Matthew E. Taft

Necessary Swin Flu Precautions

2009-11-13T07:06:00.001-05:00

Misperception

2009-10-09T07:03:00.001-04:00

This is a pretty neat video:

Where do you shine?

2009-09-25T09:48:00.000-04:00

You probably do a lot of things, just like I do. You probably like a lot of the things you do, and there are probably other things you do less often; but when you do them, you feel centered in the world--like everything fits. Do you know where it is that you "shine" the most?

This is something I was thinking about on my way to work today, as I listened to a Christian hardcore band that I listened to a lot growing up. "Back in the day," it was Christian Hardcore that really inspired me to take my faith seriously. "Back in the day" they even had pastors who would preach in between bands. "Back in the day," When I bought a CD, I couldn't wait to unwrap the plastic, put the CD in, and then listen to every song while following along with the lyrics. I specifically remember bands like Overcome, No Innocent Victim, and xDisciplex that I listened to a lot.

The CD I had in my car was one that I purchased just a few years back, and I hadn't ever really listened to thoroughly or read all of the lyrics. I found the CD in its case in my glove box, so I pulled it out. I won't get in to the dangers of reading and driving...

Anyway, I still know the singer of this band somewhat, and see him around occasionally, and he's a great guy, but he turns into a lot more than that behind a microphone. Listening to those songs, and reading through those lyrics, really inspired me again like it always used to. It got me thinking about how great it is when people find their element, find the thing they do best, and others get to watch them shine.

A friend I used to be in a band with along time ago joined another band just a few years back. Someone said to me that they were really happy for him, because he always seems to be happier in life when he's doing music. I've got another friend who recently became head pastor of a church. Ever since we were in high school I was convinced that was what he should be doing. Whenever he taught it just seemed to fit perfectly. He was definitely in his element. Well, now he's doing it! I think he's really good at it, and it seems that others thing so to, and it's just great to see that he gets to do the thing he feels most centered doing.

So I was thinking about all this on my way to work, and thinking about my life and all that I'm doing right now. I have things that interest me, I have things that I invest time in, and all of that is fine and good. But there are certain other things I get to do less often, where I really feel centered in the world, like I'm in my element, where I'm supposed to be and most comfortable. It's where I "shine," no matter how cheesy that expression is. And by "shine," I don't mean it's what I do best. It just means it's where I feel I belong.

I get to teach sometimes for a youth group that I help out with. I also do the music every week for them, and am teaching some of the youth to play instruments so they can join in. My wife and I help out a lot a this church, and we really find pleasure in doing it. It's a lot of fun. I also used to be full-time on staff at a church in Germany, where I got to do a whole lot with the church there, and that was a lot of fun, too.

But where do I "shine?" In looking back over my life for the last 14 years, it seems to become clear that the place "I shine" the most is not within church walls. I've always been pretty involved with church, so it's not that I am looking for an excuse to not get involved.

It started back towards the end of my time in a band, when I realized that a lot of Christian bands played concerts at churches and preached to Christians, and realized that I didn't want to do that anymore. My band started looking into getting into the non-Christian market, and our label got our CD reviewed by a lot of underground magazines that were anything but Christian, and we almost got to do a split with a non-Christian band in Europe. So we were sort of going in that direction.

In high school, I also really enjoyed talking with my Jehovah's Witness and Mormon friends about differences in our beliefs. Even though our conversations got heated sometimes, I think a lot of good came from those conversations on both sides. After band practice I used to drop by the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses for their Thursday night meetings, sit and listen, and get into conversations with the people afterward. A Jehovah's Witness couple used to come to my parents house ever Saturday for a while and we had some good conversations.

After high school, when I began college, I met some Mormons at the door and we had a few meetings, too. I also went to a sleepover at a Mormon church where we tried to read through the whole Book of Mormon in one night.

In Germany I skateboarded and hung out with skaters a lot. Even with all of the fun things going on at church there, I felt more satisfaction from hanging out with a bunch of skater kids at some end-of-the-school-year party where they were all getting drunk and stoned, because the conversations seemed to always turn to Jesus, and I got to share with a lot of kids that would never step inside church walls. I again began meeting with Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons over there.

In the past 5-6 years of working full-time outside of church, I've really enjoyed the opportunity to be daily with people that don't see things the way that I do. I've been able to talk about my faith with all of them--no agenda, no hidden motives or frustrated attempts to force conversations in a certain direction, just bringing "clarity," as Dennis Prager often promotes. I get to clear up some of the wrong ideas they have about my beliefs, they get to clarify what they believe, and we just talk it over. Recently I met some more Jehovah's Witnesses at my door, and when they asked if they could come back to "check up" on me, I said, "Sure."

So, what does all this mean? I don't really have it all worked out, and this has turned into more of a journal than any kind of structured article, but I think it's important for us to recognize the things we really find the greatest sense of belonging from.

Do you have any thoughts? Where do you "shine" best? Am I way off here? Do you have no idea what I'm talking about?

New Revolution

2009-07-27T09:49:00.005-04:00

This summarizes the revolution that will, like, change our world...forever, or something:

So, yes--I posted this funny simply because it's funny. It's funny all by itself, without much commentary. However, there is always something that can be learned, right?

