March 11, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Yesterday I received a request for a link on LinkedIn that read as follows:
“You were one of my professors at Texas A&M. This would be back around 1992. Time flies by very quickly. I appreciated your values and integrity. I did enjoy your class. You probably do not remember as you have had many students over time. Hope life is treating you well.”
No, I don’t remember him, but I am impressed that he remembered me during a time when I was myself a PhD student, teaching three times the course load allowed for faculty by SACS (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools). That was a very tough time in my life. I had no idea I was leaving a good impression on anyone, especially one that would surface 20 years later.
I post this just to say, you never know when someone else is taking note; and you may leave a lasting impression, even a positive one, when times are toughest for you.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

March 6, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Yesterday as I drove through a school zone after hours, I saw three kids separately in the road ahead. Two on skateboards and one walking. I slowed down, but the car behind me quickly passed. After all, the speed limit control had expired for the day.
This is illustrative of what Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his 1978 address at Harvard”, referred to as “legalistic life.” He saw in America at that time that “the limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws.” If it’s not against the law, then it must be my right.
It reminds me of young children who check to see if their parents are looking before they cross the street. They are not mature enough to know that they should check the streets for what is safe, not the parents for what is allowed. The person who passed me only demonstrated concern for the law, not the kids for whom the law was written.
Solzhenitsyn observed that of us over 30 years ago. God help us if we have become as a nation so immature that our only conscience is the law.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Notable Quotes, History | No Comments »

February 24, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

The Obama response to the discovery of Qur’an burning is yet another example of how we fail to recognize the true role of religion in our world views. The response of an apology was a Christian response, that is, whether he claims it or not, it came out of Obama’s Christian world view. Because he fails to recognize the influence of religious world view even on his own thinking, he thinks he was just doing “the right thing” to satisfy anyone. The result is increased violence and Americans dead. How was this followed up? More American statesmen apologizing even more profusely. I saw a talk show tonight on which a person defended both responses as “the right thing to do,” even if it is misunderstood by the Muslims we hope to appease.
This is inconsistent thinking, and comes purely from ignorance of world views—one’s own and that of others. The political thing to do is what works, and this is not working. If one seeks to do “the right thing,” then one must acknowledge a basis for right and wrong, which must be religious, which is anathema to this president and many talking heads. (Forgive me for using a religious word to describe them.) They don’t realize that they think an apology will calm their enemies, because Christianity is built on forgiveness—you repent and are saved. Islam is not, nor is any other world religion. What was witnessed was interpreted as groveling, which is to say vulnerability and opportunity for attack.
The reason the Qur’ans were collected and burned, along with other books in the prison library, was because we had freely made religious texts available to Muslim prisoners. The prisoners took advantage of this courtesy by writing in the margins of these books to pass messages to each other and stir up trouble among prisoners. Once that was figured out, the books were collected and destroyed. What a missed opportunity!
Doesn’t anyone in the current administration know that writing in a Holy Book, be it Bible or Qur’an, is desecration in the Muslim mind? These prisoners were desecrating the holy writings of Allah through his servant Mohammed! A little research should have prepared the responsible Americans to say, “We stopped the desecration! Now, Muslim world, what should we do with the damaged Holy Books?”
Instead they are scratching their heads and wondering why an apology isn’t working. Just as science is not driven by logical, non-religious fact, neither is politics. We will continue to burn communication bridges if we do not acknowledge that our belief, or non-belief, in God underlies all our thinking and behavior, as well as that of others.

Posted in Comparative religion, Culture & society, Politics | 1 Comment »

February 8, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

I usually avoid politically hot topics in this blog, but this one is so right-on-target with culture and science issues. “Obama Administration Defends Contraception Rule Amid Mounting Criticism,” Huffington Post article Feb 8, is Exhibit A, because it so misrepresents the real issue, thus illustrating the point. The Obama administration doesn’t get it either.
“White House spokesman Jay Carney also sought to diffuse criticism from church leaders, telling reporters later on Tuesday the administration would work with religious organizations ‘to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns.’
So far in the article, several key points can be made about missing the point:

1. What the Administration and the Huffington Post call “Contraception,” the Catholic Church sees as contradiction to God’s intent within marriage and license outside of marriage.
2. When the Administration’s spokesman says, “the administration would work with.. to see if the implementation.. can be done,” it implies there is no compromise on the ruling,
3. And that the Catholic position is only a “concern,” not a mandate from God.

