>inquiring about how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms">Plato’s Theory of Forms </a>relates to the subject of good art (For our sake art includes music, literature, and the visual arts). The author of this blog suggested that good art gives us a glimpse of the form, and consequently is itself more real than reality. (Actually, he says <em>beautiful </em>art more closely resembles ultimate reality, but that is a mistake as well). This got me thinking about what actually makes good art and beautiful art (and yes, there is a difference).<br /><br />Let’s start with what makes beautiful art. Margaret Wolfe Hungerford once said, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and for what it’s worth I agree with her. Beauty is a subjective standard that shifts between places, times, and persons. Different cultures have different definitions of beauty and to argue with someone that this piece of art is beautiful or not will be about as productive as if you argued that I don’t like chocolate (which I do). Beauty is, in all fairness, a poor quality to look for in good art, partly because beauty is subjective and partly because good art does not need to be beautiful to anyone at any place or in any time.<br /><br />To be art, the piece must do three things. Firstly, it must communicate to the observer one or more emotions. Art stimulates within us that very human component that is the passions. It is not a logical or rational experience. When I recently read <em>White Fang</em> I felt happy when White Fang was able to reunite with his beloved master. No part of that experience was rational. Neither the wolf-dog nor the man were real, and my feelings were for something that does not exist. But art doesn’t need to be rational, that is what philosophy and science are for. Art is for the passions.<br /><br />Secondly, art must offer the observer an escape from reality. Reality is a rather frightening, troublesome, and absurd thing which we can not deal with on a constant basis. If we did we would find ourselves overcome with despair. Keeping despair at bay, art can separate us from reality (there are other means of separating oneself from reality, such as drugs, but art is a much safer escape). Getting lost in a book or a play or a song is not necessarily a bad thing. On the contrary, art should provide our mind with rest from the absurdity of reality. <br /><br />Anything that has the ability to communicate emotion and to provide safe haven from reality can be called art. But the last prerequisite is what separates regular art from <em>good </em>art. That last quality is transcendence. Good art has the ability to transcend time and space and personal experience. Good art can provide us with an escape and can stir our emotions no matter when it was created or where or by whom. And it can do those things to people everywhere and everywhen.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-47476472013640622852008-02-03T19:40:00.000-05:002008-02-03T20:09:08.583-05:00Amusing Ourselves to DeathTwo writers at the beginning of the twentieth century prophesied the death of Western culture. One writer imagined culture being crushed to death in the grasp of a totalitarian government bent on obtaining absolute control. The other envisioned laughter, distraction, and frivolity as the weapons which would drive off culture. Both authors were correct. George Orwell foresaw the reign of the communist states which nearly smothered Russian culture. And Aldous Huxley anticipated the surrender of American culture to soma. However, it appears that the drug has not taken the form of a pill, but it is “Television [that] is the <em>soma </em>of Aldous Huxley’s <em>Brave New World</em>” (Postman 111).<br /><br />American culture is dying and television is what is killing it. Neil Postman’s book <em>Amusing Ourselves to Death</em> seeks to spell out how television is killing our culture. It is not an evil plot by nefarious individuals that has orchestrated the death of our culture, instead it is the way television has reshaped the way we carry out discussions about ourselves and the world around us. Simply put:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>Our conversations about nature and about ourselves are conducted in whatever “languages” we find it possible and convenient to employ. We do not see nature or intelligence or human motivation or ideology as “it” is but only as our languages are. And our languages are our media. Our media are our metaphors. Our metaphors create the content of our culture. (Postman 15)</BLOCKQUOTE>The media that has been increasingly used to carry out our public discourse (that is, our informational, educational, political, religious, and commercial forms of conversation) is the television. In the past, the written word was the main vehicle for such dialogues, but today television is the primary mode of cultural communication. And “as typography moves to the periphery of our culture and television takes its place at the center, the seriousness, clarity and, above all, value of public discourse declines” (Postman 29).<br /><br />The seriousness of public discourse has suffered because television works best when it is not being serious. There is no conspiracy, just the fact that “good” television is entertaining. If it isn’t, then no one will choose to watch. But entertainment is not what is causing damage to our culture, on the contrary, “the problem is not that television presents us with entertaining subject matter but that all subject matter is presented as entertaining” (Postman 87). Even this fact would not make television powerful enough to destroy our culture. As long as we could separate what makes “good” television from what makes good public discourse we would be safe. But we have not been able to do that. Now, what makes “good” television is the same as what makes a good debate or sermon or class. <br /><br />For example, in the political sphere, we no longer choose candidates, mainly, on their policies or their grasp of the issues, but on the character they “play” on television and how well they are able to appear in “debates” (which have little resemblance to the actual debates of the past). In the commercial arena, TV commercials no longer provide us with information about the product or service; instead they try to make us laugh or to identify somehow with the slogan or logo. At church, sermons and the “worship time” are not intended to provide parishioners with an atmosphere in which they can commune with and worship their God. No, “good” churches are the ones that have rock musicians playing lyrically and theologically simple songs and a pastor that tells funny jokes and looks good on camera. At school, the “good” teachers are not the ones that force their students to sit still and study, but are instead the ones who sing songs or play games with the students. Our public discourse in education, commerce, religion and politics is all about being good entertainment.<br /><br />Television promotes the idea that everything should be entertaining. This idea is not only harmful to the seriousness of our public discourse, but destroys the clarity and value any viable thought may have had. There is practically no way of effectively forming complex ideas, constructing arguments to support those ideas, and providing documentation to strengthen those arguments using television (you could conceivably do this with TV, but chances are very good that practically no one would watch such a dull program) . An undertaking like the one I have mentioned would be much better suited for the written word. Television provides people with a wide variety of entertaining images that change every few seconds and require little or no previous knowledge to enjoy. Every episode is a self contained package. Even shows that require a minimal understanding of the events that preceded the current episode open with the phrase “Previously on …” and a dizzying montage of images and one-liners can catch you up completely in less than thirty seconds. However, complex ideas are not self contained packages. You can’t watch a thirty second montage to catch you up on Trigonometry or the history of the United States or Aristotle’s metaphysics. Serious, valuable ideas and concepts cannot be conveyed adequately via television. It simply isn’t the media for that kind of discourse.<br /><br />Television has done a great deal of damage to our culture already. The effects it has wreaked in politics, education, commerce, and religion are more obvious now in 2008 than when Postman penned his book in 1985, but our culture has yet to completely die. And it may have hope yet. Television and other new technologies will continue to affect our culture. Any attempts to stop the effects of new and existing technologies are already futile. Instead, the best we may be able to hope for is a recognition of how television affects the way we communicate with each other about important matters so that we don’t become the world Huxley imagined: “for in the end, he was trying to tell us that what afflicted the people in <em>Brave New World </em>was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking” (Postman 163). <br /><br /><br />Reference:<br />Postman, Neil. <em>Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business</em>. New York: Viking Penguin. 1985.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-70299134940462484552007-08-02T15:50:00.000-04:002008-02-01T22:27:10.429-05:00The God Delusion: Improbable ComplexityIn his book <em>The God Delusion </em>Richard Dawkins presents what he call "The Ultimate 747 Argument" to explain why he believes that God most certainly does not exist. The argument from improbability and its trademark image of the 747 is usually put forth by creationists or intelligent design proponents to argue for God's existence. Dawkins turns the argument on its head and posits that the argument from improbability actually is a good argument that God does not exist.<br /><br />The argument from improbability and its image of the Boeing 747 and the scrapyard are credited to Fred Hoyle and simply put "the probability of life originating on Earth is no greater than the chance of a hurricane, sweeping through a scrapyard, would have the luck to assemble a Boeing 747" (Dawkins 113). The same metaphor could be used to argue against the evolution or higher life forms like the odds or a hurricane putting together a live parakeet, a person, or a Paramecium. But Dawkins looks at this argument and asks 'what is the probability of the existence of God?' by questioning the idea that God is a simple being (if not the simplest of all beings). Many theologians, especially Richard Swinburne, have asserted the belief that God must be simple because He consists of a single substance (Dawkins 147-8). Dawkins argues that God, if He exists, must be more complex than the phenomena he has been posited to explain, namely matter, life, and intelligence.<br /><br />So how does something's complexity affect the probability of its existence? It is assumed that the more complex a being, the less probable its existence becomes. Simple things are simply more likely to occur than complex things. This assumption is true more often than not. For example, on the atomic scale, hydrogen, the simplest element (just a single proton orbited by one electron) is more likely to be found than oxygen (with its eight protons, eight neutrons, and eight electrons. And oxygen is more likely to be found than uranium (containing 92 protons, 146 neutrons, and 92 electrons). On a larger scale we see the same pattern. Here on earth simple sedimentary or igneous rock is more likely to be found than organic life; and simple organic life is more likely to be found than intelligent beings. It follows quite easily that an immensely complex intelligence capable of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence must be very improbable indeed.<br /><br />I agree with Dawkins on both points. A being "capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle in the universe cannot be simple" (Dawkins 149). And such a complex being must be immensely improbable. However, I don't think that admitting this presents nearly as big of a problem as Dawkins suggests.<br /><br />Let's start with question of God's complexity. For centuries man has thought of God as the simplest explanation for the things we see. To answer the question 'Where did all the animals and plants come from?' we say: 'God made them' (Gen. 1:20-5). We now know that the diversity of life comes from natural selection acting on mutations to shape organisms more fit to survive and reproduce in a given set or range of conditions. In addition to natural selection other processes such as gene flow, genetic drift, and chance (such as a mass extinction or an unlucky misstep on a high tree branch) have also helped to shape Earth's current diversity of flora and fauna. But this explanation is far from simple. It is actually more complicated than believing that God spoke the animals into existence. And if you look at any other branch of knowledge you will see that the closer we come to the truth of the nature of things the more complex our explanations become.<br /><br />We used to think that there were only four 'elements' in the world: air, water, fire, and earth. We now know that there are at least 110 different elements, a plethora of energy forms, subatomic particles, gravitons, etc. that make up the physical reality. We used to think that the human body was controlled and influenced by the proportions of four humors: blood, black bile, green bile, and mucus. We now know that the body has those fluid plus hundreds of hormones, proteins, electrical impulses, and ionic concentrations that control our inner workings. As our knowledge of the world increases it appears that our answers are not becoming simpler, but are becoming more complex.<br /><br />Yes, God is very likely to be highly complex. But if the pattern we see with biology, chemistry, and physics of moving from simple answers to more complex explanations is true for theology as well we should expect to see that God is not simple, but is the most complex being possible. Furthermore, the progressive revelation of the Bible has painted us a picture of a God with increasing complexity, from the simple Yahweh of the Old Testament to the complex intertwining of the Father, Son, and Spirit of the New Testament. God as an immensely complex being makes perfect sense to the Christian believer.<br /><br />What happens if we acknowledge that God is a very highly complex being and accept the assumption that complex things are less likely to occur than simple things? To put it shortly: nothing. Dawkins, and the creationists and intelligent design believers, make use of the sneaky art of statistics to support their cases. For instance, there are six crucial constants that must be fine-tuned to very exact numbers for matter to exist; and must be further fine-tuned to allow life to exist (this is known as the Anthropic Principle). The odds that those numbers are tuned to created the universe we see is very, very, very small. But the fact is those constants are tuned to create a universe like the one we see. Along the same line of reasoning as Dawkins employs I can argue pretty well that you do not exist.<br /><br />The odds that the combination of genes from your parents would create your genome are very low (like 1 in 10 million low). Now the odds that the combination of genes from your grandparents would create your parents' genomes are similar to those of the previous calculation. The odds that your parents met and married are probably somewhere around 1 in 10 million. Now repeat the last two odds for the probability that your great-grandparents genomes combined to form your grandparents and the odds that your grandparents met. So what is the probability that you exist? One in 1070. I normally round off at the tenth decimal place so for me the probability that you exist is essentially zero. And if you are one of the few people that round off at the seventy-first decimal place, I can easily make the odds even smaller by calculating the odds your great-great-grandparents met and so forth back to the beginning of time. However, hopefully you are not quite convinced by the overwhelming odds against your own existence. That's because no matter how great the statistical odds are against you existing the fact remains that you do exist. And actually existing trumps probability every time.<br /><br />So Dawkins is right. God is improbably complex, but so are you. And if the high probability against a being of your complexity existing doesn't make you doubt that you exist it shouldn't make you doubt that God exists. In fact, this argument can contend that if God is the most complex being possible (and He might possible be) then there can only be one of them. And you end up with monotheism instead of atheism. So it seems that Dawkins' argument from improbability shows us practically nothing about whether or not God exists and more about why we should be wary of blindly trusting probabilities.<br /><br /><br />Reference:<br />Dawkins, Richard. <em>The God Delusion</em>. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-81216480536083935682007-08-01T22:29:00.000-04:002008-02-01T22:29:54.521-05:00The God Delusion: Arguments for God’s ExistenceIn his book, <em>The God Delusion</em>, Richard Dawkins sets out to free the world of a dangerous irrational belief that has plagued mankind for thousands of years. That hazardous idea is the belief in "a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us" (Dawkins 31). Dawkins begins by disassembling some of the most common arguments for the existence of God then presents an argument against the existence of God; he then moves into a naturalistic explanation of the roots of religion and morality, as well as the harms caused by religion; he finishes up by advocating atheism as the correct worldview. I will examine some of the points brought up by Dawkins that I found to be of interest. I will start with his dissection of arguments that support God's existence.<br /><br />In his third chapter Dawkins expounds on eight different arguments for God's existence. I will touch on three that piqued my interest. The first is the argument from personal experience. Dawkins opens with a story about a young man and his girlfriend who, while camping in Scotland, hear the Devil himself speak to them in their tent. The experience was so unforgettable that it was one of the reasons he decided to become ordained. Years later, Dawkins was recalling the story to two ornithologists who burst out laughing and told Dawkins that what his friend had heard was the shrieks of a bird nicknamed the "Devil Bird" (Dawkins 87). In short, Dawkins writes off all religious experiences as either hallucinations or a byproduct of the brain's 'simulation software.' This simulation software is our brain's internal way of processing information to make it recognizable. The misfiring of this software is often the explanation for illusions like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necker_cube">Necker Cube</a>. To him when a religious personal experience can be explained in physical terms it loses its credibility as a genuine religious experience.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Dawkins debunking of personal religious experience has an unintended side effect. When his method is applied to any subjective experience the result is a destruction of the validity of that experience. What Dawkins fails to realize is that all human experience, including science, is subjective. Everything we see, hear, touch, smell, and taste is just an electrical signal sent to our brains which use its simulation software to make sense of the electrical signal. Imagine what would happen when you turn this logic on some every day subjective experiences. If you tell me you like pistachio ice cream and I rebut that you don't actually like pistachio ice cream; it is simply a matter of the chemical receptors on your tongue sending a certain electrical impulse to your brain that releases some endorphins into your blood; you would laugh at me. But this is what Dawkins is suggesting that we do with religious experiences. I have no doubt that most, if not all of our personal religious experiences have physical explanations. However, I do not think that finding these explanations completely debunks religious experience. If that were the case then we could just as easily debunk the remainder of human experience and we would be left with nearly nothing.<br /><br />The second of Dawkins' points that drew my interest was that of the argument from scripture (92-7). Dawkins argues that the Bible is full of inaccuracies, lies, and distortions. Most of his attacks come from other sources since he himself is not a Biblical scholar. He mainly contends that the Bible, in particular the New Testament, was written long after the events it records, it contradicts itself, and that major additions and subtractions have since occurred. Dawkins places a burden of proof on the Bible so heavy that I wonder if our modern newspapers could stand up under its weight let alone any ancient document_ Once again we see that if Dawkins' standards are applied to areas outside of religion we find self destructive side effects. Consider this: if you compare the number of copies we have and the time gap between the earliest copies and the events themselves for New Testament and other ancient books you find out that we have over 5,000 copies of the New Testament and a time gap of 50-100 years. The nearest competitor is <em>The Iliad </em>with 643 copies and a gap of 400 years. Livy's <em>History of Rome </em>only has 19 copies with a gap of 1,000 years and Caesar's <em>Gallic Wars </em>has only ten copies with a gap of an entire millennia (McDowell 38). If we apply Dawkins stringent requirements to the Bible we must concede that we know nothing at all about the ancient world before the printing press (and the time after that is somewhat sketchy as well).<br /><br />Dawkins' final point that I wish to cover here is based on his dismantling of the argument from scripture. He attacks the trilemma put forth by many theologians concerning Jesus as either "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord." Dawkins asserts that "the trilemma on offer would be ludicrously inadequate. A fourth possibility, almost too obvious to need mentioning, is that Jesus was honestly mistaken" (92). However, if any thought is given to the problem at hand this fourth option is quickly seen as ludicrous. What we are considering is how Jesus viewed his identity. Realizing that this question is a matter of identity and not of external fact is very important. <br /><br />If the problem was a matter of an external fact the possibility that Jesus was honestly mistaken is possible. If you ask someone where the nearest Kmart is they might say the one by I-95, not knowing that there is one much closer. Their statement is false, but they are not necessarily crazy or a diabolical liar. However, if someone gives a false statement about their identity there are only three possible reasons. For the moment let's substitute me into the problem and let's have me claiming to be George H. Bush's son (a clear problem of identity). My claim can either be true or false. If it is true then I am his son. If it is false then I must be consciously lying or unconsciously lying. If I am lying consciously then I must be a liar. But if I am unconsciously lying I could be forming my claim on reasonable grounds or unreasonable grounds. If there is evidence that I am George's son then I could be honestly mistaken until I discover later that I am adopted. However, if there is no evidence then I am acting against reason and I am what we often refer to as crazy. You can substitute any other outrageous claim of identity (like claiming to be Napoleon or an alien named Zorak) and you will see even more clearly how ridiculous it is to claim that Jesus was honestly mistaken about who he was. <br /><br />All of the arguments for the existence of God have holes in them and Dawkins has done some research into finding those holes. However, at times he must work so hard to find the holes that he unwittingly destroys the credibility of all subjective experience, erases most of history, and declares that people that claim to be God, Napoleon, or an alien named Zorak might not be crazy, but have made an honest mistake. No argument is air tight, not even the argument for gravity or existence, but at some point we have to go with what seems the most correct and fits the best with reality. For me it is that God created this universe and came to earth as a man, Jesus of Nazareth, to die for my sins. My arguments and reasons for believing this aren't invincible, but they are the best fit I have to the world around me.<br /><br /> <br />References:<br /><br />Dawkins, Richard. <em>The God Delusion</em>. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 2006.<br />McDowell, Josh. <em>The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict</em>. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.1999.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-14462254229477941852007-05-14T22:33:00.000-04:002008-02-01T22:25:44.809-05:00Had I Known How to Save a LifeI don't recall what radio station I was listening to when I first heard this song, but I do remember that I liked it. And as the days passed into weeks I heard it more and more and on what I thought was different stations. For me that's quite unusual. Sometimes I hear a Bon Jovi song on the alternative rock station and later the same song on the classic rock station. But crossovers between the Christian station and any others are pretty rare. So my curiosity was raised by the song performed by The Fray entitled "How to Save a Life" when I heard it played on the pop station and the Christian station. Another puzzling point that struck me was that the lyrics didn't really seem to have many strong Christian connections, other than the mentioning of praying to God. So I asked my friend Trevar to also look at the lyrics and give his interpretation. You can find his comments in his blog <a href="http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&FriendID=101521804">Explicating The Fray's "How to Save a Life"</a> However, as I took a closer look at the lyrics my inkling that this was not actually a "Christian" song was greatly reinforced. The following is my interpretation of what this song is about.<br /><br />Overall, the song tells a tragic story of the loss of a friend to either suicide or drug overdose and the events leading up to his death. Let's start from the beginning and see what the lyrics tell us. The song begins with what is commonly called an intervention. Why the intervention is being called is not made clear, but the awkwardness of the situation is apparent in the first verse:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>Step one you say we need to talk<br />He walks you say sit down it's just a talk<br />He smiles politely back at you<br />You stare politely right on through<br />Some sort of window to your right<br />As he goes left and you stay right<br />Between the lines of fear and blame<br />And you begin to wonder why you came</BLOCKQUOTE>The first step is getting the friend to sit down and have a serious talk. The gravity of the discourse and the unwillingness of the friend are evident by the narrator's need to assure the friend that what will take place is "just a talk." The friend agrees and proceeds to "smile politely back at" the narrator as the narrator "[stares] politely right on through." Although the two are close friends the pair must strain to be polite to one another. We can assume that the awkwardness of the situation is caused by both of them hearing things that they didn't want to hear as we will see in the second verse. <br /><br />As the duo strains to be polite to one another we get the first hint that the intervention will end poorly "as he goes left and you stay right." The narrator will not diverge from his path, but neither will the friend and from here their paths diverge forever. As the intervention gets rolling the narrator tells us that he must balance "between the lines of fear and blame" struggling not to blame his friend but fearing that he will not reveal enough to convince his friend to change. By the end of the first verse things do not look good as the narrator "[begins] to wonder why [he] came."<br /><br />The chorus, repeated after each verse, is a retrospective lament of the narrator's failure to save his friend:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>Where did I go wrong, I lost a friend<br />Somewhere along in the bitterness<br />And I would have stayed up with you all night<br />Had I known how to save a life</BLOCKQUOTE>It serves to reinforce the fact that the friend is ultimately loss in the bitterness we will see develop between the two. But despite the ill will that the two feel when they depart each other's company the narrator tell us that he "would have stayed up with you all night / Had [he] known how to save a life." We learn that the narrator would have stayed up with his friend all night had [he] known how to save a life. Said in another, less lyrical, way, the last two lines could read: "I didn't know how to save your life, but I would have stayed up all night with you if I did."<br /><br />The second verse takes us back to the intervention:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>Let him know that you know best<br />Cause after all you do know best<br />Try to slip past his defense<br />Without granting innocence<br />Lay down a list of what is wrong<br />The things you've told him all along<br />And pray to God he hears you<br />And pray to God he hears you</BLOCKQUOTE>And we see the narrator's attempt to "slip past his defense" to convince his friend that the narrator's advice should be taken, because "after all, [the narrator] does know best." Once the narrator has built his credibility he does not grant his friend innocence, but rather holds him accountable for his actions. The narrator then proceeds to "lay down a list of what is wrong," a list of actions and behaviors that aren't acceptable in the narrator's eyes. <br /><br />During this verse the friend is silent, presumably listening politely as the narrator tries to speak sense into his friend. The verse ends with the narrator praying to God. At first this line seems to indicate that there may be a ray of hope because the narrator "[prays] to God [who] hears [the narrator]," but a closer look reveals that this is not what is being said. The song isn't saying "pray to God; [God] hears [the narrator]," but rather, "pray to God [that the friend] hears [the narrator]" All of the narrator's sources have been tapped. He has built up his credibility, laid out his case, and even appealed to God that his argument will bear good fruit. But the reiteration of the chorus that follows reminds us of the untimely end of the friend.<br /><br />The final verse brings us to the end of the intervention. It is here that the friend replies to the narrator's accusations and condemnations as the narrator lays out an ultimatum:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>As he begins to raise his voice<br />You lower yours and grant him one last choice<br />Drive until you lose the road<br />Or break with the ones you've followed<br />He will do one of two things<br />He will admit to everything<br />Or he'll say he's just not the same<br />And you'll begin to wonder why you came</BLOCKQUOTE>As the friend raises his voice in anger, the narrator presents him with a choice. Either the friend will continue down his self destructive path until he loses the road and destroys himself or he can abandon that road and try to break his deadly habits. The narrator knows that he has forced his friend into a corner where he will either "admit to everything" and accept responsibility for his actions "or he'll say he's just not the same" and cut his ties to the narrator as he continues to pursue his vices. The verse does not tell us explicitly which one he will do, but things do not look good as the narrator "[begins] to wonder why [he] came."<br /><br />The title of this song is misleading in that it does not speak on the subject of "how to save a life" but rather laments "had I known." Had he known how to save a life the intervention would have been the turning point for his friend and not the last warning sign before his senseless suicide or drug overdose. What appears on first listen to be an uplifting song that tells us how to save the lives of our friends turns out to be a dark lament of a failed intervention, a failed friendship, and ultimately a failed life.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-46537203367985718442007-04-09T22:36:00.000-04:002008-01-31T22:38:01.043-05:00The Cradle of ChristianityToday I was able to escape from the cutting edge of marine geology long enough to visit a museum exhibit I have been excited to see since I heard of its existence. The exhibition, entitled The Cradle of Christianity, is on display until 15 April 2007, and brings with it items from the Holy Land to illustrate the connection between Judaism and Christianity. I would like to highlight some of the more interesting artifacts I saw there.<br /><br />The first part of the exhibition attempted to bring into focus the background in which Christ's life, death, and resurrection were played out. Here I saw ossuaries with names common to the time period: Mary, Joseph, and Jesus (an ossuary is a decorated box to store the bones of the dead after the flesh has rotted away). It is somewhat hard for us in the modern age to imagine that Jesus was a common name in the Judea in the first century AD. Also on display were dishes and cups that were very common in Jesus' day. Although these were probably not the dishes used at the Last Supper, it is likely that dishes like these were used by Jesus and his disciples. <br /><br />There was also a grisly reminder of the Roman method of crucifixion: an ankle bone with the nail still embedded. Although we know that crucifixions occurred during the first century, this ankle bone is the only direct evidence of this method of execution. Next to the ankle bone is the only known physical evidence that a certain governor of Judea lived: Pontius Pilate. At some point Pilate had an inscription made dedicating a piece of stonework to the current emperor of Rome: Tiberius. Next to the aforementioned stone is another ossuary which at one time contained the bones of Joseph Caiaphas, the High Priest who was instrumental in getting Christ executed. <br /><br />On down I was able to enter a darkened room and look at a few fragments of a document. Those pieces were written by scribes in the second century AD and were preserved in caves around the Dead Sea. That's right, on display for the first time anywhere was a fragment of the Temple Scroll; the longest of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Once I left the darkened room I entered a recreation of an early church; which closely resembled the Jewish synagogues of the time. <br /><br />The last part of the exhibit focused on the pilgrimages early Christians made. It seems that relics were very common back then and trips to familiar places like Golgotha and Gethsemane as well as Jericho and the Sea of Galilee were encouraged.<br /><br />Although I thought the highlight of the visit for me would be the Temple Scroll; I found when I left that it was not. Yes, the Temple Scroll is an ancient manuscript seen publicly for the first time ever, but the room was so dark it was hard to see the scroll at all. No, what really struck me was the ossuary of Caiaphas. It wasn't behind glass or in a darkened room and when I read the translation I thought to myself, "Who's Joseph Caiaphas?" And then it dawned on me: that's the High Priest who wanted Jesus crucified! It's difficult to explain, but at that moment I felt a renewed sense of awe as I realized all over again that the stories of the Gospels aren't actually stories, but are actual accounts of actual events. There before me was physical evidence that Caiaphas was a real person and was actually the High Priest who put Jesus on trial. It was truly an amazing experience to stand the day after Easter in front of the ossuary of one of the people responsible for Jesus' death, but to know that there is no ossuary labeled "Jesus of Galilee, son of Joseph" because the tomb is, and forever shall be, empty.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-61650616914009302802007-02-20T22:16:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:34:05.033-05:00An Evening with Dr. ReynoldsLast night I met with the President of the Mission Board over south Florida for the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Dr. Noel B. Reynolds. I had been looking forward to, as well as dreading, this day for months now since the missionaries first suggested that I visit with him. I knew from the outset that I probably would have little of value to add to the conversation as most of my arguments would not be new to him or carry much, if any, weight. But I was determined not to back down, so I accepted the invitation. <br /><br />After following the missionaries to his house in Plantation, we began the evening with pleasantries and I introduced myself giving a brief introduction to my own background. In the days leading up to the appointment, I had decided that I would present my case for my disbelief in Mormonism to Dr. Reynolds. I would present him with a simple logical proof and proceed to break down how it could not be true. I kept it in the back of my mind as we started our meeting. This is what I had prepared:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>Major Premise – The Bible is useful for teaching correct doctrine.<br />Minor Premise – The Mormon scriptures are useful for teaching correct doctrine.<br />Conclusion – Both the Mormon Scriptures and the Bible should teach the same, correct doctrines. </BLOCKQUOTE>I would then proceed to show that the Bible and the Mormon scriptures do not teach the same doctrines, thus the conclusion is false. Therefore, one or both of the premises must be false. This process seemed to me to be a very good starting place for evaluating the claims of Mormonism. Unfortunately, Dr. Reynolds did not see it that way. <br /><br />I asked Dr. Reynolds if he believed that the Bible was good for teaching doctrines and he agreed that it was. I inquired, “But what about the parts of the Bible that contradict Mormon doctrine?” He told me that he was not aware that there were any such areas. I replied that Mormons believe that they can become a god if they are good enough, but that the Bible teaches there is but one God and no other. He rebutted with the statement of Jesus’ “Is it not written in your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods’?” (John 10:34). Furthermore, he told me, all of the early church fathers believed in deification, that is, the idea that Jesus died so that we may become gods (for a more in-depth treatment see <a href="http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/Deification_EOM.htm">Mormon Defense of Deification </a>and <a href="http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/godsrus.htm">Orthodox Defense of Deification</a>). I told him that the verse he and Jesus were quoting was in reference to God-appointed judges which were men who would one day die (see Psalm 82). In short, Dr. Reynolds claimed that any discrepancy between Mormon and Biblical teachings could be chalked up to the modification of the Bible through the ages. Therefore, any thing that I could cite as being a critical difference could be dismissed as error in translation or a later change in the text. My Socratic dialectical was useless.<br /><br />Dr. Reynolds told me that comparing the two scriptures (or other doctrinal differences or the philosophical difficulty of an infinite number of Gods and universes) was not the correct starting place, instead he suggested that the question to start with is this: was Joseph Smith a prophet or not? A fair question I admit, but as I sit here at my computer reflecting I can’t help but think that that was my starting point. My proof is just a simple way of evaluating whether or not Smith was a prophet. If he was a prophet then his book should teach the same thing as the Bible. But Dr. Reynolds did not agree that a logical proof could confirm the veracity of the Mormon scriptures. <br /><br />Instead of using reason to evaluate Smith’s claim to be a prophet, he suggested that the way to know whether or not the Mormon scriptures are true is to follow a simple formula found in the Book of Mormon:<br /><br /><BLOCKQUOTE>“Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” Moroni 10:3-5</BLOCKQUOTE>I had read this Scripture before and as it had been explained to me the manifestation of truth that one feels was in the form of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). It wasn’t through reason or tradition, but experience and experience alone that one knows that the Book of Mormon is true. I was about to espouse to Dr. Reynolds the need for other modes of knowing to fully establish a well founded belief from which a solid faith can spring. But before I did I asked him to define what he meant by “God manifesting the truth.” His answer surprised me. He told me that the manifestation of truth was better termed “revelation.” I immediately asked him to define what he meant by revelation and he told me, “It is the still, small voice of God that tells you what to do, or sometimes, what not to do.” Mormons believe that we all receive revelation on a daily basis. We may not all be receptive to the message or heed the instructions, but we all receive them. I have to agree with Dr. Reynolds on this point, I do not deny that God speaks to our hearts through the moral law, but something about this use of “revelation” troubled me. And as I drove back to my house I thought about what he had said.<br /><br />It seems to me that Dr. Reynolds’ faith is based on what he believes is revelation from God which, though it has its emotional component, is not strictly emotional. It is the revelation that he has received, and continues to receive, that assures him that Joseph Smith is a prophet. The continual revelation is not a part of his faith, but is rather the entire thing. I was shocked when he told me that the Bible and Book of Mormon do not differ in doctrine to any significant degree. I am no great student of the Bible, but I know enough to conclude that the Bible and the Mormon scriptures do not teach the same doctrines. One or both must be incorrect. And in my own sojourning I have found that the Bible is a trustworthy document which I can use to construct doctrine. Dr. Reynolds has the utmost faith in the Mormon scriptures first and makes excuses for the “illusory” inconsistencies between it and the Bible. <br /><br />Aside from the matter of revelation, I also asked about matters of evidence for the book of Mormon. He cited two examples 1) the use of chiasmus (an ancient literary form only rediscovered decades after Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon), and 2) the discovery of a temple with an inscription of the name of a man who Lehi buried in Arabia on the journey to the New World. I am not going to comment on these two pieces of evidence, because I am not an authority on the subject of ancient literary styles and I know little of the actual facts of Dr. Reynolds’ archaeological evidence. Instead, I will direct you to the following references if you are interested in learning more about these topics: <a href="http://www.inthebeginning.org/chiasmus/introduction/chiasmus_intro.htm">Chiasmus in the Bible</a>, <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/chiasmus.shtml">Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon</a>, and <a href="http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#geography">Archaeological Evidence for the Book of Mormon</a>. I can only conclude that Joseph Smith did receive information from a source that knew about chiasmus and the temple inscription in Arabia. Who or what that source was is indeed the big question.<br /><br />In conclusion, I wish to say that I do not think that the Bible and the Book of Mormon teach the same doctrines. A polytheistic view is not supported by the Bible, but is necessary for faith in Mormon teachings. Their beliefs detract from the Christian idea of who God is. And to claim that a mere man can become a god equal to Our Father in Heaven is simply blasphemous. We may become more like him, yes, but we shall never be his equal. The truly sad thing is that these people are sincerely striving to be what they think God wants them to be. They are firmly ensconced in the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, but Joseph Smith “professing to be wise, […] became [a] fool, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man.” (Romans 1:22-23). Pray that God opens the eyes of the Mormons.<br /><br />Quotations from the Book of Mormon taken from http://scriptures.lds.org/ <br /><br />*************************************************<br /><br />Here is some background information on Dr. Reynolds: <br /><br />For a short bio click <a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=50">here</a> <br /><br />To read his critique on Greek philosophy in Christianty click <a href="http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=insights&id=220">here</a>The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-73236006004190927962007-02-08T22:39:00.000-05:002008-01-31T22:47:41.216-05:00No Raccoon Left Behind<a href="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/raccoon.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px;" src="http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w273/matthias2223/raccoon.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />TALLAHASSEE, FL- Today Florida governor Charlie Crist unveiled the first phase of his new animal education program: No Raccoon Left Behind. <br /><br />"There has been a lot of concern about the rising number of vandalism, assault, and rabies incidents involving raccoons in the past few years," Crist said. This new program is intended to curtail the sometimes destructive behavior of the state's most populous nocturnal omnivore.<br /><br />Incidents of raccoons knocking over trash can, fighting with neighborhood cats, and accosting tourists in the Everglades National Park has prompted lawmakers to take action to make Florida safe for all of its citizens.<br /><br />Initially, some consideration was given to traditional population control measures such as trapping and the use of poisons. However, opponents of these measures were successful in blocking legislation to authorize local animal control units to eliminate a portion of the raccoons in urban areas. "Violence never solves our problems," said Rep. Thad Altman (R), chairman of the House's Committee on Education Innovation & Career Preparation.<br /><br />"The senseless killing of these raccoons would prove that we are no better than they are. What we have to do is come up with a fresh, new way to solve an age-old problem," said Altman. "Instead of lowering ourselves to their level, we should strive to bring them to our level through proper education." <br /><br />"It is no secret that our local raccoon population is poorly educated," said Crist in his announcement today, "current estimates indicate that 94% of our state's raccoons are illiterate." <br /><br />The first phase of Crist's plan includes using animal control officers and high school volunteers to create a safe learning environment for a pilot group of 200 raccoons in Miami. If successful, Crist plans to open satellite campuses across the state as soon as next year.<br /><br />This is not the first attempt to assimilate animals into society through education. During the 1960s Florida was the first state to institute education programs for dolphins. Today, half a dozen other states have similar dolphin education programs.<br /><br />Other states are already taking interest in Florida's new raccoon program. "My administration has always played with the idea of starting raccoon schools," said South Carolina governor, Mark Sanford, "If Florida succeeds you can guarantee South Carolina won't be far behind."<br /><br />Hopes are high for the new program. "I look forward to the day Florida's children can walk hand in paw with Florida's raccoons," said Thad Altman. "And I'm glad that I'll live to see that day."The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-89723155206255220452007-02-03T22:47:00.000-05:002008-02-09T21:11:03.886-05:00Without Excuse: A Look at Romans 1The first chapter of Romans seeks to tell us what man can know about God and how he can come to that knowledge. There are two ways in which we can gain knowledge of God and before I go any further I would like to define those two paths. The first is commonly called "general revelation." General revelation can best be described as the gaining of knowledge of God without God's active intervention. Most commonly truths discovered about God through general revelation come from the natural world. Reason is usually the main tool which gives us knowledge via general revelation. The second kind of revelation is "special revelation." This kind of revelation deals with God directly interacting with mankind to give us some knowledge of Himself. The Bible is the best example of special revelation; however, I think that it can also apply to visions, dreams, and other direct experiences with God. Now that we've defined the two main kinds of revelation, let us look at what the apostle Paul has to say about revelation. <br /><br />It is necessary that we establish who Paul's audience is in Romans. If the name of the book doesn't give it away, verse five gives us a clear idea to whom Paul is addressing this letter. In that verse Paul tells us that his calling is "to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for His [God's] name's sake." Paul is writing to the Gentiles. The Gentiles haven't had the benefit of the Hebrew Scriptures to learn about God, but Paul still thinks that "they are without excuse" (v. 20). Paul is convinced that general revelation is enough to make the most important decision that there is to make: whether we are for God or against Him. <br /><br />But how can Gentiles with no knowledge of Hebrew beliefs come to make the decision to follow or reject the God of the Hebrews? It must all come from general revelation. However, it should be noted that general revelation is rather limited in the amount of knowledge that one can gain about God. Paul only lists two of God's invisible attributes that can be known from general revelation: "His eternal power and divine nature" (v. 20). C.S. Lewis sheds light on the subject of general revelation with his exposition on one of the main truths that we can glean from the world. That truth is that there is a universal moral law (see <em>Mere Christianity</em> for a more in depth explication of how we can come to this knowledge). And if there is a universal moral law there must be a moral law giver. From the moral law we can see the character of God's divine nature. <br /><br />Paul tells us that God made the moral law evident to mankind. How is it that God "made it evident to them" (v. 19)? I think that God gave us reason to discover the moral law. Reason cannot be explained satisfactorily with naturalistic causes. Reason cannot come from non-reason so reason must also have an author (see Lewis's <em>Miracles </em>for a better argument for this). So now we can make two statements about God: 1) He is moral, and 2) He possesses reason. Is this enough to make a decision about following or rejecting God? I think so. Through general revelation we can come to knowledge of the moral law and we find that we have trespassed against this law and in doing so trespassed against the Lawgiver. Even this incomplete knowledge is enough for Paul to claim that "they knew God" (v. 21). But what did they do with this knowledge? Paul tells us that "they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart[s] w[ere] darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools" (v. 21-22). It appears to me that the folly of the Gentiles was to think that general revelation can tell them what it could not. <br /><br />Paul believes that the Gentiles had enough knowledge, via general revelation, to have at least a basic faith in the one, true God. Unfortunately, "they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God" for idols (v. 23). Furthermore, "they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (v. 25). And what was God's response to their action? "God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity" (v. 24). They made the choice to reject God and so God "gave them over to degrading passions" (v. 26). They knew God's moral law, but rejected it and so God rejected them. They had a chance but, they threw it away. So I close with these questions for my readers: Would these same men have made the same choice if they had had the benefit of special revelation? Is general revelation really enough for us to come to have a faith in God? I welcome your thoughts.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-8974626844968699152007-01-19T16:00:00.000-05:002008-02-01T22:32:44.890-05:00Lionfish, Grad Students, and the TaoLast night, in my class on the ecology of invasive species an interesting question was raised: why should we care about preventing the spread of invasive species? The person who asked this reinforced their question with Darwinian evolutionary theory, i.e. survival of the fittest. Her argument was essentially: If invasive species are more fit than indigenous species then they will naturally take over the native's positions in the ecosystem and it's the native's fault for not being fit enough to deal with the invasion. And since humans are a part of the natural system (even if we pretend like we aren't) our actions (namely introducing invasives) are natural processes, comparable to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and doomsday asteroids. Therefore, invasive species are just following the rules of nature and we should let them run their course.<br /><br />This opinion did not go over well with the rest of the class. It's apparent that the introduction of invasive species is the second largest threat to biodiversity and species extinction, only habitat loss poses a greater threat (Wilcove et al. 1998). Furthermore, it seems that biodiversity is something that humankind wants to preserve and many are willing to spend large sums to do so (<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6263331.stm">BBC: "Protection for Weirdest Species"</a>). But what I saw when these grad students tried to define why we ought to protect other species from extinction it looked like people grasping for straws while drowning. Inadvertently these students had wondering into the frightening realm of philosophy. To say the least no one who offered an opinion had the tools to make their point sound like anything more than personal preference.<br /><br />It appeared to me that those students who offered their opinions fell into one of the terrible gaps in naturalism that makes this philosophy so unappealing. [Note: Naturalism in this context refers to the philosophy that all of reality is composed of the physical world that we see and experience. There is absolutely nothing that is outside of Nature. Nature is all there is and all of our explanations must come from natural causes.] Into what gap did my classmates unintentionally fall? They tried to do something that is a normal part of our everyday life, something that most of us do on a regular basis without even thinking about. However, this everyday activity does not have a plausible natural explanation. Here's what they did: they made a value judgment.<br /><br />We make value judgments every day. We claim that doing 'this' is better than doing 'that.' We advise people that they should do 'A' rather than 'B.' Last night's class was no different. Some people claimed that we ought to let invasive species run their course. Others objected and said that we should curb the effects of these species. Anytime you make a claim that someone 'ought to,' or that you 'should,' or that one course of action is 'better than' another you are a making a value judgment. Very few people argue that we should discount value judgments. The controversy is in how we justify these value judgments. Let's take a quick look at how naturalists and supernaturalists justify making value judgments.<br /><br />Supernaturalists, as their name suggests, make a claim to a standard that exists outside of nature to justify their value judgments. [Note: Supernaturalists believe that something exists outside of nature and includes many of the world religions including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Not everything has a natural explanation.] For example, Christianity justifies its claims that some actions are right (and thus better) than others on the nature and character of Yahweh. Buddhists call upon the 'Tao' (a pre-existent standard outside of space and time) to justify their judgments.<br /><br />Naturalists, on the other hand, often have to rely on other philosophies to justify themselves. Many in my field rely on Darwinism to guide their actions. 'Survival of the fittest' is their battle cry. But this rationale quickly disintegrates when applied to human actions. Imagine if we used 'survival of the fittest' as a business model. We could justify industrial espionage, fraud, and even murder, because "hey, we're just trying to survive." This principle works in the animal world but not in human society. Other naturalists try to use humanism as a justification. They claim that certain actions are good because they bring relief to man's estate or will better ensure the survival of our species. But this just pushes the problem of justification back another step. Why should we strive to bring relief to man's estate or ensure the survival of our species? Just because? No acceptable answer has been presented to this author.<br /><br />Without inciting some kind of standard outside of Nature there is no viable way to justify value judgments. If your philosophy cannot justify value judgments you have unwittingly given up your ability to make any value judgments at all. The inability for naturalism to justify value judgments should make those who hold to this philosophy reexamine their beliefs.<br /><br />Literature Cited:<br /><br />Wilcove, D. S., D. Rothstein, J. Dubow, A. Phillips and E. Losos.1998. "Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States." <em>Bioscience </em>48(8): 607.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-78400156265857255752007-01-08T22:14:00.000-05:002008-02-01T22:35:30.008-05:00A Deeper Analysis of Mormon DoctrinesIn the past few months, I have many good discussions with the Mormon missionaries. I have found opportunities to ask them questions about their beliefs and reply with my own objections. By speaking with them I have been able to gain more understanding about the theology and teachings of the Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They claim that the Book of Mormon and the Bible present the same theology, furthermore, that the Book of Mormon illustrates this identical theology more clearly and accurately than the Bible. I don’t agree. I would like to show two areas in which the Book of Mormon is in conflict in its philosophy and theology with the teachings of the Bible. The areas I would like to touch upon are the nature of God and the nature of Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Mormons claim to be monotheists. Indeed, Christianity also claims that there is but one, true God. However, the God in whom the Mormons believe (usually referred to as Heavenly Father) is a totally separate being from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Heavenly Father is like a human in that he has a spiritual body as well as a physical body. The Book of Mormon’s teaching is clear that God the Father has a physical body. Why is it so important that God have a physical body? A secret teaching, not usually told to immature believers, explains why. It was revealed to Joseph Smith that “as man is, God once was.” In other words, Mormons believe that Heavenly Father was at one time a man created by a previous Heavenly Father who was in turn once a man created by a previous Heavenly Father, and on and on to infinity. This doctrine is of course necessary so that good Mormons can have the hope that they themselves can become a future Heavenly Father on their own world or universe. This secret doctrine destroys their monotheistic guise and reveals Mormonism as a polytheistic religion. Furthermore, it is this belief that God was once man and that man can subsequently become God that is squarely in opposition to the teaching of the Bible. <br /> <br />The Bible does not teach that God has a physical body, in fact, John 4:24 is very clear that “God is a spirit.” It is true that the Bible often refers to God’s face, his feet, his hands, etc. but that is always in a figurative sense. If we took those passages literally we would have say that God also has wings (Ps 91:4) is made of wood (John 15:1), and is hot, combusting gas (Heb. 12:29). The Bible is equally clear that there has been only one God: “Before me there was no God formed, and there will be none after me.” (Is. 43:10). Mormons like to argue that God made us in his image and if he didn’t have a body he couldn’t have given us bodies. However, this interpretation of Genesis 1:27 does not stand up well to critical examination. Indeed God created man, but even this admission informs us that the phrase “in the likeness of” does not mean “exactly like.” Let me explain. Something that is created or made is intrinsically different from its maker. Birds make nests, but birds are not nests. Cats make hairballs, but (despite some debate) cats are not hairballs. Men create pictures, but men are not pictures. A man can even create a picture that is very much like him, but that picture can never be the same thing as the maker. In the same way God has made man, but God is not himself a man, and neither is man God. God is God, the one and only. Man cannot become God, no matter how god-like we become just as no picture of a man can become a man, no matter how lifelike it is.<br /><br />Now following this train of thought it would seem impossible that God could become a man. A man can be the subject of a picture, but he can’t physically become a picture. So it would seem that God could not become a man. However, the Bible tells us that what is impossible with man is possible with God (Luke 18:27). Mormons believe that Jesus is not God, but is only one in spirit and purpose with Heavenly Father. There is no Trinity and Jesus was just a very spiritually elevated man. However, this is not what the Bible has to say about the matter. In John 1:1 the book’s author tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” What does the Word do? Well, “the word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Whether we understand it or not the fact is that the Word, the Logos or God’s mind, became human. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that John calls Jesus the “only begotten from the Father.” Not only does this further set Jesus apart from the rest of mankind but it introduces an important concept. Unlike things which are created, things which are begotten are the same as the begetter. Birds beget birds and cats beget cats. In an analogous way God begets God. It would be difficult to argue that God could beget a man, no more than if a man could beget a picture of his son. It is true that God did miraculously impregnate Mary; however, I do not think that John’s reference to begetting is an allusion to the Virginal Conception.<br /><br />In addition to the first chapter of John, the rest of the New Testament tells us that Jesus firmly believed that he was God. He claimed to forgive sins (an act only possible by God Himself) and was nearly killed on more than one occasion because of his claims. Both Jesus and the people around him know who he was claiming to be: God in the flesh. Jesus claims to be God can either be true or false. If they are false then he is either a madman or a liar. Neither option would suggest that he was just a Good Prophet like many claim. The only other option is that Jesus was telling the truth about his divinity.<br /><br />The missionaries I have met with always object when I tell them that Jesus is God. If Jesus is God, and Heavenly Father is God, and if the Spirit is God doesn’t that mean that you believe in three Gods and not one? The simple answer is no. The Trinity is a very complex subject, but one should expect the truth to be complex. C.S Lewis once wrote, “If Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anybody can be simple if he has no facts to bother about” (<em>Mere Christianity</em>). The fact is that Jesus claimed to be God and all throughout the Bible allusions are made to the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. When we look at the Bible we see that there are three distinct personalities claiming to be God. And while they are each making claims to Divinity none make claims to subtract from the others. If we want to make it simpler for ourselves and say that God the Father is the only God and Jesus and the Spirit are very godlike, but didn’t quite make the cut we must call Jesus and the Spirit liars. That is what the facts force us to do. <br /><br />In conclusion, the Bible is often unclear about certain points of doctrine. But it is clear that Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit are all separate while all being one God. It is clear that God the Father is a spiritual being and that Jesus was fully man and fully God. To believe otherwise is to ignore the facts presented in the Bible. If, as I have shown, the teachings of the Mormons stand in such stark contrast to the teachings of the Bible there can be only two logical courses of action. One is to accept the Bible and reject the Book of Mormon (along with the Mormon’s other Scriptures). The other is to accept the Book of Mormon as truth and reject the Bible as misinformation. The option to accept both as Holy Scripture is simply dead in the water.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-64327094823460596782006-12-04T22:50:00.001-05:002008-01-31T22:53:36.421-05:00Memories of the FutureI am at a loss. I like philosophy, and at times I think that I have a decent grasp on a few things. But all my personal philosophizing on free will and predestination hasn't seemed to help me to make large-scale decisions, like where to attend school, who to marry, what career opportunities to pursue, etc. I like it when a philosophy is practical. I really strive to make my philosophy be useful in real life, and to be useful in real life it must represent reality. For example, ethics works very well in making correct predictions about the way the world really is (that is, certain actions are right and others are wrong) and then we can use those predictions to guide our daily actions. But not all actions have more than an ethical dimension. Sometimes we have to make a choice between two goods. How do we decide which path to take if both take us to good places? <br /><br />I believe in predestination. I also believe in free will. Both exist in the same time and space, but most of the time we can't see that. Looking back I often think to myself, "I can see why this or that happened; if it didn't I wouldn't be here or so on and so forth." Looking forward is much more difficult. When I look forward I think to myself, "I can't see what or what not to do; where or should I go or what should I do?" Our destiny is difficult (if not impossible) to discern looking forward; and looking back sometimes doesn't give up many more of the answers we want.<br /><br />At some point we have to decide if we believe that we have a destiny and what to do about it. I think we all have a destiny, in the sense that God knows what we will do, but our destiny is also controlled by the choices we make. So in effect we have to choose the destiny that is already "decided" for us. But how do we know what to do if we can't see the end product. Christians often call destiny "God's will" but if you look close I think you'll find that they are the same thing. Different social circles have just different names for it (no self respecting atheist is going to talk about "God's will," but he will likely feel comfortable wondering about his destiny). Enough semantics, how do I know what "God's will" is for my life? Can our destiny be known in the traditional sense? Can I go completely on my feelings? Does tradition have anything to say about my personal situation? Can my destiny be thought out rationally? What if each of those sources of knowledge tell me a different thing? Should one take preference over the others? If so, why? Without answers to these questions how can we keep from being paralyzed with uncertainty? (Sometimes I envy those people still in their chains watching the shadows on the wall. They can just float through life without worrying about such questions.) If I knew what "God's will" for me was I would be able to act or not act with confidence. A great number of times I have decided my actions based on an argument from reason. I don't know if tradition had much direct influence (although no man is an island) in my decision. And my decisions, at times, have flown in the face of my emotions. So for me I guess reason does take precedence over the other two. I hope that it's the right decision. Unfortunately, with life we can never really know if the decisions we make are the best possible decision. <br /><br />Some stuff doesn't make sense to me. I try to figure it out, but it's just too complicated sometimes. So I end this entry not with a conclusion, but with a request. A request for my reader to shed some light on the subject of discerning God's will. Make a comment and maybe we can learn together.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-28871160195086103002006-11-21T22:21:00.000-05:002008-02-01T22:37:04.348-05:00Half Past ModernityThere are a number of people that I know who think that modernity is over. They have already welcomed in post-modernity and bid a fond farewell to its unfortunate forerunner. I have not joined the ranks of the post-moderns, partly because I've grown somewhat attached to the ideas of modernity, but mostly because I still see the philosophies of modernity almost everywhere I look. I concede that if you walk into nearly any university the discussions often have more than a tinge of post-modern thought. But outside of academia modernity is still doing quite well. How do I know this you ask? Well, I see the main misconception that modern thinking brought into everyday thought everywhere. So you ask, (wishing that I would be more straightforward) "What misconception are you talking about?" "Oversimplification," I respond (wondering why you didn't know that already). <br /><br /> <br /><br />That's right; oversimplification is the great mark of modernity. Think about those philosophies that came about during modernity. I don't have time or the expertise to talk about all of them, but I would like to touch on three of them to make my point. Let's begin with one of my friend's favorite philosophies: Socialism (a.k.a. communism, Marxism, etc.). The core of socialism can be summed up by one comment made by Marx and Engles near the beginning of <em>The Communist Manifesto</em>: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Marx took a bit of the truth, that there are indeed class struggles, and swells it to the point of making it the whole picture. No doubt class struggles occur, but history tells much more than just the story of class struggles. Marx and Engles oversimplify the multivariate tapestry that is history into an endless, bland cycle of class struggles. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Next up is Sigmund Freud, not one of my favorite philosophers, who took the sex drive and made it everything. It is true that humans have sexual desires and that those desires influence how we think and act. But are we just sex crazed animals with nothing on the brain but reproduction? In general (unfortunately some exceptions do exist), all of our actions aren't driven solely by the desire to have sex. Freud oversimplified the complex inner works of the human mind into an unsophisticated and overpowering sex drive. <br /><br /> <br /><br />Finally, I would like to talk about the Darwinists (who are an evil, conniving group regardless, or at least says Dr. Dino). The father of evolutionary theory came upon a couple of fantastic truths: natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Indeed much of biological history has been shaped by these two truths, but the early evolutionists proceeded to apply those truths to everything that wondered by. In essence, they took the truth of natural selection and survival of the fittest and said that they explained everything from the number of lenses in the trilobite's eyes to economic theory to the emergence of human emotions. I concede the fact that evolutionary theory can help us to explain a great deal about our world, but it cannot by itself explain Reality. Darwinists oversimplified the multifaceted world around us into a violent world of "kill or be killed."<br /><br /> <br /><br />We've seen how modern philosophers instead of trying to understand the different parts of truth took a single truth and declared it the only truth. But do we still see this gross simplification in the world today? Socialism still lives. China and Cuba are still communist nations. Psychology students still underline entire library books about Freud. Many biologists still devote their entire lives to researching evolutionary biology. However, this is not what I mean when I say that I still see the folly of modernity everywhere. People in general have oversimplified everything. Thing are either black and white. You are either a Republican or a Democrat. No one wants to talk about compromise or moderation. Those things involve invoking other parts of truth, and our modern society wants none of that. <br /><br /> <br /><br />We aren't taught to question the world around us, instead we are told to take the "truth" that is spoon fed to us and swallow it without a second thought. For those of us who have started to philosophize about the things we have been taught, we become ostracized. We become the liberal thinkers in our church or school or workplace. Philosophy is too scary for most moderns. It shows us that the simple world that we thought we understood is in fact much more complicated than we were taught. And once you find that out there is no going back. Many people would argue with Plato that the unexamined life is worth living. Keep things simple; don't rock the boat; don't take off your chains and leave the cave; that is what we are taught. This is the world that modernity built. Post-modernity is on its way, and it will most likely arrive soon. But the world at large is still living the modern dream; a dream where thinking too deeply is a sin and where taking sides without the least bit of thought is the greatest possible good.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-90073256118936181772006-11-08T22:25:00.000-05:002008-02-09T16:31:41.149-05:00The Informed FaithThis blog started as a comment to clarify a brief statement in <a href="http://therealmattdavis.blogspot.com/2008/01/brief-introduction-to-mormonism.html">A Brief Introduction to Mormonism</a>. It quickly grew out of control and became its own entity. At the risk of a similar event occurring again I invite you to read, ponder, and comment on the content below. Enjoy.<br /><br />Hebrews 11:1 states "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (NASB). For a long time this concise definition of faith sufficed when I thought about this very abstract idea. But is that all there is to faith? I think not. Jesus showed his great wisdom when he used the metaphor of house building in relation to our lives (Luke 6:47-9) and so I will borrow this metaphor to illustrate my idea of faith. Faith is much like a house. Like a house, faith must have a foundation. But not all foundations are equal. A faith that has a weak foundation is what I call an uninformed faith. Conversely, a faith which has a strong foundation is what I refer to as an informed faith. <br /><br />The foundation of faith is most assuredly belief. Belief can be supported by a number of things such as experience, reason, and tradition. Often beliefs have more than one support. For instance, my belief that goats will eat shoelaces given the chance is based on tradition and experience. My mom told me to be wary around goats because of their affinities for shoelaces (tradition). But I have personally had to shoo goats away from me lest they consume my shoelaces (experience). Now when I see an unfamiliar goat I can form a new belief using my reason which says that this particular goat will attempt to eat my shoelaces. If tradition says that goats will eat the shoelaces of the unwatchful and if I have seen the hunger of the goat first hand it is a good bet that any given goat will try to eat anyone's shoelaces. Each way of knowing confirms the others. I could believe that goats like to eat shoelaces simply because my mom said so. The tradition she has passed down to me is strengthened by my own experiences with the shoelace-starved goats I have encountered. Now, if on my journey I meet a goat who is not intent on devouring my shoelaces I may need to rethink my belief about goats. To my knowledge no such goat has been found.<br /><br />Belief needs some kind of support. The more support a belief has (from tradition, reason, etc.) the stronger and more credible it is. For example, I believe that Christ lived, died, and was resurrected because the support is there in the form of tradition, reason, and experience. Tradition, in the form of the Bible, tells us much about Jesus and his early church. Reason utilizes physical evidence that informs us that he did indeed live when and where tradition tells us. And personal experience has brought me to the knowledge that he still lives and interacts with mankind. This confluence of supports has created for me a strong belief that Jesus was who he said he was.<br /><br />Earthly house foundations are often made with rebar and concrete. Instead of rebar, the walls of houses have wooden 2x4's to support them. In place of concrete, contractors use drywall and paint to complete the walls. In the same way, faith is not necessarily made from the same materials that make up the underlying beliefs. Faith does not necessarily have hard evidence to back it up. For example, I have faith that Jesus' death atoned for our sins. There is no tangible evidence for this claim, but I have faith that this doctrine is true because I believe that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament spoke the truth. Tradition, my reason, and experience have led me to be confident that my belief in the accuracy of the Bible is well placed. With a solid foundational belief in the Bible I can take on faith doctrines which have no physical evidence, like free will and predestination, laid forth in the good book. <br /><br />Faith is like the walls of a house. Those walls need a foundation if they are to stand against the elements. The foundation that faith is built upon is belief. Beliefs are constructed from tradition, reason, and experience. When beliefs are constructed from incorrect facts, faulty logic, and emotion they are more prone to crumbling and taking down the faith that is built upon the belief<br /><br />Getting back to the reason that I started writing this blog, my discussions with the Mormon missionaries (the Elders), I must state that there is no question that I privilege the informed faith above the uninformed faith. Who among us would argue for a faith that springs from falsehoods and forgeries? I think that I should further clarify what I mean by an informed faith. It is a faith supported by belief which has credible evidence to support the belief in question. Ancient manuscripts and carvings are, to me, more credible evidences than a feeling you get. My belief in the veracity of Christian theism is backed up by real evidence; many of the doctrines I believe are taken on faith but are based on the belief in Christian theism. When I speak to the Elders I can't help but think that their belief that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith is a prophet is based on the subjective feeling or vision they received when they prayed. Their faith is based on a belief supported by feelings. It makes me wonder if they are really building their houses on the Rock or shifting sands.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-66917884761390094362006-10-28T22:11:00.000-04:002008-02-09T21:12:28.584-05:00Third Nephi: My First Look at Mormon BeliefsIt may seem that this installment is somewhat superfluous. By the end of my last article I have fully rejected that the Book of Mormon is inspired Scripture. You may be asking “Why continue to talk about the Book of Mormon?” and I would answer, “Maybe we can glean some truth from the Book of Mormon.” It might not be credible Scripture, but neither is <em>The Republic </em>and we can still learn truth from Plato. The Elders told me that everything taught in the Bible is analogous to what is taught in the Book of Mormon. They claim that the two records make it more difficult for false schisms to form by stabilizing one another. So let us examine the two books and see if they are really as closely aligned as we would be told.<br /><br />The first section I read in the Book of Mormon was the account of Jesus’ appearance in the Americas (3 Nephi 11). To summarize: a great number of people are gathered together discussing the meaning of the past few days’ signs (these signs were prophesized to signal the arrival of Christ). A loud voice from Heaven calls three times (it was unintelligible the first two times) saying “Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him” (3 Nephi 11:7). Do you remember hearing something like this before (Matt. 3:17)? After they hear the voice, the glorified Jesus descends from the clouds and stands among the people. Everyone gets a chance to pass by and feel his wounds. He preaches to the crowd and baptizes them. He picks out twelve specific men and gives them the authority to baptize and spread the gospel. Chapters 12 through 14 pretty well mirror chapters 5 through 7 of the book of Matthew, which (for those of you like me who aren’t Bible scholars) is the Sermon on the Mount. <br /><br />Let’s take a moment to look at these chapters with a discerning eye. The first thing that I noticed was Jesus’ entrance into the New World. His choice of entrance is just about as opposite as you can get from the way he came onto the scene in Judea. In the Old World, He entered in with no fanfare in a shed in a little town called Nazareth. He lived a fairly uneventful thirty years before beginning his ministry. During his ministry he often told the disciples not to proclaim him the Messiah (Matt. 8:4; 16:20; Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9:20-21). But all those previous ways of doing things go out the window as Jesus crossed the Prime Meridian. Instead of a quiet ministry beginning in rural South America, Jesus comes in like it’s the Second Coming. It seems that from the beginning this might not be the same Jesus of the Bible. <br /><br />The fact that the chapters which retell the Sermon on the Mount are nearly identical to the account in Matthew is a source of little interest. Maybe if Joseph Smith had never read Matthew, then this would be of great importance. The only interesting point in those three chapters is the addition of a Beatitude. In 3 Nephi, the first beatitude is not “Blessed are the poor in spirit” but rather blessed are those that are baptized (12:2). This beatitude is conspicuously absent from the Biblical account. Of course, this addition doesn’t prove that the Book of Mormon is totally different theologically from the Bible, Jesus did preach about baptism; but it does begin to show the disproportionate amount of importance that Mormonism places on good works, in this case baptism.<br /><br />In addition to reading those chapters, I also skimmed through the histories that recorded the events before Christ’s appearance. It seems that even before he was born the people in the New World knew that the Messiah’s name would be Jesus. Even more surprising is the fact that they actually understood the purpose of the Messiah! Almost two thousand years after his appearance there are still a great numbers of Jewish scholars who don’t understand the purpose of the Messiah. So how did the people here understand and believe everything about Jesus’ necessary sacrifice? Remember that during Jesus’ time most Jews thought that the Messiah was going to be a political savior not a man who would die on a cross. To fully appreciate this problem, please allow me a short tangent so that I can propose an adequate analogy to illustrate my point.<br /><br />The progression of revealed religion and mathematics has a great deal in common. Both started off with a very basic understanding. The idea that a God even existed is as enormous a leap as the discovery that there exists a number called zero. In our modern day we take zero for granted, but it was quite a feat to come up with the concept of zero. As time progressed so did math and religion. Math added new functions like addition and division. Religion discovered the new ideas of good and evil. Even more time passed and both branches of knowledge continued to advance. Mathematicians found algebra, geometry, and calculus. Theologians (or their ancient counterparts) were shown Jehovah, the sacred act of the sacrifice, and finally the Great Act of the Sacrifice of God Himself for the sins of mankind. When we look back at these discoveries through time, we lose the appreciation of the monumental changes in thought that it took to move on to the next level of development. In addition to this loss of awe, we have taken for granted that we need each step in the progression to get to where we are now. Without basic algebra we wouldn’t have discovered calculus. In a like manner, without exposure to the early Judaic beliefs and practices we would not be able to understand Christ’s sacrifice. That is part of the reason I believe that we have the Old Testament. It tells us where we came from spiritually so that we can understand critical points of doctrine, such as, why Jesus died. <br /><br />It seems to me that the people in the New World were at the level of basic math in their spiritual lives when the Jews arrived around 600 BC. They quickly advanced to algebra with guidance from the displaced Israelites. And when Christ arrived they made another enormous jump-- from algebra to calculus III. Now it is possible that they were capable of making these huge leaps in understanding, but I doubt it. If you throw the average Algebra student into an advanced calculus college course he will be able to follow some of the lecture. But at the end of the day you will have a very confused kid. In the same way, I think that the people of the New World would not have been able to understand Jesus as quickly as they purportedly did. <br /><br />This short entry is no doubt far from the entire story, but I think that even from this small sample we can see that the Book of Mormon does not accurately portray the Jesus in the Bible or the required progression of thought needed to understand Christ’s mission. There may be something yet for us to learn from the Book of Mormon, but the odds are that it won’t be much.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-76668964804416800502006-10-28T22:07:00.000-04:002008-02-09T21:13:33.567-05:00A Brief Introduction to MormonismWednesday morning last October started as Wednesdays usually did. I awoke, showered, had some breakfast and sat down to finish up some Physical Oceanography homework for the next day. As I worked, a knock came at the door. I rose and answered it. To my surprise two nicely dressed gentlemen in their twenties introduced themselves as missionaries of the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints. They asked if they could come inside and talk to me. I agreed and they entered as I scrounged up three chairs. <br /><br />Once we were comfortably seated they proceeded to go through their rehearsed speech. They asked if I had heard of Jesus, salvation, Joseph Smith, prophets, etc. I told them I had and what I didn’t know, they kindly filled those blanks. They shared with me Scriptures from the Bible as well as from the Book of Mormon. At the end of our hour long meeting they gave me my own copy of the Book of Mormon and asked me if I would take some time to read some of it, and pray about its veracity. I told them I would. <br /><br />Let’s fast forward a few days to the point where I have read a bit of the Book of Mormon and have had the chance to meet again with the two Elders (that’s their title as they are in their 2 year missionary journey). They believe that the Book of Mormon is the inspired record of Jesus in the New World. Here is the basic storyline: around 600 BC a group of Jews flee Jerusalem as the Babylonians are invading and end up in the New World by boat. They build up a civilization that is taught about Jesus Christ. In 33 AD, Jesus, in his resurrected form ascends down on their Temple. He teaches them, they all believe, and He returns to Heaven. They all live in peace and harmony for awhile, but after about 400 years the people have become so evil that they self-destruct. Before they do, the son of Mormon, Moroni, buries the records of this civilization, which are in the form of golden plates, so that they won’t be destroyed. During the early 1800s, Joseph Smith is praying and asking God to show him the one, true church. The answer that he gets is that they are all wrong. So God, a resurrected Moroni, angels, among others, in a series of appearances showed Smith the golden plates with the Book of Mormon on them. He was given the ability to translate the plates into English, and we have what is known as the Book of Mormon. Smith founded the Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter Day Saints in 1830. Soon after founding the church, Smith and his followers were persecuted and moved to Illinois where Smith and his brother were murdered by a mob. Brigham Young became Smith’s successor and led the Latter-Day Saints to Utah where the headquarters of the Church remains to this day.<br /><br />Mormons hold that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are inspired Scriptures. However, there are some big differences in the two. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon cannot show us the original manuscripts from which the English translation comes. The plates from which the translations were made have been taken by the messenger who first gave them to Joseph Smith. I have been told that you must pray and ask God for the knowledge that Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true. God does grant us wisdom if we ask (James 1:5). But God also calls us to use our minds so that we may know the truth (1 Thessalonians 5:21). God does give wisdom, but wisdom is the correct use of knowledge and God does not command us to ask for knowledge. We must seek out knowledge for ourselves.<br /><br />So let us objectively look at the claims for the Book of Mormon. As I have already stated, there are no original manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. Maybe there are third party pieces of the Book of Mormon. Even if we didn’t have the manuscripts we could still reconstruct all but a handful of verses of the entire New Testament. But there are no letters containing pieces of the Book of Mormon. No ancient commentaries on this book have been unearthed. There aren’t even any writings that refer to the Book of Mormon, before the 1800s of course. <br /><br />The Book of Mormon may not have original manuscripts or third party fragments like the Bible. But both books include lengthy sections of history. Now it is well known that the places mentioned in the Bible exist. You may have even heard of Jerusalem or Rome. The Bible also speaks of people, like Paul, Jesus, Pontius Pilate, Abraham, Moses, and Solomon. There is a plethora of third party confirmations that these people actually existed. Ancient records and inscriptions outside of the Bible talk about them. The Bible also includes events, like the Roman rule of Judea in the 1st century AD, the exodus, and the exile. Many of these events have external confirmations that they in fact happened. So maybe the Book of Mormon has such confirmations of the places, people, and events which make up the history it reports. But, as you may have already guessed, there is no such confirmation.<br /><br />Now I will grant the concession that I am no great student of the Book of Mormon, and (believe it or not) I know far from everything. There could be some evidence for the Book of Mormon, but the missionaries that I have spoke with have not been able to cite any real evidence. Their best attempt has been to tell me that they know that there is “all kinds of evidence,” for the Book of Mormon; they are just ignorant of it. <br /><br />For the Elders, the credibility of the Book of Mormon stands on one thing: faith. They have prayed and asked God if the Book is true. And in their own ways they have received affirmative answers. I cannot dispute the credibility of their experiences. Their experiences are in the realm of the Subjective where Lady Reason has no sway. But I can relate to their belief. My own conversion to Christianity was largely subjective. I felt the Holy Spirit move and after much diligent work on His part I acted. But as time passed I was not satisfied that I had felt something that May evening a decade ago. I studied to see if the story that the Bible told was indeed true. I wanted to know if my subjective feelings were based on an objective reality. After some time I found the answer that I sought. There is indeed a Jesus and he did die. More so than that, He was resurrected. I came to see that my faith is not placed in a feeling that can come and go, but in a God-Man who lived and died on this Earth, rose, ascended and is coming back. Without credible objective evidence to support it, Mormonism appears to be a religion based on subjective feelings that have no roots in reality.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3862475195479645588.post-52091188998363023502006-09-19T22:02:00.000-04:002008-01-31T22:05:11.528-05:00A Letter to Dr. DinoAs I sit in West Palm being, well, homeless, and living off the kindness and couches of my friends, I have found myself a bit bored and so I took the time to write an email to a popular Creationist: Dr. Kent Hovind. Here is what I said:<br /><br />How important is it that a Christian believes that the world was created in six, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago? I always thought that the central tenet of Christianity was not the cosmology laid out in Genesis, but rather the humanity and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth who died and was raised to life in an act which atones for the sins of humanity. If we can agree on the claims that Jesus made about Himself and the acts He performed, what does it matter if He created the universe 6,000 years ago or 6 billion years ago? Is the huge amount of research and effort and funding that feeds the "Creation vs. Evolution" debate really being used in the best possible way? Or have we forgotten that Christ calls us to "Love our neighbor as ourselves," not to convince him that our view is right and any other way of looking at thing is stupid? If we channeled our efforts toward loving our "enemies" instead of insulting their intelligence and integrity maybe they would see the light on a hill that we are supposed to be.<br /><br />Here is the Automated response I got the next day:<br /><br />Dear Matthew B. Davis,Thank you for your e-mail for Dr. Hovind. Each day we receive an abundance of calls, e-mails, and letters for him and it has become extremely difficult for him to answer each one personally because of his very busy schedule. He would very much like to talk to you and suggests that you call into his daily radio program. If you do not wish to call into the radio, your question will still be submitted to the radio show and will be answered during the live radio broadcast. If you are unable to listen to the program during the scheduled airtime, you may listen to archived radio shows at www.truthradio.com To listen to the show, go to our website http://www.drdino.com and tune in to Creation Science Hour which is on weekdays from 4:30 - 6:00 pm (Central Time). Click on the red bar which appears at the top of our Home Page to listen to the broadcast during this time period. Dr. Hovind answers all kinds of questions live during the CREATION SCIENCE HOUR. His AOL instant message name is drdinolive. Or call our toll free number at 1-877-479-3466 ext 136 during this time period. Outside the U.S. the phone number is 1-800-479-3466. When he is out of town the program will be pre-recorded.God bless,CSE Customer Service<br /><br />About three days after I received the email above one of the staff members sent me this short, but to the point message.<br /><br />Dear Matthew,<br /> Wow – please stop attending the wishy washy church you are going to now and find a Bible-believing church!<br /> Love with *justice* - got it?<br /> If there was no Fall, there was no need for the Cross.<br />Sincerely, Paul<br />(Dr. Dino Staff)<br /> <a href="http://www.drdino.com/">www.drdino.com</a><br /><br />After receiving the above email, I responded to Paul:<br /><br />Paul:<br /> I appreciate your response, I had nearly given up the hope that I would get anything more than an automated response. To respond to your message, the church I currently attend is actually how I was introduced to Dr. Hovind. In Sunday school one of the classes showed his lecture DVDs. Outside of Sunday school, I have never even heard a pastor or speaker talk about evoultion except to condemn it. Furthermore, I agree wholeheartedly that without the Fall the Cross would not be needed. Humans are naturally sinful and that is why we need salvation. But the doctrine of the Fall is not the issue. In fact, the doctrine of the Creation, that the one, true, triune God created the universe, is also not in question. The true issue at hand is the relative importance of the doctrine that states that God created the universe in six literal days. I think that some doctrines are more important than others. For example, the doctrine that Jesus is God's Son is more important than the doctrine that says the only right way to baptize someone is full immersion. In the grand scheme of things, if you were baptised with a sprinkling of water or dunked doesn't matter as much as if you call Jesus that Son of God or just a great prophet. Along that same idea is where my question lies: How important is it to believe God created in six literal days? Must someone embrace that idea or be condemned to Hell? That is the question which I asked, but I'm afraid it was not fully addressed. If you or someone on the Dr. Dino staff could address my question I would greatly appreciate it. In closing, could you also expand on your comment "Love with *justice* - got it?" Thanks again for responed to my question, I look forward to further dialogue with you.<br /><br />Sincerely,Matt<br /><br />A few days later, Paul responded:<br /><br />Sir, Please understand that I cannot write for long. I apologize for this. We take the Bible very seriously. Baptism, as one doctrine, is an important one. Creation in God's image, as the Bible said, is another. You seem to be a smart person, but ... one who is not well grounded.Best Wishes, Paul<br /><br />As you can see, Paul still has not answered my question. If you have any thoughts, feel free to respond.The Real Matt Davishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17977398155671499192noreply@blogger.com0