More than a "How to lose an audience in 10 seconds" manual, this video is actually a pretty somber reminder. If you were suddenly called out to give a defense for something you believe, how would you sound? Do you really believe in whole grains and organic food, is it "Like, just like, good for the body, and stuff?" I live in the south now. Much of the south is Christian. In the south, it is easy to grow up hearing about Christianity all one's life and believe it without question, because that is the "norm." But there are many here to don't believe, whose questions aren't satisfied with answers like, "Well, um Christianity is right, because um, Jesus loves you, and it's good to be a Christian...um, so get baptized."

At the same time, this lady has to really, really believe what she is saying if she is prepared to stand up in front of the city council and be video taped. Some of the things she says are simply ridiculous, but who knows? Maybe she has really good reasons to think some of the things she does. Maybe you have really good reasons to believe what you do--whatever those are. Maybe you're a tree-huger, and animal lover, a Christian, an agnostic, a Mormon, whatever. If we care enough about our believes to share them with others, we should have the decency to organize our thoughts so that others can participate with them.

No Christian Left Behind

2009-04-24T14:46:00.005-04:00

I gave a speech for my small group at church on the importance of reason in the Christian faith. For those of you who know me, you know that this has been a very important topic to me, and I was very excited for the opportunity to speak on it. Also, I was able to use it as my final project for my speech class at college, so I video recorded it. Here it is (sorry you can't see what is on the screen next to me, the recording quality is certainly not professional):

Foolishness of Faith

2009-04-24T11:14:00.002-04:00

Today I was listening to "Misery Signals," a (in my opinion) very good metal band out of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This band raises an interesting question about faith that I would like to comment on.

In their song titled "A Certain Death," the question is asked, "Why would you really want to live forever?"

This is to say that you don't really need all that religion stuff. I mean, come on, do you really want to live forever, anyway?

This kind of question is based on the idea that religion is like a buffet, where one comes to the table and picks and chooses what he wants. In truth, many view their religion this way, but this isn't the way it SHOULD be. The problem is that Christianity might be true whether one likes it or not. It actually doesn't matter that much if one wants to live forever or not. It is bad form to debate something based on personal preferences. Two plus two equals four, and this truth is entirely independent from whether one likes it or not.

Where Was God?

2009-02-11T07:41:00.007-05:00

I've been listening to a song recently that I would like to share with you. I believe that one should not turn their back on challenges against their beliefs, but should in the name of all honesty and sincerity be able to face them and acknowledge them for what they are, even if there are no solid answers. I find this song personally challenging to my own beliefs, appreciate it for its honesty, and accept it as a real, living and breathing challenge many have about the existence of God that has little to do with academics.

It is basically about a man who finds God in a street corner, and God says the man can ask Him anything. This is an intriguing thought. What would I ask God, if I found Him on a street corner? The man basically begins to recall difficult times in his life where he could have used a friend and God was not around. The question he asks God is, "Where were you?"

Here's the video:

The Fray - You Found Me (official video)
Uploaded by thefray

Here are some of my thoughts:

I was talking with a friend yesterday about grief. This friend of mine lost his first child, and when going to counseling, he and his wife learned a lot about grief and the natural stages that occur. The way grief usually seems to work itself out is in stages of this order: Shock, Denial, Anger, Grief and Acceptance. What stood out to my friend is that there is not stage called "Understanding." Those who grieve always seek understanding, but it often never comes. The grief never really goes away, and one may never understand why something has happened, but one finally comes to a point of accepting that the thing HAS happened while knowing they may never understand WHY.

The other thought I have when hearing this song is that of the book of Job. This song challenges God with the question, "Where were you?" In the book of Job, God challenges Job with the same question. Job had many terrible things happen to him in his life, and did what most of us, if not all of us, would do--question why. And God replied like this:

(Job 38:2-13 New Living Translation)

2 "Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.
4 "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.
5 Who determined its dimensions
and stretched out the surveying line?
6 What supports its foundations,
and who laid its cornerstone
7 as the morning stars sang together
and all the angels[a] shouted for joy?
8 "Who kept the sea inside its boundaries
as it burst from the womb,
9 and as I clothed it with clouds
and wrapped it in thick darkness?
10 For I locked it behind barred gates,
limiting its shores.
11 I said, 'This far and no farther will you come.
Here your proud waves must stop!'
12 "Have you ever commanded the morning to appear
and caused the dawn to rise in the east?
13 Have you made daylight spread to the ends of the earth,
to bring an end to the night's wickedness?

It goes on like this for some time, and then in Job 40:1-5:

1 Then the Lord said to Job,
2 "Do you still want to argue with the Almighty?
You are God's critic, but do you have the answers?"
3 Then Job replied to the Lord,
4 "I am nothing--how could I ever find the answers?
I will cover my mouth with my hand.
5 I have said too much already.
I have nothing more to say."

It interesting that God doesn't end up telling Job why the terrible things happened in his life. Job has to learn to accept them and move on.

A world of propositions

2009-02-01T14:39:00.008-05:00

Today everything has to make sense. One can argue and rationalize about beliefs, and one feels the burden of proof laid upon them for the things they believe. If something does not make sense, why believe it? I certainly feel this way. Should I believe in something that does not make sense to me? The answer is as I expect, "No." Why not? "Because it wouldn't make sense to believe in something that doesn't make sense."

Is this reasoning circular or self-refuting? After all, who is to say that it doesn't make sense to believe in something that doesn't make sense? Who decides on the authority of what makes sense?

I read an article about propositional theology, in which it is claimed that many Christians today use mostly what the author called "propositional theology," as opposed to narrative or figurative theology. He used examples of Old Testament books that either tell stories about God or speak in prophetic and poetic language to speak about truth (those the author would term narrative and figurative theology). Then the author used books from the New Testament, like Romans, to show more of a propositional-style theology, in which everything builds upon itself in a logical fashion. Of course, I think many Christians today use the technique called "Oh-just-tell-me-what-to-believe-already." But I digress.

The author also claimed that this way of thinking did not come from Judaism but from the Greek philosophers. Of course, a way of thinking can be right or wrong, helpful or unhelpful, and it doesn't really depend on who made it popular. But it got me thinking about whether or not people always thought using propositions. It made me wonder about the whole idea of all of our believes being wrapped up in a pretty basket of reason with a red ribbon of logic around it. I prefer things this way--I like things to make sense--I am just wondering about whether or not it always has been this way.

The reason I write about this is because today, in church, the pastor read from John 5:17-20. In verse 17, Jesus says the Father has been working until now, and that He (Jesus) is also working. The pastor jumped over verse 18, which, of course, made my eyes stick there to figure out why. It was probably because it opens up a whole new avenue that may have taken more time to explain than he had. Be that as it may, in verse 18, the Jews sought to kill Jesus. Why? Because of what he said. They make a propositional deduction that if Jesus called God His Father, that meant that Jesus was of the same nature as God, and was, in effect, God's equal. They considered this blasphemy, and decided they ought to kill Jesus for this.

Based on this, it doesn't seem unusual that even among the Jews, even over two thousand years ago, it was common for people to use their minds to think about things. This wasn't the first or last time that the Jews would think deeply and accurately about the thing Jesus was saying, and try to kill Him.

However, today we look at this verse a little differently. It is no secret that an important part of Christianity is the belief that Jesus is actually God, one person in the Holy Trinity. So we see this, see that Jesus' statement was interpreted by the Jews to mean He was equal with God, and then we expect Jesus to in some way defend this statement. But that isn't what happened. Instead, starting in verse 19, Jesus continues in the same train of thought He was in, about seeing what the Father is doing, doing the same, not being able to do anything by Himself, and all of that. In my mind, Jesus could have settled the argument using a practical and reasonal defense of his divinity. But He didn't think that was important right then. I simply found it interesting that Jesus didn't feel the need to package up this point in theology with a beautiful red ribbon of logic around it. He just stated the way it was, and let them decide whether they were going to believe it or not.

Unfortunately, this is not the kind of article where I come in to it knowing all the answers. I am simply asking questions. I do know this: as a Christian, the Bible doesn't leave it up to us to decide whether or not it is important to know why we believe what we believe. We are not given the option to simply "take it all in faith."

1 Peter 3:15 says: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (KJV)"

Naturalism

2008-11-21T09:59:00.001-05:00

There are different definitions of the naturalistic view, but I think this is a pretty decent summary:

Naturalism holds that nothing exists beyond what can be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled.

There is a sense in which this view is self-refuting, in that it cannot be proven by its own criteria. That is to say, you can't prove through sight, sound, touch, taste, or smell that nothing exists beyond sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell.

This may seems like a technical cop out answer. What do I mean by "technical cop out?" Often, when I listen to debates, I am frustrated by someone acting as if they have refuted another person's argument simply by finding a technically false thing in the specific words the opponent used. Here is a quick example, not to get too far off point:

Let's say a friend says to you, "I know you are the one who stole my cookie." From the philosophical standpoint, it is impossible to know anything 100%, so they cannot be 100% sure it was you. You could take that approach to argue against them. But it wouldn't address the real issue. What's really happening is that your friend thinks you stole their cookie. It is more important to answer the thing that is really bothering them, than to "cop out" with some technicality about word choices.

In the same way, one could say that the idea of the naturalist view being self-refuting is a technical cop out. But it actually isn't. It is not just the choice of words being used here, it is the actual idea itself in question. Here is another example where the view itself seems to self-refute:

Humanists believe that truth is very personal, individual, and relative. Your truth can be different than my truth. All people should have the right to do the things that are important to them, and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise. This view is self-refuting. Different views cannot always coincide without collision. For example, should Creationism be taught in schools? One person's truth says absolutely not, and another's truth says yes. Both truths cannot take precedence. Also, the view self-refutes by saying everyone should have the right to believe what they want, and no one else should be able to tell them otherwise. It doesn't work, because some people believe they should be able to tell someone otherwise. You can't be able to tell someone what to do, and not be able to tell them, at the same time. Thus the view doesn't work unless all agree with it, and that ruins the whole point of the view.

Back to the topic of naturalism, I find it quite self-refuting to assume that all there is must be known through our natural senses. A perfect example of this is the fact that there are certain colors that cannot be seen with the naked eye. I remember being in chemistry class and watching a demonstration of this. The fact is that these colors do exist, and always have existed, as far as we know, but we did not know they existed before they were discovered very recently. That means that hundreds and thousands of years went by without anyone knowing these colors existed, but they did anyway. So to say that reality only consists of what we can experience with our five senses is most certainly a false statement.

Teens, Video Game, Civics

2008-09-17T07:18:00.002-04:00

I read an interesting report today from the Pew Internet & American Life Project. They did a survey called Teens, Video Games and Civics (link), whose results seem to indicate that most teens play video games, and that most of the same teens aren't any less likely to be involved in social activities. I, for one, played video games A LOT growing up. Now, as a parent of children who are yet too young to play video games, I wondering whether video games had any positive or negative results on my life. I've heard many different opinions. Some say video games help children with hand - eye coordination, and also opens their minds to the technological aspects of this world that will affect their future, no matter what carrier choice they make. Others have looked at the percentage of children in the U.S. verses other countries that play video games, and the intelligence levels of these same children, and seem to claim children who played fewer video games were more intelligent. So needless to say, I find all of this very interesting, as I will be raising my children in a generation of cell phones / pocket-sized computers / video games / God-knows-what-else.

Big Bang Reinactment

2008-09-09T10:15:00.001-04:00

Can scientists really re-enact the big bang theory, and if so, what does that tell us about the origins of the universe?

This taken from www.reuters.com (read entire article):

GENEVA (Reuters) - Scientists at a vast underground Swiss laboratory will launch an experiment on Wednesday to re-enact the "Big Bang" on a small scale to explain the origins of the universe and how it came to harbor life.

The experiment is projected to restage trillions of times the moment some 15 billion years ago when, as cosmologists believe, an unimaginably dense and hot object the size of a small coin exploded, expanding rapidly to create stars, planets and eventually life on Earth.

This may prove to be an interesting experiment, but I don't think it brings much new material to the table in terms of discovering the origins of the universe. For even a big bank requires previous elements, whose origins much have some explanation beyond the big bang itself. You can't make something out of nothing using something else.

IE vs FF - a tech blog?

2008-07-24T16:47:00.003-04:00

So, basically all I do currently is computer stuff. Got the two-job thing going on and all of that. Well, I just had to mention this; sorry for all those who will read this and not care.

PCPitstop is a wonderful site for fixing many problems on your computer. I like them so much I'm on their mailing list. Well, I got an Email with a review from someone at PCPitstop who tried out FireFox for a week. It's a terrible review, besically saying that Firefox is too much of a headache and that Internet Explorer is still the way to go. He hardly seemed to explore any of Firefox's benefits, and got stuck entirely on the fact that he couldn't get Outlook Express to integrate with Firefox as he does with Internet Explorer. He hardly talks about anything else, and barely brushes over any pros for Firefox, resulting in what seems so biased a review it felt political. The interesting part is that the people reading these articles are fans (mostly tech-ish people) of PCPitstop, and I don't think I read a single comment that agreed that Internet Explorer is better than Firefox.

Anyway, sorry it's all I have to offer right now.

Catch the Red Herring!

2008-03-17T17:42:00.001-04:00

I've recently been involved in a couple conversations which could be classified as debates. They do not always begin that way, but what often happens is that two people who are part of the conversation find themselves at odds about a particular issue that comes up, and they "have it out" about this issue before proceeding. I've begun to see three "tricks" used by those who begin to lose an argument. These "tricks" seem to give them the upper hand, but when considered correctly, actually don't hold any weight. My reason for sharing them is so that people can identify them when they are used by others or recognize when they are about to use them and do otherwise =).

Now, I haven't been formally educated in the different ways of argument and their classification, but it certainly would make things easier if I had. Doing some online research has helped, and I'll explain as best as I can about these two tricks.

#1: The Red Herring

I think the Red Herring best describes the first kind of trick I wanted to talk about. An irrelevant conclusion / thesis is when you present an argument that may in itself be valid, but doesn't address the issue in question. A red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument. ("Ignoratio elenchi." Wikipedia. 2008. 17 Mar 2008 ).

Example:

Someone on an online forum began a discussion by inviting all to post answers to a certain question, but asking that all restrict their comments from being offensive to any others. The result was that opposing sides of an issue were able to practice communicating their own--and challenging the others'--reasons in an open and honest manner. Then one person spoke up, in response to a reason given, with something similar to, "What, are you crazy?"

I responded to this person, telling him that I most likely agree with his position on the issue at hand, but I also reminded him of the guidelines set forth for the current thread we were in. I asked him to honor the request of the person who started the thread by trying to respond in an inoffensive manner. This person and I wrote back and forth for a while, and every time he responded to something I said, I wondered if I had not been clear enough on my previous post, because it appeared that he kept misunderstanding me. It ended with him writing something similar to: "You think Right and Wrong are far less important than making sure everyone feels good."

At the time, I didn't know the name "Red Herring," but I responded, describing why I felt his argument was full of holes. Basically, he was losing his side of the argument, and in a final attempt to appear on the upper hand, he twisted what I was saying and argued against that so that he could appear right. The problem was that everyone could re-read what I had posted and see that he was grabbing what he said out of thin air.

#2: Get to the Point! a.k.a. T-T-Today, Junior!

I don't know how to classify this next trick. If someone reading this knows a name for it, please let me know. To be clear, I am not talking about the formal fallacy "Affirming the consequent," where the reasons for a conclusion don't prove the conclusion. In those cases it is clear that you must discuss the reasons to show why they don't prove the conclusion. I am talking about something different.

It is sort of similar to the Red Herring, except instead of twisting the entirety of what someone has said, they knit-pick bits and pieces of what the person is saying that don't have much to do with the actual argument. In so doing, the main argument is never addressed.

Example:

John: "I passed the math exam."
Mark: "How do you know?"
John: "Well, yesterday the teacher left her red grade book--"
Mark: "Yesterday was Sunday."
John: "I mean Friday. She left her red grade book opened on her desk--"
Mark: "She doesn't have a red grade book. It's blue."
John: "Whatever! Anyway, I saw my name, and there was an 'A' next to the exam."

