Pages

Monday, July 12, 2010

Sword of Truth: Balancing Faith and Reason

Originally posted at http://wp.me/puJQo-4B.

A year ago, I started the series Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind. Over the course of the last year, I've read all 12 books, a total of almost 10,000 pages. Some may ask, what in God's name possessed me to read 10,000 pages? The story that Terry Goodkind weaved was, by far, one of the best stories that I had ever read. I could identify with the main character (Richard) and the intellectual appeal to reason. The characters had depth, the issues that were addressed were complex, and Goodkind's ability to weave multiple storylines kept me reading.

While I was down in Florida earlier this month, I finished book 11 and couldn't wait to read the final book and finish the journey that I had started. After purchasing the book and reading at a breakneck pace, I neared the end of book 12. Yet, as I read, the ideas that Goodkind had started early in the series were coming together...and they were not something that I could agree with.

Roughly around books four and five, the main villain for the latter portion of the series was introduced: Emperor Jagang. Jagang is the leader of the Imperial Order, a movement which is largely fanatical in nature, advocating that humans are evil by nature and cannot be redeemed until the afterlife. As the series progresses, readers are introduced ad nauseum to the ideas of the Order and what it stands for--blind faith in the Creator. This is a stark contrast to the Wizard's Rules, which are based on reason and logic.

As book 12 ended, it became clear that the Order was representative of Christianity--ideas of the former remnants of the Order being referred to as "men of God," the emphasis on faith over reason, and humans being inherently sinful all came to the fore and were clearly related to religion. The story was resolved--reason and logic triumphed over blind faith. The tangible, law-governed forces of the world won the battle against those intangible, emotionally-based forces.

In the process of reading, I was disturbed by what I read. What Goodkind was implying shook me up a great deal and has caused me to question my beliefs in a way that I didn't think possible. Religion was characterized as villainous, evil, and stealing the magic away from life. Those who followed it were brutish, inhuman, and vile people. Let me pause for just a moment and say that Goodkind is an adherent to Rand's philosophical view of objectivism. Objectivism, in short, is concerned with "rational self-interest" as Rand put it.

Ultimately, Rand's ideas are played out in the battle between Richard and the Order. Richard represents the rational mind--the man who chooses to think and despite prophecy, enacts his own free will, confounding the rest of the characters. The Order represents the lack of rational thought, with most of the ideals held dear by the Order seeming absurd and contradictory when juxtaposed to the Order's cause.

What is perhaps most disturbing, yet not surprising, is that the side of religion is characterized as being a way for people to escape rational thought. Characters tow the party line as the Order brutalizes entire populations into following its dogmatic approach to existence. Time and time again, individuals abandon rational thought in favor of a better existence in the afterlife.

As a disillusioned, yet professing Christian, I find the ideas in the series difficult to grapple with. While there may be some circles of Christians that lack rational thought, there are also those who value being able to think rationally. Perhaps it's because I am older and in grad school that I find the central premises of Goodkind's works (and thereby, Rand's) to be so tasteless. I agree that rational thought has a place in one's day-to-day interactions. However, so does faith. To make a sweeping statement that all religion is merely an escape from rational thought is dangerous. I will agree that some individuals may use faith as a crutch, rather than incorporating rational thought into their thought patterns. I may even agree that in the past, many religions have brutalized others into towing a dogmatic line at the risk of physical or intellectual death. I do not agree that this is always the case.

In my understanding, faith and reason have what some scholarly circles call "dynamic interplay" or "dialectical tension." That is, one cannot exist without the other and exist in tension with the other. Faith and reason must be in balance with each other. Faith must not abandon rational thought and neither must rational thought abandon faith. Even Paul encouraged Timothy to keep a level head about him, to reason with what he heard (2nd Tim 4:5). Blind faith needs reason to balance it out, to ground it, to say, "Remember that you have a mind of your own and that God meant for you to use it." Reason needs faith to lift it beyond the bounds of time and space, to remind it that there are miracles, and to say, "Don't get sucked down into the mire of human existence--not everything is rational or knowable." Thank God that unconditional love isn't rational, and that Christ is the perfect balance of reason and faith.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Captchas

Hey all!

I know I've been inactive for a couple of days. However, I have ran across some funny things the last couple of days. Namely, captchas. I don't know if many of you are familiar with them, but they are security tools that require people to type a sequence of words in order to download a file online. In any case, I got these ones and thought you all might enjoy them, too.
[slideshow]

Aaron

Monday, April 12, 2010

School

Warning: Before you read any further, know that the content of this post may be depressing.

That being said, I am so tired right now. School is running me over. I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. I'm in classes that are just for the credits, and my yet-to-be-completed assignments have little to do with what I want to do with my life.

It seems like the closer I get to graduating, the more pieces of my soul are sloughed off. On top of the fact that I am stuck in doing papers that are fruitless, I am still going through a TON of family crap. GAH! I just need a break before I collapse.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Other sites

Hey all, just wanted to mention some other sites out there that I am maintaining at the moment: In the Know 865 and The Idea Graveyard. Check them out!

The Idea Graveyard is just a fun little site that I put together. However, if you live in Knoxville, you should check out In The Know 865. It's all about food and drink reviews for Knoxville.

Peace!

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Facebook etiquette or How to have argument on Facebook

This morning, I woke up, ambled over to my computer, and checked my email and Facebook.  I saw that I had a notification for a comment on one of my statuses and clicked on it.  With the comment being an not-so-close friend, but a friend nonetheless, I assumed that the comment would be positive...but it wasn't.  Rather, the way in which it was written could be perceived as sarcastic.

What irks me the most about the situation, is that it was put up on Facebook by someone older (mid-twenties) than me.  Really?  Do you feel the need to start something over Facebook? Rather, do you feel that it is appropriate to comment in such a fashion that it could be perceived as being an attempt to start something?  In any case, here are some practical pointers/suggestions about posting on Facebook.

Conflict on Facebook
1.)
If your status can be perceived as anything other than you mean for it to be perceived as, DON'T POST IT.

2.) Consider a taxonomic means of classifying your posts. E.g., "Opinion:  I think that broccoli is the most disgusting vegetable ever" or "Fact:  It is raining."

3.) If you are taking issue with somebody's post, don't be a douchecow and comment directly on the post!  Send them a Facebook message or email.  You're less likely to create conflict where EVERYBODY can see it!

4.) If you see a post of your friend cheating on his girlfriend, or you see a pic of your underage sister drinking pop up on your mini-feed, DON'T call them out of Facebook!  That is tacky, uncouth, and they don't need you to comment on Facebook about it!

5.) Parents, now that you can get on Facebook, consider that you may find things out about your kids that you don't want to know--don't whine, rant, "yell," post, complain on Facebook.  You are an adult--handle your issues with your kids as if you are an adult!

6.) If you post something, and somebody comments on it, initiating some sort of conflict on Facebook, be responsible enough to REMOVE the status/comment (your decision) and talk to that person directly...not over your status.

7.) Don't argue with somebody else over their comments on somebody else's post!  That's their issue, not yours!

8.) Remember:  Some stuff posted online is OPINION, not fact!  Therefore, don't get your panties in a wad and take offense to it!  You can argue facts, but opinions are another matter.

9.) Your status is NOT the medium to attack somebody else.  Grow the hell up.

10.) Facebook chat is NOT an acceptable means of hashing out conflict!  Grow a pair an talk to the person either on phone (not as bad, but still a poor means of addressing conflict), or talk to them in person (much better).

*     *     *     *


So, in light of the fact that you can damage relationships (among other things) on Facebook, by not exercising a bit of discernment and maturity, think about what is necessary to post and what isn't necessary.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

New Things

Last night marked a major shift in my life--I got engaged!  My girlfriend, Ashley, and I have been dating for almost 4 years.  We began dating on June 11th, 2006, two weeks before I left the US to do a two month long internship in Leipzig, Germany.  Three years and 8 months later, we are finally engaged!  In any case, I am super-pumped!  If you want more details, feel free to leave a comment and I will tell you directly.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Technology Overload/Being Overconnected

If you are a "NetGen-er" (those born from the mid 80's to early 90's), or are a techno-savvy baby boomer, or Gen X-er, then you've probably noticed the changes that Facebook made to their layout yet again. I reacted negatively to the change.  Really, how many times does the layout need to change?  Now, I have to figure out how to view my profile, why my chat moved...and what the heck is up with the search bar moving to the top of the page?!?

But that wasn't the only  technological change that hit the masses this week.  Google decided to throw its hat in with the Twitter/Facebook crowd and add "Buzz" to the Gmail email client.  Buzz is basically Twitter, but only for those people that you truly care about.  It features the ability to upload photos, like Facebook; The ability to "like" a status, like Facebook, and the the convenient status stream that both Twitter and Facebook utilize.

My question is:  Why?  What is this obsession that we have with constantly "improving" social networking and electronic communication?  Is there a point to which efficacy will no longer matter?  Can we be too effective at "improvement?"  Are we, instead of improving on technology, becoming socially connected to a unhealthy point?  One of my colleagues made mention of something her daughter said:  "Mom, it's like 1984 has come to be, except instead of 'Big Brother' watching, we're watching each other."

What's strange is, that I have to agree.  We are becoming more and more "connected" to each other, obsessed with self-disclosing.  What I see in all of this is some strange obsession with seeming important, or having some 15 minutes of fame.  There are several things that disturb me about this:

Ease
We've made it so easy to self-disclose.  A click here, an edit there, and we are able to, in a relatively short amount of time, create online personas, complete with everything that people could possibly want to know about us.  It is my belief that this is phenomenally dangerous, even with the ability to "control" privacy in these online forums.  Without much effort, it is fairly easy to discover anything a person wants to discover about another person.  Thus, it doesn't require much effort to broadcast anything that a person wants to broadcast, and it is easy to stalk somebody.


A General Lack of Real Connection
What these "improvements" are resulting in is a lack of personal connection.  Rather, they absolve a person of any sort of commitment in relationships.  The degree of commitment that I am inferring that one is absolved of, is best explained by the following.  A person "checks up on" another person online by viewing a profile or status updated, but doesn't bother to call or text the person.  Rather they "comment on a status" or "post" something to another person's account. What about face-to-face contact?


In any case, I am concerned about the level to which our society has become technologically connected.  It seems to me that there may be too much being sacrificed in order to become connected.  We improve, and improve, researching and following the demands of the unwashed masses, and in turn, lose touch with each other.  We sacrifice community in order to be connected.  This is the heart and soul of the human experience--to be in community--and it is quickly being lost, lest we recognize that online interaction is only a tool. The nuances, expressions, and other characteristics involved in interacting face-to-face cannot be replace by a cheapened online imitation.

ShareThis