The White House thinks it can discuss with the Catholic Church how the Catholic Church can compromise its policy. It’s not a policy! What the White House doesn’t understand is that some people actually believe in God so much that it affects their behavior.
This is the cultural point: Our behavior is the result of what we believe, not what we say we believe. People can say they believe in God and be totally OK with contradicting what they say is God’s Word when they think the two realms are separate. Unlike Jefferson’s intent, that’s what some people mean when they use the phrase “separation of Church and State.” They mean that God has no practical effect on this world or our behavior in it.
Everyone does not agree. To some people God is real. He really matters. He is purpose, meaning, and direction in life. The current White House administration doesn’t believe that. That is why they are surprised at the Catholic outcry, and even if the Administration backs off, it hasn’t changed its worldview. It will happen again.
And if those who are OK with contraception think this isn’t their battle, what happens when the issue is abortion being required in Baptist hospitals for “female health?” What happens when corporations are required to counsel employees to get over their guilt when they actually want to escape from a homosexual life style?
If freedom of religion is only tolerated when it doesn’t affect behavior, then there is no freedom of religion.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 24, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Two days ago one of my online students emailed me that the Excel software that I make available to them would not open properly. I checked, and yes, the most recent version posted for them had somehow been corrupted. It opened in a way that could not be viewed full-screen, and would not accept data entries. I don’t know how this happened, but I quickly replaced it with a slightly older backup version.
I originally designed this particular software as a case study for my students about 12 years ago, and I have improved it almost every term since then. Students seem to continually find new ways to do it wrong, so I continually add failsafe responses to get them back on track. It has become quite complex, and very user friendly, but always by my design. Over those 12 years copies have become corrupted many times, but I am yet to have a corruption be an advantage to my students. As far as I can tell, no corruption has ever increased the software’s capacity to do anything, useful or not. They have only reduced capacities. I do find however, that the more complex I develop my software to be, the more easily it can be corrupted. There is more to corrupt, and less chance of it functioning after the corruption. Complexity increases vulnerability, and corruption shuts down function.
And yet the complexity of anything I program, or anybody else programs, for that matter, is so simple compared with the programming we find in DNA. When I think about it, it is incredible that any DNA programming became more complex or useful without design, or that corruption in DNA could do anything except make it less functional. The only way a person could possibly think that chance evolution has improved DNA after experiencing computer programming is for indoctrination to have shut down thinking.

Posted in Science and faith | 1 Comment »

January 11, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

Today Google commemorates the 374th birthday of Nicolas Steno, rightfully labeling him as the founder of modern geology. Wikipedia’s article correctly credits Steno with developing the first three principles of geological strata.
I once sat in a geology class where the teacher taught that Steno developed five principles, including that the layers of earth represent millions of years of earth history. The millions of years was actually added by Charles Lyell, devout atheist and mentor of Charles Darwin. Steno’s principles instead emphasize the role of water in depositing layers, because he saw the layers as the result of a world-wide flood as described in the Bible. Steno’s principles lead to prediction of coal deposits and the advancement of industry. Lyell’s addition of age to the equation adds to theory, but not necessarily to advancement in any practical way.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 9, 2012 by Dr. Mc.