In this example, Mark questions how John came to the conclusion that he passed the math exam. Then, as John gives the reasons for his conclusion, John knit-picks at parts of the reason that hold no bearing over the actual argument. They could be true or false without changing the conclusion. This may not be the best example, but hopefully you get my point.

#3: I Can't Defend Myself; Let's Stop Talking About It.

Again, I'm at a loss for a title on this one. Maybe there isn't a title. But it bothers me. It goes like this:

Example:

John: "I believe the earth is flat."
Mark: "Why do you believe that?"
John: "Because it looks flat to me."
Mark: "Here are some very good reasons why the earth is not flat."
John: "Well, it's what I believe. You don't have to believe it."

I guess all this shows is that someone is not open to alternatives to their beliefs, and this bothers me. I don't like it when people just state what they believe, why they believe it, and then don't feel inclined to defend it further. I think this is because I really like to think as deeply as possible about the things that I believe. If someone brings up a point I haven't thought of, which may disprove something I believe, I think I'd rather believe correctly than continue to believe incorrectly. I prefer to say, "I haven't thought of that. I'll look into it," as opposed to just closing the door to the conversation by saying, "I never asked you to believe it (undertone: 'leave me alone now')."

Int'l Pipe Smoking Day

2008-02-20T13:47:00.001-05:00

You may not know this about me. If you do not, it is not because I have kept it a secret, nor is it because I am in any way ashamed of it; it simply hasn't come up. Some may have reservations about the fact that I smoke a pipe (tobacco only) on occasion. Pipes have been, unfortunately and unfarily, equated with cigarettes.

Having said that, this isn't an article on why I enjoy pipe smoking, why I believe the way I enjoy it presents little (or no) health risks to me or my family, or why it isn't unchristian or unbiblical. I can give what I believe is a reasonable defense of these things--and I may consinder doing just that, if any of you would like me to. Just leave a comment letting me know--but that's not what this particular article is about.

Part of what I do on this blog is post things that are interesting to me. The fact that today, February 20th, has been named the International Pipe Smoking Day, is one of those things. My way of celebrating, beyond the obvious, is to post something about it here.

Here's the flier (click to enlarge):

An honest question arises as to what the intentions and goals of this celebration are. There may be some who are planning a more public demonstration to raise community awareness or something. However one celebrates it, I think this celebration must go hand-in-hand with remembering the many people who have gone before us, who not only greatly influenced the world in which we live, but also enjoyed pipe smoking. Here is a small list (a far more extensive list that can be found here):

Adams, John (President of U.S., Statesman)
Armstrong, Neil (Astronaut)
Aykroyd, Dan (Entertainer)
Bacon, Sir Francis (Intellectual, Scholar)
Barth, Karl (Theologian)
Baudelaire, Charles (Poet)
Bell, Alexander Graham (Inventer)
Clemens, Samuel (Mark Twain; writer)
Cosby, William "Bill", Jr. (Entertainer)
Crocket, Davy (U.S. Congressman, frontiersman)
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan (Writer)
Einstein, Albert (Physicist, Mathematician)
Eisenhower, Dwight (Military leader, President of U.S.)
Emerson, Ralph Waldo (Poet)
Faulkner, William (Writer)
Ford, Gerald (U.S. President, Statesman)
Freud, Sigmund (Psychaitrist)
Gable, Clark (Actor)
Gardner, John (Writer)
Geisel, Theodor Seuss ("Dr. Seuss"; Writer, Cartoonist, Animator)
Hemingway, Ernest (Writer)
Lewis, C.S. (Writer)
Melville, Herman (Writer)
Newton, Sir Isaac (Physicist, Mathematician)
Prager, Dennis (Conservative Talk Radio, Author)
Porsche, Ferdinand (Automobile designer)
Reagan, Ronald (U.S. President, Statesman, Actor)
Roosevelt, Franklin (U.S. President, Statesman)
Russell, Bertrand (Philosopher)
Schwarzenegger, Arnold (Actor, Governor of California)
Stein, Gertrude (Intellectual)
Tolkien, J.R.R. (Writer)

Much To Learn, Little Time

2008-02-13T13:13:00.004-05:00

This post is a perfect stone to kill two birds with (forgive the expression); the one bird being to explain why I have posted nothing for some time, and the other bird being to explain where I'm at in life right now.

I've got over 15+ books with book marks in them that I am actively trying to get through. I find it hard to put them aside for any greater amount of time, and this makes finishing any of them slower than it would if I was only reading that one. Last night I was reading a book with my son about sea animals, and it aroused in me my continual and persistent fascination with deep sea creatures. So I found some videos on YouTube and there went an hour of my time. An hour I could have been reading one of the 15+ books; an hour I could have been writing; an hour I could have yada yada.

I got this overwhelming sense of wanting to do so many things and learn so many things and having inadequate time to do them all NOW. My friends know this about me, that I've got two bathroom books I read while sittin' there (one for work, one for home), one car book I read when at stop lights, and others that I fit in whenever I get a chance. I was reminded of something I have not yet personally read (another one not YET in my 15+ stack), but that my wife (and fellow soldier in the war against book-terror, finding victory one book at a time) read to me from "A Study in Scarlet" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Dr. Watson is surprised at how Sherlock Holmes knows about all there is to know of certain fields of knowledge, but next to nothing about about things like contemporary literature, philosophy, politics, and the composition of the solar system). Sherlock Holmes replies:

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" [Dr. Watson] protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

I don't exactly think it's true that I'll run out of space in my mind, nor do I find things like the universe (or deep sea creatures) useless knowledge; but I do know that I run out of time, and it's important for me to choose exactly what I do with my time--which books I read, which events I partake in, which things I commit to, etc. Because to do otherwise is to let time slip between my fingers like beach sand. Okay, do I sound a little compulsive yet? I fear so.

I received some encouragement from a monthly newsletter I receive from Stand To Reason this month in which Greg Koukl wrote the article Why Settle for Merely Reading a Book When You Can Master It?. He assured readers that it is more important to read one thing slowly, contemplatively, reflectively, enough so that at least a familiarity of the thing's content remains accessible to our memory, than to read many things quickly that we very quickly forget.

SDSU Writer's Conference of 2008

2007-12-17T12:47:00.000-05:00

I want to encourage any of you who desire to write, whether you're a poet, screen play writer, short story writer, novelist, lyricist, etc., to come check out the SDSU Writer's Conference in San Diego, from January 25th - 27th, 2008. You can find out all you need here:

SDSU Writer's Conference 2008

I attended the SDSU Writer's Conference in 2007, and it was a really great time. I met others who, like myself, are passionate about writing and are, at the same time, working to make ends meet. I met with an editor who is pretty important in the fantasy genre, who reviewed my first ten pages and provided good feedback, encouragement, and thoughtful critique. I also met with two agents who work in the fantasy genre who listed to my synopsis, asked questions, and provided similar critique and advice.

I didn't realize how much this conference would benefit me. I have no friends who are passionate about writing as I am, nor am I part of any writer's group that gets together once a week to encourage each other. I don't have those priviledges, so I was really encouraged so spend three days among so many people who share this nerdy passion. I couldn't imagine not going again this year, so I'm going. If you're reading this and you decide to go, please let me know so we can meet up.

New Horizons

2007-12-12T12:47:00.000-05:00

For those of who know how I've been laboring to finish my first attempt at a novel, I'm pleased to announce that I've just reached the 300 page mark! I expect the page to be no more than 400 pages after 2nd / 3rd draft edits. The last 50 pages were the most difficult, because I knew where I wanted to go but not how to get there. Now I've gotten there, and I've got a clear sight of where I'm going next. I'm real excited right now, but that doesn't mean I won't hit any more blocks along the way. We'll see!

Back in the Neighborhood

2007-11-16T01:11:00.001-05:00

Hello friends,

I have modified the format of this blog, and intent to start using it again. I have taken some time away--those of you who know me are aware that my life continues to be busy, but you also know that one of my great desires is to write. I have also modified the purpose of this blog. Previously I have used this blog mostly as a means to share my topical ideas related to Christian morality. I now plan to use this for all sorts of writings.

You will notice that most of the links on this blog don't work yet, but that will change as I get time. You will begin to see other kinds of writing from me. Many writing professionals suggest having a blog of things you've written so that those interested can have a taste of your writing style. As I submit things to different contests, and make contacts among the publishing world, I have started to take this suggestion seriously.

Hopefully you will start to see some different kinds of writings from me--short stories, poetry, and possibly some exerpts from the book I'm working on. I hope you enjoy what you read.

Leave a Legacy

2006-09-30T10:07:00.000-04:00

So, I must confess...I sometimes flip radio stations and land on country, and I sort of hang out there for a while. So, I heard a great song this morning. Musically, it doesn't really stand out, but I really liked these lyrics:

I used to dream of being a rock star
And seein’ the world in style
Used to dream of havin’ a fast car
And driving that miracle mile
But I’ve heard tales those streets aren’t paved in gold
They’re full of pot holes and empty souls
Who never learn…
Love is something you gotta earn

I wanna be the one
When all is said and done
Who lived a good life, loved a good wife, and always helped someone in trouble
On the day they lay me down
Want everyone to gather ‘round
And say he was a father, brother, neighbour and a friend
He was a good man!

When I’m gone, I wanna leave a legacy
Of love and laughs and honesty behind me

--Emerson Drive, "Good Man."

Where I've worked for the past two years, I've gotten to meet a lot of hard working people, some of which are probably also great people. Two of them have died - one had a heart attack, and one died in a car accident, leaving behind two children. To me, it really puts things in perspective. I do not want to become the person who is so focused on my dreams today that I neglect the things that matter most. It's too easy in this world to think we can make up for lost time if we just get that next big promotion, meanwhile neglecting the things that matter most.

We always think we have so much time, and we all will leave some sort of legacy behind with the people we love. What will it be?

Selfishness

2006-09-26T19:05:00.000-04:00

Many people ask, "If God is real, why do bad things happen?" Many of the same people may believe that man is basically good. To those who believe this, a logical question would be: "If man is basically good, why do men do bad things?"

I listened to a piece of Dennis Prager's radio show today that was worth commenting about. He believes that man is neither basically good or basically bad, but is a little bit of both. I differ, in that I believe man is (not just basically) bad by nature. But whether one believes (like Dennis) that man is both bad and good by nature, or (like me) that man is bad by nature, Dennis posed an interesting question:

"Why do people do good things?"

Many called into Dennis' show and they came up with some interesting answers. I wanted to focus on one that caught my attention.

One man said that all of our motives are selfish. If it makes us feel good to do good things, our motive for doing good things is selfish. If we put faith in God for eternal life, our motive is wanting to be saved, and that is selfish. If I die in the place of someone I love, I want them not to hurt, because of my love for them, so even this is a selfish motive. This isn't a new idea. William MacIntyre Salter (1853-1931) claimed that morality was no more than a refined version of selfishness.

I had two thoughts on the idea that I wanted to share and get some opinions on.

Thought #1: I would agree with this man's suggestion that our motives, in the end, always contain an element of selfishness in the way he used the word. Sure. The problem is that he is using the word incorrectly. He is saying any time I have a motive, this motive is what I want personally, thus this motive is selfish. However, selfishness is not defined as being motivated by personal desires, but as being "concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others" (WordNet). Using the word correctly, it is erroneous to assume one has selfish motives who finds personal pleasure in the advantage of others.

Thought #2: Even if we were to assert that all actions are based on selfish motives, this would not help the progression of the topic. The question is why people do good things, not why people do any things. If people do everything out of selfish motives, this hasn't helped us understand why they do good things. Within the sphere of doing things, we make a distinction between good and bad things. So this doesn't really answer the question that Dennis posed.

Thoughts?

The Greatest Gift

2006-06-07T11:40:00.000-04:00

A co-worker of mind and her husband attend a pretty seeker-friendly church, and she's admitted to me that she doesn't feel like the church actually teaches that much. The format seems to be that the pastor will choose some topic that he'll cover for a couple of months, and it might be "relationships" or whatever, but they don't actually go through the Bible.

Her husband leads a small group Bible study for high school students, and he had to come up with a good present for the graduating kids. She thought since I was closer to their age (they are probably late 40's - early 50's) I'd have some idea.

For me, I can't think of a better gift to give kids in - or graduating from - high school, than the book "Love Your God With All Your Mind" by J.P. Moreland. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1576830160/102-9385450-6772957?v=glance&n=283155)

A friend of mine gave me this book a couple of years ago, and it has been pretty life changing for me. It emphasizes the importance of reason in the Christian faith. Put simply, "Christian" isn't synonymous with "idiot," but unfortunately, many Christians and non-Christians alike in our culture have contributed to the development of this generalization. When I was young, for example, my church looked down on me asking too many questions and made me feel like I was being rebellious if I challenged something that was taught. This is not healthy or scriptural. "Love Your God With All Your Mind" opened my eyes to the proper place reason should have in my life and in my faith, and it was like finding a part of myself that I had left unattended for far too long.

So I mentioned this book to her, and she was kind of unsure about giving kids a book, because "some kids aren't readers." My response to this was that I have nothing of value to give someone who does not read. I told her as much. I mean, what are the alternatives? Get them a bumper sticker? Get them some new clothes? How about some new movie from Hollywood? Maybe some candy? Maybe it's just me and maybe I'm just strange, but I consider my books to be some of the most valuable things that I possess.

The reason, especially, that I think this book is so great for kids in - or graduating from - high school is because it prepares them for what is ahead. Many of them, in high school, but even more so in college, will face intense opposition to their faith, and many of them have just been taught to say, "Jesus loves you, brother, so I love you too, and I'll pray that God speaks to your heart." The unfortunate reality is that many "Christian" kids go off to college and loose their faith because they are intellectually unprepared, can't reason through faulty arguments because they do understand how argument works, and do not have much confidence in the truthfulness of their beliefs.

So, the neat thing, I found out just yesterday, is that her husband did go out and buy all these kids that book. I am really, really glad about this, and think they have given these kids "the greatest gift" for graduation. This book, if taken seriously, can provide them with a foundation upon which one can built a strong and confident faith, and I am glad to know that I got to play a part in that. Now, I only hope these kids will read it!

My Life Is Brilliant

2006-06-06T13:51:00.000-04:00

So, I've been pretty annoyed with this song "You're beautiful" by what's-his-name. It turns out certain radio stations in the UK have actually banned his song because they are so tired of playing it and are tired of media pressure to play songs like this one WAYYYYY to much.

This has been in my head for a while, and I just have to get it out. I'm tired of songs that RHYME WITHOUT REASON, and this song is a prefect example.

So the first part talks about seeing this girl with another man, but that's okay because "I have a plan" (notice the rhyme - man and plan). So, what's his plan?

Later in the song: "So I don't know what to do, 'cause I'll never be with you."

WHAT? WHAT KIND OF PLAN IS THAT? Oh - but the song sounds pretty - right. Got it. That's all that matters.

You Illiterate!

2006-05-16T16:47:00.000-04:00

"Readers are leaders...Thinkers succeed." -Marva Collins

"Knowledge is power." - Sir Francis Bacon

I found an interesting website from a magazine that I subscribe to. Dr. John Miller, president of CCSU (Central Connecticut State University), has done a study on "America's Most Literate Cities." The results for 2005 are out:

http://www.ccsu.edu/amlc/

The main page will display the top 10. But if you go to the website, and click on "Overall Rankings" on the left, he places 69 cities in their respective order based on level of literacy.

Now, Dr. Miller himself admits that these results are an interpretation of a large amount of data, as opposed to being hard facts. But I find it interesting, living where I do, that southern California didn't score that well. It's not that I couldn't imagine such a thing, but it is an good thing for one to know concerning the area in which he lives. I believe that learning is extremely important, especially as one who calls himself a disciple of Christ, and I emphasize reading in my own life because of this.

Well, at least San Francisco got in 5th place - the only Californian city in the top 10. Sacramento got 22nd place, Oakland is 30th, San Diego is 39th, San Jose is 51st, etc. Go the site, and see how your city scores!

Pay Back

2006-05-08T13:21:00.000-04:00

Introduction:

You know, there are some things I've done that I've never been able to forgive myself for. It's not that I think about them all the time, and it's not that I am so emotional over them that I need you to hug me or anything, but I really find it interesting.

I've done many bad things in my life, but there are only a few things that still really give me a bad feeling when I think about them, and there are probably different reasons for that. What is really interesting is that these things that bother me so much aren't really the most terrible things I can think of that I've done. I'm thinking they might just be the first instance of a certain type of wrong that I've done.

For example:

I met a boy for the first time when I was probably about ten. He had this Nintendo game that was my favorite ("Mike Tyson's Punch-out"), and I really wanted to borrow it. I convinced him to ask his mom, and his mom said no. But I kept begging him and promising him that I'd bring it back, and he asked his mom again, who then said, "Yes."

For whatever reason, I never saw the boy again. By the time I thought about it again, I wasn't sure where he lived. When we moved away, I remember packing that game into a box and knowing I should have given it back. And I felt so bad for this kid who really wanted to please someone he thought was a new friend. He trusted me, gave me probably his favorite game, and I'm just sure his mom didn't go out and buy it for it again, because she had made it clear that she didn't think it was a good idea.

Whenever I think of this, it really bothers me, because I don't see myself as the type of person that intentionally steals from people, and it wasn't my intention to take advantage of this kid. If I ever meet him again, I will find some way to pay him back.

So that's kind of how I feel about these situations. When I really think about them, I get really upset and wish I could go back and make things right. That's just the kind of person I am. I don't like knowing I have things in the past that should be made right but I have no way of doing so.

Pay Back:

Well, this last week I had the amazing opportunity of making something right. I'm sure many might read this and think that it is no big deal, but for me it is a huge deal.

I used to live in a little town in Colorado. One time I stole a piece of "Bit-O-Honey" candy that only cost 5 cents. We just saw it as funny at that time, but later on I felt kind of bad about it. Again, this situation really isn't the worst that I can do, but it just might have been the first of a certain kind of bad, and it left an impression. Since then I've always wanted to go back and make it right, but I had no opportunity. This last week I went on vacation with my family and we went back to this little town. To my surprise, the market was still there and under the same ownership. Although it felt kind of funny, I was able to hand a cashier 5 cents and tell him the story. He kind of laughed and probably thought I was a little strange, but that didn't matter to me.

It didn't matter to me because I know what it means to me, and the only thing that really mattered was that I have spent years knowing of this wrong and wishing I could just pay back the stupid 5 cents and move on. I left that store with a huge smile on my face, and felt like I was walking on clouds.

Conclusion:

I feel like something happens inside of us when we open doors in our life to new kinds of behavior, and when we, in general, do things we know are wrong. It leaves a kind of mark. And sometimes, regardless of how we want to view ourselves in light of our current moral convictions, we cannot forget our past behaviors that contradict these convictions. It sort of leaves a mark.

There is also a great healing power in being able to confess these things, make amends to those we've hurt, and "Pay Back" where we should. If any of you can relate to this, you can consider a comment to this Blog as a starting place for confession if you like, but I would really encourage you to seek out ways of making real and honest amends for wrong behavior.

Supposed Contradiction in Survey on Vulgarity

2006-04-25T12:49:00.000-04:00

Someone (who has yet to provide me with their name) posted an interesting subject in a previous article. I wanted to post it here - in case anyone else views this site =) - because it's worth thinking about as it's own topic. Here's what this person said:

"I was reminded of a radio program that I was listening to this morning. There was something like 70% of people in a survey who were bothered daily by people who cussed, but there were only 8% who said that they cussed on a daily basis. I find this to be a little difficult to grasp. Does everybody seem to interact with those 8% of the sample group? Or is it that people say what they think others want to hear."

So, what we have here is a survey that seems to be contradictory. 70% of people say they are bothered daily by people who cuss, but only 8% "admit" to cussing on a regular basis. Here's my idea of what happened in this survey. Let me know what you think.

It seems like this contradiction could only happen by a flaw in the surveyor's techniques, lack of specificity, or "dishonesty" =) (from previous article). Here's what I mean:

#1: Flaw in Techniques:

Let's say you do this survey at a church. Let's say 90% say they are bothered by cussing on a regular basis. Then you ask the same group how many of them cuss. Maybe 2% admit to it. This is a simple problem of bad surveying, in that the percentages don't represent the larger community of a people, but one group within a culture, which makes it biased and inaccurate

#2: Lack of Specificity:

There may be a conflict in definitions that would make this survey difficult. Examples:

Ex.1: Bothered: It could be that 70% are actually bothered by 8% who cuss, whereas another 22% of people (who themselves do not cuss) aren't actually bothered by it.

Ex.2: Cussing: Some don't consider cr*p, p*ss, or d*mn to be cussing. So, some who are bothered by cussing might actually be cussing by someone else's standards but say, "H*ll no, I don't cuss on a regular basis."

#3: Dishonesty:

I have known those who cuss up a storm who, when confronted, also whole-heartedly deny it to the death. There might be those who would say they are bothered by cussing and would also deny cussing, when they do actually cuss up a storm in certain situations.

#4: My conclusion:

The fact that there are many more people saying they are bothered by cussing than people admitting to cussing means one or more of the following occurred:

a) Flaw in Technique
b) Lack of Specificity
c) Dishonesty