Archive for February, 2006

February 17, 2006: 9:44 am: CalvinDudePersonal

As I stood outside today in the blowing snow thinking, The windchill has to be well below 0, and I’m not talking Celcius, I began to realize something.  Global Warming would be a good thing.  Yes, Global Warming would keep me from hypothermia.  It would enable me to not need to wear my kewl ski mask that makes me look like a wicked sweet killer ninja…or a Hamas member, depending on whether I’m carrying a sword or an RPG.  Yes, Global Warming would definitely be good and I see no downside at all to it.

Until I saw Dr. White wearing a kilt.  Now I’m thinking we need temperatures to plummet world-wide so that Dr. White will never never never never NEVER wear a kilt again because he’ll need a parka and snow pants to stay alive.  *shudder*

February 16, 2006: 9:50 am: CalvinDudePhilosophy, Science
I just read this article on Fox News’ website. It’s about Intelligent Design. The article on the whole is fairly good, but I did disagree with a portion of it. Here’s the letter I sent to the author of the article.

Hello Father John,

I read your article about Intelligent Design on the Fox News website.  Although I agree with a great deal of what you said, I am writing this in response because I think you still have a flawed presupposition which ultimately brings you to the wrong conclusion.  You wrote:

Unlike thinkers of ages past, who intertwined gracefully some elements of philosophy with the natural sciences, today we prefer — for reasons of method — to separate one from the other.”

The problem with this is that the idea to separate “philosophy” from “science” is nonsensical. It is impossible to separate the two because the scientific method is (by definition) a philosophy of method. It is a philosophy of epistemology, a philosophy of how we can determine what we know.  Therefore, to make the dichotomy between science and philosophy is to have a flawed (and self-contradictory) presupposition.  Remember, you wrote: “Hint: any time you see an ‘ism’ there’s a philosophy behind it.”  I merely have to point out: empiricism.

Science does not exist in a vacuum.  Scientists view nature based on their own presuppositions.  Scientists claim that science is only interested in what can be empirically demonstrated (empiricism)–but how is that definition of science empirically demonstrated?  Can you empirically measure the theory that science must be empirically demonstrated?  Such a thing would be absurd.  Instead, the scientific method in order to be accepted as valid must be accepted philosophically, not scientifically, and therefore science itself is grounded first in philosophy.  And because it is grounded in philosophy, it disproves its own notion that all truth must be empirically known.  The basis of science is itself non-empirical.  Why, then, must we accept only empirical knowledge as science?

In reality, science only presupposes that people are able to gain empirical knowledge through their senses.  No other requirement need be in effect for science to work. Empirical experience is something believed by both secular and religious people (specifically Christians, although not limited just to them).  It’s demonstrated this way:

Secularists believe that the world exists materialistically.  Our only source of knowledge is empirical knowledge.  Our senses enable us to experience this physical world.  Therefore, we can use science to examine the world that we see.

Christians believe that God exists and that He created the physical world.  God also gave us our senses so that we can experience this physical world.  Therefore, we can use science to examine the world we see.

Science, as you can see, is valid under either presupposition, which is precisely why science cannot disprove religion.  It doesn’t even begin to address reality beyond the fact that people can gain empirical evidence.  In fact, the Christian’s view is more philosophically sound because it provides a reason for us being able to use science as a method by not excluding anything that cannot be empirically grasped in the first place (remember, empiricism cannot be proven empirically).

So the bottom line is, science is a philosophy.  You cannot separate science from philosophy.

Finally, I would like to point out that Intelligent Design is most certainly scientific.  In reality, Intelligent Design is a redundancy–if there is design in something, there must have been an intelligence to create that design.  And design is most certainly a scientific field.  Look at forensic science.  When forensic scientists get to a crime scene, their first job is to look at the evidence and conclude whether some intelligent being was involved in the crime or not.  They use scientific reasoning to figure this out, because science can determine whether something happened randomly or through design.  Just as forensic science is a science, so too Intelligent Design is a science.  It looks at the evidence that we have about the nature of the universe–evidence gather empirically, by the way–and determines whether or not existence itself is random or designed.  It is not looking for *WHO* or *WHAT* the designer is, it is simply looking at whether or not the universe shows evidence of having been designed.  None of this violates even the materialist’s view of science because our inquiries are restricted to empirical evidence only.

In the end, Intelligent Design is not so much about origins as it is about scientific method.  Are we allowed to follow science where it leads, or must we restrict science to a materialistic philosophy?  Those who would restrict science are the ones who dogmatically claim their philosophy valid.  Intelligent Design merely opens the field up to the fact that materialism is an unproven philosophy, and thus science should not be restricted to a materialistic world view.

Thank you for your time.

February 14, 2006: 9:25 am: CalvinDudePersonal

That’s right, today is that sappy holiday that people try to pretend is about cupid, but it’s really about lining the pockets of DeBeers.  Oh yeah, and the flower cartel.  (These guys are vicious–ever wonder why there are thorns on roses?)

That’s why I’ve designated it as National Single’s Awareness Day.  Why?  Because singles are being unfairly kept out of the celebration.  The rights of all single people are being oppressed by this vicious holiday.

The only fair thing to do would be to grant me a billion dollar settlement in a lawsuit against DeBeers, the flower cartel, the Federal Government, and Barry Manilow.  And we want to be fair.

So ask yourself this question: is America safer because we celebrate a holiday that unfairly pits couples against singles?  Is America safer because we force guys to spend all their money on chocolates that they can’t even eat!?!?  Ladies and gentlemen, if we allow this holiday to continue, the terrorists will have won.

So stand up for the rights of the little people.  Or, if you’re a girl, you could just go out with me instead.  Yeah.

Happy Valentine’s Day

 

February 13, 2006: 2:00 pm: CalvinDudePoetry

Do you dream a far
Praying on some distant star
Hope the shame is gone
So you’re left with the words of a song?

When you find it out
You’re still lost in your spiritual drought
Bearing pain and loss
For the dreams that were nothing but dross.

Some will say, it’s true,
You’ve got no one to blame but you
And for once they’re right
It’s just you and the blackness of night.

And it seems so far
As bright as the blackness of tar
Faking love and hope
For some fanciful way to cope

Only shame is left
And your heart is finally bereft
Maybe then you’ll find
That star’s light was leading you blind.

“Too late!” You say
“Only darkness is left in my day”
If you think like this
It’s only the point that you’ll miss.

Why do you wish a far
On the light of some stupid star?
Thinking it will give you all
When all you’ll get is your own downfall

You’ll be left alone
Chilled with death in the bone
Insignificant speck of mere dust
With no one out there who you can trust.

Burst of flame overhead
Burning out with your dread
Would you wish for that?
Would you write it on your welcome mat?

You can have so much more
Than what a star’s got in store
You could have the love
Of one who made the stars far above

How much better it is
To not worship things that are his
To put hope in the created realm
Is to abandon your hope’s only helm

So do you dream a far
On the uplifted beams of a star
That itself cries out
The very words that the rocks and trees shout

Saying “We’re not God
And you really shouldn’t be awed
By a speck of light
Twinkling deep in the night.

Put your faith in him
Who isn’t so faint or so dim
There’s no hate or blame
Just the loss of your infinite shame.”

: 10:47 am: CalvinDudeAbortion, Theology

Abraham Lincoln, in his second inaugural address, said:

The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

It makes me wonder.  If the Civil War was God’s punishment for our institutionalization of slavery, what do you suppose would happen for the near 50 million victims of abortion?

Not that I think there’s going to be a 1:1 correlation.  In fact, I would argue there won’t be.  America will either be judged, though, or else America must come to repentance.  God is longsuffering, but He only waits so long (for the sake of His elect).

February 10, 2006: 2:36 pm: CalvinDudePersonal

I had some spare time.  So what did I do?

I added comments to my code.

No, that doesn’t mean I added comments as I wrote the code.  It means I finished the code and then I went through and THEN commented everything.

How pathetic is that?  I tell ya, the end of the world is upon us.  (Programmers will understand what I mean.  The rest of you…just sue Bill Gates or something.)

: 8:06 am: CalvinDudeTheology

Hosea 4:6 is a passage that speaks to the “average Christian” of today, I think.  It says: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me.”

How often are Christians destroyed because they don’t know what the Bible says on a subject?  How many cults have sprung up because people have no knowledge of God?  And the most important: how many people are in church thinking they are safe when they do not know Jesus?

I think this passage shows us the importance both of Biblical study and of Christian apologetics.  Let’s not be destroyed in our ignorance.

February 9, 2006: 4:15 pm: CalvinDudeScience

This article is cool, not only because of the archeology, but by how many times the AP uses the word “pharaonic” in one article.

: 2:16 pm: CalvinDudeIslam

The world is finally waking up to the realization that the threat Islam poses to the rest of society is real.  This article, for example, quotes Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah saying:

Defending the prophet should continue all over the world. Let Condoleezza Rice and Bush and all the tyrants shut up. We are an Islamic nation that cannot tolerate, be silent or be lax when they insult our prophet and sanctities.

We will uphold the messenger of God not only by our voices but also by our blood.

This is true.  Islam cannot be tolerant of other religions–or lack of religious belief–and the thing that the West needs to realize is they are serious about the fact they will give their lives for their cause.  Muslims aren’t stupid people.  They aren’t barbarians.  They are human beings, just like we are.  The fact that they are wipped into such a frenzy over these cartoons demonstrates the depths to which their beliefs are held.  It does not in any way make them inferior or stupid that they believe so strenuously.

What it does do is make it very dangerous.  And until the West is going to wake up and realize that Islam is serious about our downfall, there will only be more demonstrations like we’re seeing now.  But more importantly, until the Church realizes that she needs to present the Gospel to a group of people who think it’s righteous to die while killing infidels, their culture of death will never change.

The secular world has no answer for Islam.  Christians should.

: 9:28 am: CalvinDudeCalvinism, Theology

Since I mentioned something about “Calvanists” yesterday, I guess I’ll point out today that I am currently working on my first non-fiction book, which will be about (you guessed it), Calvinism.  The fun thing about this book is that every time I think I’ve said all I could say on a subject, I realize I have more that I can say about it.  Maybe this means I have skills at bloviating.  But who cares :-)

Actually, there will be one thing that would make this book different from most on the subject.  I am not going to look at TULIP at all.  This is because I think far too many Arminians automatically turn off their brain when someone says, “Total depravity” and thus they never even consider the evidence.  So I’m going to just present the evidence without calling it part of TULIP, and see where that gets us.

Naturally, I don’t know how long it will be before this is finished.  It depends on how much I bloviate.  But when it is done, look for it here on t3h d00dz0rz site :-)