I did a study of the word “love” as it appears in the Qur’an. I don’t speak Arabic, and of course any Muslim will tell you that the Qur’an can only be studied in Arabic. None the less, I think there is something to be gained from considering an English rendering. The one I used can be at this date found online at http://jannah.org/quran/. I understand that there may be several Arabic words variously translated as “love” in English, which might by another linguist have been translated as like, desire, affection, etc., but considering every one of them still seems to reveal a pattern.
I found the word “love” to be rendered 83 times in this translation. The 83 are scattered across the 114 surah (chapters) of the Qur’an. Compare this to 49 uses of the word “love” in just the 5 chapters of 1 John. It appears that the word is much more important in Christianity than it is in Islam. Indeed, two of the uses in the Qur’an are in reference to Christians, one of them chiding Christians for assuming too much of God’s love.
Surah 5:18 “Jews and Christians are wrong to say God loves them, because God punishes sin.”
Surah 5:82 “Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, ‘We are Christians,’.”
There also seems to be a difference in the way the word “love” is used in the Qur’an. Of the 83 uses in the Qur’an, 21 are references to what God loves, 22 to what He does not love, 7 to man’s love toward God, and 33 to other objects of man’s love; and 20 of those 33 refer to man loving the wrong things. All in all, about equal space is dedicated to what man should and should not love and what God loves and does not love. Every reference I found in the Qur’an to what God loves was based on man’s behavior or man’s initiation of love toward God. As an example of “love” consider three uses in Surah 3:31-32.
Surah 3.31 Say: “If ye do love God, Follow me: God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
Surah 3.32 Say: “Obey God and His Apostle”: But if they turn back, God loveth not those who reject Faith.
I found no references to God initiating love toward man. Every verse that says God loves, is predicated on man first doing something to receive love as a response, and I found no verses to suggest that God’s love could thereafter not be lost. (Mohammed himself boasted no assurance that his soul was secured. Surah 26.82). I take this to mean that God, the Creator, only loves in response to man, the created.
This is in total contrast with the Bible, which says “We love because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Indeed, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). He is the source of love, not us.
“Love” in the Bible is also defined differently. In English I might say I love mashed potatoes, but that merely means that I really like the pleasant sensation I have when I consume them. My love for them is conditional upon what I get from them, and in no way considers any benefit to the potatoe. In the Bible, love from God is defined as unconditional, for “neither death nor life, nor angles, not principalities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth nor any other created thing shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39). Since I am a created thing, the verse suggests that I can do nothing to quench God’s love for me. Nor can you. What is more, the “loving-kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 103:17). The end of this verse is typically translated, “to those who fear Him.” This is not like the Greek (New Testament) word for fear, which means anticipation of punishment. This Hebrew word for fear includes realizing total dependence on His mercy, realizing we can do nothing to earn, dissuade, or affect it in any way.
This is the part most difficult to swallow—we can do nothing. That is why many people who call themselves Christians in practice more resemble Muslims, feeling compelled to add something to the formula to gain or maintain a right position with God. But grace plus anything is no longer grace. If the Bible is true, then the only thing that man must add is acceptance of what is freely offered and already completed.
Toward the Qur’an, the only logical response is to serve in hopes of approval. Toward the Bible, the only logical response is to relax, and serve out of gratitude for what is secured.

Posted in Comparative religion | No Comments »

November 6, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Language is an indicator of culture, and I hear married couples unintentionally giving ground in the culture war. The word “spouse” is handy for referring to unspecified married partners, just as “sibling” is useful in referring to either a brother or sister. When addressing a mixed audience, I might say, “Take time to talk with your spouse.” I might use the plural when addressing a mixed audience about our spouses. But why would I ever say anything about “my spouse?” I am a male. My wife is a female. She is my wife—a much more specific term. “When addressing an entire audience of married women, I should speak of their husbands, not their spouses. I don’t remember hearing this generic term substituted for husband or wife in decades past, but now I hear it much too often on and off stage. Why does it matter? Aren’t people just being lazy in their speech? I don’t think so. Who wants to blur the lines about whether a male is married to a female or that a female is married to a male? If I allow the terms “wife” and “husband” to drop from my vocabulary, I have taken a giant step backwards from valuable ground in the culture war.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

October 23, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

Some philosophers and/or scientists today argue that the mind is the product of the brain. This is a natural corollary to their presupposition that only the material exists. But I wonder if they have stopped to consider that the only way they are aware of the material is through their minds. It would therefore be more logical to argue that the mind is the origin of the brain and all things material. It is the beginning of all experience, material or not.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

August 26, 2011 by Dr. Mc.

On August 18, 2011 Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry was asked by a young boy, “How old do you think the earth is?” That one blind-sided him, but he figured out that the mom had put the boy up to the question and replied with his view of the teaching options offered in his state of Texas—evolution and creationism. Not exactly right, but he had short notice. I’ve had plenty of time to think about it, and though I’m not running, interested in running, or capable of running, I think the best answer would be, “It doesn’t really matter what I think on that question, son. What matters is that you have the opportunity in school to think for yourself on the evidence and make up your own mind.” Most kids don’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »