Pragmatism

So I've been reading Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar one of the topics in the current chapter was pragmatism. Of course I'm reading while on a trans-Pacific flight so I have no access to my usual sources for study but the book gives a nice concise introduction to pragmatism.

To sum it up "According to [philosopher William] James, we choose our truth by what difference it will make in practice." The reason this caught my eye is I'm a huge fan of denying all types of moral relativism, which is what pragmatism is... moral relativism masquerading as something deeper. As opposed to divine law, pragmatism (and other moral systems) always boil down to something that is mutable. In pragmatism the key words, as far as relativism is concerned, are "we choose". Pragmatism, even though focused on the practical application of moral choices, still hinges ones' choice.

One of the concepts the History of Philosophy podcast mentioned about the innovations brought about by Plato/Socrates was how he made philosophy about finding out how one ought to live. It seems to me that while Socrates was real and in many ways accurately portrayed by Plato, it's really Plato's genius that gave Socrates to the world, and thereby, really it was Plato that changed philosophy for the whole western world. Philosophy has become so generalized it has lost much of its meaning. Don't get me wrong there are all sorts of people seeking practical application in today's world, but if you're following relativistic thinking (any kind) you have to constantly be rethinking your ethics because they change.

That's not to say that divine moralists don't have to consider new issues as they arise; as science changes what we can do (especially medically) we have new things to consider. Notice I didn't say "progress" I've always thought that just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should go back to the middle ages, there are tons of great advances brought about by science; life is much easier now, maybe too easy, we are a very overweight culture.

Interestingly, now that I have access to the Internet and I can look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  That entry talks about pragmatism as a bridging philosophy between metaphysical/religious morality and scientific/empiricist moralities.  I don't really see it that way with how I understand the concept of pragmatism, because it still relies on a non-deity for a source of morality.  The only way I could see pragmatism as an equalizer is if there were (which I don't believe there really is) an issue that is not dealt with in the Bible it would help one make a decision.  I know that may sound naive but if you study the Bible thoroughly, though it may not make a direct reference to all possible moral circumstances, through broad instruction it includes everything.  (For example: 1 Corinthians 10:23, 24  All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. Let no one seek his own  good,  but that of his neighbor. (NASB) and 6:12 All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. (NASB))

Guest Post Sam Ronicker (my dad)

Quick biography note before getting to the post. My dad has held a variety of jobs, though when I was growing up he mostly worked in the newspaper business. He left the newspaper business when all of us were grown and started working in ministry. He's run a home for men, been a dorm parent, and now the administrator of Operation Rebirth boys' boarding school near St. Paris, Ohio. He's also a pastor of a small Baptist church near there, this is a chapter from his upcoming book, "Sermons from a Tiny Pulpit."

Let’s Be Real!

One of things that I think we are responsible to do as part of the body of Christ is to protect ourselves, protect the Church with a capital ‘C’.

Some verses that really, really bother me:

II Peter 2:-12 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed.

II Corinthians 11:13-14 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.

I Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

This one troubles me most of all-

Matthew 24:24

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

I don’t want to be deceived, I want to be careful that what I believe is the truth, and that the truth is what I believe. It’s tough these days, the world and Satan want to fool us into being of no use to God, to the church to each other. Think about it- even our language has changed: the word ‘Christian’ doesn’t mean what it used to mean. We get bombarded with worldly thinking…we get infiltrated by the media, the environment, our society. We don’t need to be afraid, but be smart. Einstein once said the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limitations…

There have been false teachers since the dawn of time…clear back to the Garden of Eden. Let’s be smart- the Bible calls this discernment. Matthew 10:16- be wise as serpents, harmless as doves.

So how do know when something is real, how do we know when something is true or not. How can we tell if even the elect, the saved have been deceived?

Besides truth, I would guess that the thing that gets counterfeited the most is money. Technology is great- it’s made it so criminals can print fake money easier than ever. So they change the design every so often to stay one step ahead.

But the bottom line is, how can you tell a fake?

To know a counterfeit, study the real thing. Does that seem the opposite?

Think about it- there are many counterfeits, but only one real-

There is lots of untruth in the world, there are lots of counterfeit bills out there but only one is real- there are lots of ‘christs’ but only one is real. All roads lead to God- not true. I am the way the truth and the life said Jesus and there is only one of Him. There are lots of writings out there, but only one Bible. Let’s study the real Scripture, the real Jesus, the real way of salvation so when a phony comes along, we don’t get fooled again (The Who). Dr. Adrian Rogers, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and founder of Love Worth Finding Ministries once preached a message about recognizing counterfeit preachers- five tests:

Source Test- what is their information based upon? Is it the Bible?

Savior Test- do they believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior? The Only Savior?

Subject Test – is the Bible their primary source of teaching?

Salvation Test- how are we saved? What is the requirement for Salvation? Don’t add to it or take away from it! (Romans 10:13 says Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. In the original Greek that literally means Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved!)

Sanctification Test- are we holy, set apart, different from the rest of the world, are we even different from the rest of the church little ‘c’?

Let’s study the real thing! Let’s be real! And here is the big question: are we the real thing? Have we been fooled into believing that we are something that we are not? Are we really Christians…what the word used to mean?

Look at the book of James 2:14-26

“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”  Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that —and shudder.  20 You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.  25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26 As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

You see faith without works is dead, as in real, real dead. (Not just mostly dead, but completely dead.)

Here are some questions we can ask ourselves as we examine our hearts:

Was there a time when I honestly realized I was sinner and admitted this to myself and to God? Was there a time when my heart stirred me to flee from the wrath to come? Have I ever seriously been bothered by my sins? Do I truly understand the Gospel, that Christ died for my sins and arose again? Do I understand and confess that I cannot save myself? Did I sincerely repent of my sins and turn from them? Or, do I hate sin and fear God? Have I trusted Christ and Christ alone for my salvation? (In the original Greek this means have I trusted Christ and Christ alone for my Salvation?) Do I enjoy having a living relationship with Him through the Word and in the Spirit?

Has there been a change in my life? Do I maintain good works or are my works occasional and weak? Do I seek to grow in the things of the Lord? Can others tell that I have been with Jesus? Do I have a desire to share Christ with others? Or, am I ashamed of Him? Do I enjoy the fellowship of God’s people? Is worship a delight to me? Do I love the Church with a capital “C." Am I ready for the Lord’s return? Or, will I be ashamed when He comes for me?

Is my faith alive or dead?

Let’s be the real thing.

And to make sure we don’t get fooled, let’s study the real thing,

And let’s make sure we know the real Savior, Jesus Christ.

Psalm 139:23-24

Search me, O Lord, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

(Numbers 6:24–26, NIV) The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make His face shine upon you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn His face toward you
and give you peace.

Guest Poster Steven Specht

I put out an "advertisement" on Facebook for guest posters, again, this time I received two responses! The first was from my friend Steven Specht who's been working on a book and his website www.oneletter.org. Here's his first of multiple entries, Excerpt of Notes from Afghanistan:

On December 10th 2011, there was a blood-red lunar eclipse which was visible in parts of the northern hemisphere including eastern Asia. This is my commentary on the event as it relates to the Muslims I worked with in Afghanistan as a contractor linguist and taught English in my spare time.

I could not understand the utter fear caused by the lunar eclipse, and it was the first time in my tour that I can truly attest to culture shock. Poor hygiene, low-to-nonexistent literacy, and many other things I could equate to the poor infrastructure and lack of schooling, but when it came to the reaction of the eclipse, I was astounded. While there is a fundamentalist Christian element to American society, for the most part, I feel that I’ve been raised in a culture that focuses predominantly on empiricism over superstition. This is decidedly not the case in a country dominated by fundamental interpretations and outright superstition for many events that Westerners shrug off. This includes lunar activity.

When Fazli came to me to discuss the “Bad Sign,” at first I didn’t even realize what he was talking about. I’d noted the eclipse, chastised myself for not paying better attention to current events, and went on about my evening. He told me that this was a bad omen sent by God to warn people about their sinful ways. All manner of things happened during the time of an eclipse, and he spoke so fast that much of it was lost in translation, but the most poignant part was that families would mourn and pray for salvation on a night like this, and a baby born during an eclipse would need a goat sacrificed on its behalf. Fazli was incredibly nervous, but Ali was shaking, red-eyed, and nearly in tears over the event and asked to leave early to go pray. Among all the rest of the Afghans in the chow hall and around the barracks there was an aura of discontent, and I didn’t need to interview all of them to make sense of it. Even Najeeb half-heartedly assented to the superstitions, but I insisted he come to my class; he wanted to know what I thought, but I needed a white board to properly illustrate my explanation.

While there isn’t anything explicitly negative about the eclipse in the Quran, the Old Testament references the negative connotations associated with eclipses, and Old Testament tradition is such an inseparable part of Islam.

Joel 2:31-32 “The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood, before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls.”

Amos 8: 9 “And [in the end],” declares the Lord God, “I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.

Obviously the second verse is referring to a solar eclipse, but I use it to lead into my next point which is that I think what makes Asadullah and Najeeb so unique in my experiences here. They both are set apart from the rest of the Afghans with whom I’ve worked. Hajmal, Mohammad Ali, Najibullah, and others have all been exceptionally smart, but I question if they will ever have the depths of experience to build a bridge between our societies. Asadullah is well educated and as far as I can tell is filled with an innate curiosity that transcends the bonds of religion. Najeeb, while less educated has worked with the coalition for so long that we have simply rubbed off on him to the point that he trusts us to not lead him astray. They were the only two who attended my English class the night of the eclipse. Both asked me for my opinion, and after I drew a diagram on the white board, both seemed to accept the possibility that it was merely the earth blocking the light of the sun. I wasn’t trying to convince them. I was just passing off what I believed on the issue, and they felt it made more sense than the superstition they’d been brought up with. For both of them, it was an epiphany.

In societies such as Afghanistan, we cannot take for granted that the country as a whole can be capable of understanding our level of empiricism just as we may not be able to understand their level of superstition. This puts further burden on those who can understand fundamental approaches to religion as well as the complexities of Western science, economics, and politics. Whether they are Americans who have immersed themselves in this culture or Afghans who have worked alongside Americans for years at a time, they have the unique role of developing understanding between two different societies.

It’s not that I necessarily think that our empiricism is right or that their superstition is wrong. It’s that without some basic understanding of both, our worlds cannot coexist.

Morality of Drone Strikes Response

This is my response to two articles about the morality of drone strikes one here and a scathing response here. The former article is actually a second article in response to things said about the same author's opinions in first piece. First off, I'll be honest I didn't read ALL of all the articles, all together they're quite long, but I did read most of them. Second disclaimer, I'm a member of the USAF, even so, NONE of what I say has anything to do with the views of the Air Force or the Department of Defense (by the way, that's true of all my posts). In this I feel I have a unique perspective on this whole issue.

There are all sorts of weapons our military uses. I'm part of one of the systems, though in most of my experience I've only been a small part of it. All I've seen is how incredibly careful we, and our allies are when it comes to finding and taking out (using the vernacular) targets. I have NEVER felt uncomfortable with how we eliminate targets. There are so many rules, regulations, and redundancies to make absolutely sure that we're targeting an actual terrorist that it can actually be frustrating sometimes. The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (or UAVs or as they're now called unmanned aerial systems, UASes) is just one of the different tools in the arsenal. It is no more moral, immoral, or amoral than a bomb, bullet, bow and arrow, or any other weapon. About the use of the system in general, yes I think it could start the users of it down a dangerous pathway to wanton killing however there is so much back-study (read: intelligence) gathered on each target that the idea that drones are supposedly causing so many civilian casualties is nonsense.

Does it allow for eliminating enemies at great distance yes, does it allow the enemy to surrender? Not directly... The rebuttal blog talked about this at length even referencing the Geneva Conventions, and I'll admit there is a flaw in the use of such long range weaponry. The target cannot surrender to it. But then, the target can't surrender to any bomb or bullet. He, rightfully, says: "very few would be likely to waive this right for their own soldiers who one day may need to surrender, and declaring as antiquated the provisions of the international agreement that was created specifically to prevent a repeat of the mass bloodletting of World War II is a slippery slope." Yes, I agree, it's a slippery slope, but not one that we're treading down as a military, yet.

Also, there's a couple things he's overlooking in his argument: one, this is not technically a war (not at least, in the traditional sense). These are not enemy soldiers that we are attacking and then, when overrun, offered parlay or surrender or vice versa, there's no surrendering to them. These are terrorists who have declared their own war on the West, freedom, and democracy (I'll not go into the idea of whether or not it was provoked, suffice to say that we did at least somewhat provoke them). Terrorist "soldiers" are brainwashed (not to say that ours aren't somewhat too), poor, confused, and sometimes even intimidated people that don't attack the enemy fortifications or supply lines (most of the time). They strap on (sometimes under threat of force) explosive vests and walk into markets and blow up themselves and anyone/anything around them. I'm not saying the ends justifies the means; I'm saying that this is a different type of engagement, targets are hidden among the populace. In addition to the fact that these are hidden, elusive targets that must be taken out with precise means; Mr. Hussain isn't taking into account that these targets CAN surrender at any time. There are any number of police and coalition checkpoints and bases spread out all over Afghanistan or the military/government in Pakistan. Any terrorist, at any time, could turn himself or herself in to the police or the NATO forces.

The very next issue on the rebuttal blog is "No ID." In a few instances there's a possibility that after the fact we cannot confirm or deny the efficacy of the strike. However, our intelligence professionals spend days, or weeks sometimes, finding and verifying targets, ensuring that they're not innocent bystanders in this conflict. Then after a target has been verified as a terrorist the process starts all over again with a more narrow focus. Then only AFTER all these verifications have been made and the target approved, is it taken out. Sometimes there is proof e.g. the target is never seen again, or some other intelligence source says the target is dead.  Sometimes there isn't and that's not really an issue.

In this conflict, I don't feel that the US should consider ALL military age males in the combat area targets, however, it's clear that they don't and never have. Of course, there are different types of engagements, planned and unplanned. Planned is as I've described, unplanned is generally when a group of coalition forces is attacked and they call in a strike. In those types of situations the rules are different and rightfully so. When self-defense is the issue this is war and making sure our soldiers come home is of paramount importance. Just like in previous wars/conflicts, calling in the drone/bomb (though more often than not, this type of scenario it's a manned asset that is called) is basically the same as calling in the artillery except MUCH more accurate. Artillery shells destroy large areas, precision guided missiles kill targets, and manned assets can use guns, they don't wantonly drop bombs. They only use the amount of force needed to stop the attack and permit the coalition/US forces to get to safety.

I could go on all night, but I'm going to have to stop here on the drone issue. I only have one more thing to say about the war in general. As a general concept, I think the idea of a "war on terror(ism)" is impossible at best, rife with conspiracy at worst. Should the US be attempting to fight fear (look up the word terror fear is in the number one definition) with guns, bullets, bombs, and soldier's lives? I don't think so.  How does one "fight fear"?  Especially with weapons!? I am an American Airman and I will do my duty and obey my orders. In fact, I think I'm better suited for the job because I bring a perspective to the war that we should be as careful as possible to only kill those that would kill any of us if they were given the chance.

Forum Following and Blog Growth

I recently joined a forum on philosophy as part of a small effort to improve my blogging.  I've not completely given up on my attempt to keep my blogging topics varied but as I'm obviously spending more time on the topic of philosophy I might as well embrace it (at least some).  Well, never mind as I'm writing this I'm looking for a language learning forum also.  Turns out, it's a lot harder to find a forum on language learning than it was for philosophy!  The first few sites I tried were either blocked, suspicious or full.  I did end up finding UniLang.  Hopefully it's active, I used to be an avid forum follower/writer, back in college.

Recently, I've taken to reading and writing blog entries.  I follow several blogs, mostly on running, running barefoot, barefootedness in general, an NPR blog, the resurgence blog, and of course my buddy Will's blog.  This isn't a comprehensive list either, so, obviously I'm a big fan of blog reading!  I use Google reader as my blog reading tool, it's cool because it allows you to keep them all in the same place (trust me I don't visit every one of those pages every day), and you can organize them into folders (sometimes, it's a little glitchy on that part).  All in all I spend about thirty minutes a day reading various blogs and news pages.  One of the pointers I read about improving my blog is to read more and write less, I take it that pointer means that bloggers should concentrate on quality NOT quantity.  I totally understand that, though I'm just proud that I've been able to maintain a regular schedule (sort of).

My next step in this blogging experience is a blog carnival.  I know, new term to me too!  I guess it's a sort of round-table blogging experience where people with similar type blogs all submit entries for each other to read and comment on.  In all my blog entries the only thing that gets me down is the lack of comments on my entries.  I commonly make requests for responses but most often I don't get any...  So, all you out there in the blogosphere (yeah, that's you, if you're reading this) please feel free to comment.

---Update, 13 May 2013---

I follow the stats for my blog and I've noticed this particular entry is my most popular entry and I'd like to put in an update to improve this entry.  First off, all the things I've done to improve my blog have worked, at least I think so.  I concentrate on staying (somewhat) on topic, and I feel that my NOT focusing on timelines allows me to produce better work.  I haven't been all that active on the philosophy forum or the linguistics forum but I have been seeking out various sources of information on that front.  I do regularly frequent the forums on Goodreads.com and I still read several different blogs.  Unfortunately, Google Reader is going away soon and I'm still looking for a replacement, so far I've been using a Mac program Reeder, though it relies on Google Reader so it might stop working when the site stops working.  I've been running a series, which helps keep me on topic and it keeps me somewhat on task and studying the same series of lectures.  One of the most rewarding things I've done through my blog is the blog carnival I host.  I use blogcarnival.com to advertise my carnival and it seems to be doing well.

I still find it ironic that the most viewed entry on my site requests comments and I still don't have any.

Working on my macro photography

Stand Up for What You Believe In (or Don't Believe In)

As I think of this title I'm reminded of the song from a Veggietales movie, Stand Up for What you Believe In.  The reason I chose this topic stems from all the anger and arguments that have been thrown around about a variety of topics lately.  Namely, the Chick-fil-A statements about homosexuality and marriage, gun control or lack thereof, etc.  Especially concerning the Chick-fil-A controversy...

This is not intended to be a post about homosexual marriage; neither for, nor against.  What I'm getting at here is how people should react to statements like the one made by the president of a company as he was standing up for what he/they believe.  Why does one man's statement about what he believes and how he runs his company stir up such hateful protests and responses?  There's NOTHING anti-gay about ANYTHING Mr. Cathy said.  Saying that one believes in the biblical definition of marriage is NOT anti-gay.  That's like saying being pro-milk is the same as being anti-alcohol.  I know it's not a direct parallel, but you get the point.  Also, believing that homosexuality is a sin isn't something one should be defamed for.  Standing up for what one believes is admirable.  If you believe differently, then feel free to share your opinion however you want.  So often the LGBT groups talk about hate and bigotry, but they're often the first to throw the mud and defame people that just believe differently than they.

I was taught a long time ago that the first side in any argument that throws the first personal attack (ad hominem argument) has lost the argument.  Essentially that idea comes from the idea that the first party to run out of real logical arguments and starts 'slinging insults' has lost the argument.  Truthfully, just calling someone "anti-gay" is only slightly insulting, and that article is one of the least insulting responses I've seen.  So, who threw the first insult?  It appears to me, from the articles I searched for on Google, the first article was the one from Baptist Press, and it wasn't rude at all.  A company president just stated his (and his company's) stance that they believe in the biblical definition of marriage.

On this note: I watched a response to Chick-fil-A's statements that also blasted Mr. Cathy as not knowing the biblical idea of marriage.  The video referenced several Old Testament verses that pertain to people being married in a variety of (what is currently viewed as) unsavory conditions (e.g. raped woman must marry rapist, man must marry deceased brother's wife, variety of polygamy and harem examples).  My response to that vlog'er is: If you want to reference the Bible to tear someone down; you should read the whole Bible and understand what's going on in all those situations before casting judgement.  Maybe focus on the parts that talk about NOT casting judgment...

Back to the real topic, if you're pro-homosexuality/homosexual marriage feel free to express yourself and say so, but don't call me (or Mr. Cathy) a bigot (or worse) you're not helping your cause and you're just being intolerant (like so many accuse Christians of being).  Believing the Bible is true and that homosexuality is wrong is not intolerance, hatred, or even judgement.  Don't get me wrong, there are TONS of bigots out there (I can't believe I just linked that horrible 'church' on my blog; I DO NOT recommend you go to that link!  It was just an example).  Please don't lump someone like me, that loves Jesus and accepts everyone as a person that God created and loves, with those that twist the Bible into a message of hate.

Awesome fireworks at the aquarium here on Okinawa, this is NOT the finale, just the end of the first part

Blogging Topics

I had an interesting conversation today...  Remember what I said the other day about hostile work environment?  Well, today it happened again!  Someone commented on what I said on Facebook about coerced abortion and voluntary abortion both being abhorrent, apparently this person interpreted my comment as coerced abortion being the same as voluntary abortion (I responded on Facebook that I totally didn't mean it that way).  Well, just as my coworker said that, immediately, without provocation or explanation another coworker went off that I was just a horrible person and that was a horrible thing to say.  That's the kind of thing I was talking about the other day.

Anyways, after dealing with that, I was talking with a coworker about blogging and I kind of said that all this trouble wasn't worth dealing with deep philosophical questions if it was bringing about such contention.  My coworker's response was interesting, he said something to the effect of, these are the questions that matter most.  He likened it to treating injuries, you don't treat the broken nail if a person has a chest wound.  To some extent I agree, it's important to think about the important questions, like where do we come from, is there a God, or how to live a moral life.  All these important philosophical questions make other topics seem insignificant sometimes.  Even so, I think I'm going to start moving back to topics that are less controversial.  Not to try to avoid controversy per se but rather to get back to topics I find interesting and fun that don't get people up in arms (as much).

Plato's Socrates Part 2 Annoyance and Goodness

Last time I wrote about Socrates I focused on the socratic method and socratic ignorance, today I'd like to focus on his methods (again) of annoyance, and the "goodness" of men.

Before we delve into those topics it's interesting to me that all of what is written about Socrates is completely second-hand.  And according to most historical philosophers all these accounts are either full of bias and opinion or satirical.  Though even with all the "mud in the water" it is clear that Socrates was an amazingly brilliant person and influential (in a way) in his time and for hundreds of years later.

On Socrates being annoying, he's described as a fly buzzing around a horse, but helpful.  My interest in this isn't important to me that this part of the character of Socrates was one of the main reasons he was eventually put to death, rather as a distorted parallel to modern arguments with people who hold their philosophical views as unassailable and yet in the real world what they believe is constantly being argued.  I bring up this point fairly often but that's only because this happens a lot to me when dealing with "militant atheists."  Maybe it comes back to the whole idea that if one tells a lie loud enough and long enough it can become truth, and maybe people apply that concept to all beliefs.  If one believes hard enough that there is no God it will be so.  So go ahead, spin your web of (supposed) logic and argument, just because you believe it doesn't make it so.  I said this the other day to my friend and I still maintain it: one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God with science or logic.  I personally believe that there is more evidence in science and logic for God than otherwise, but like so many other areas arguments just serve as annoyance because no one will win the argument.

The second item for discussion of Plato's version of Socrates is his notion of men NEVER choosing to do bad.  First off, I'd like to define what is meant, in this context, by bad/good; specifically, bad is sin or disobedience to God; saying, doing or thinking something contrary to what God would want one to say, do or think, and good is the antonym, saying doing or thinking that which God would want one to say, do or think.  Why does this come up?  You ask...  Well, the question came up in the podcast I've been listening to about the history of philosophy.  Why would Socrates want to just know what virtue is?  Just knowing how to be virtuous doesn't mean one will actually be virtuous.  In response, the professor brought up this point: Socrates had this notion that men will ALWAYS choose to do what is good.  One of the problems in this concept is his (Socrates') definition of good.  Apparently, Socrates defines 'good' as that which should be chosen/done.  In that definition, yes, more or less everyone will always choose what is 'good,' but it's a doorway to relativism.  If good is whatever a person thinks is good at any one time, it can change with learning, but that's a flawed definition of good/virtue.  People aren't inherently good or virtuous, if they were then why would Socrates be on this search for virtue?  He links virtue with knowledge, i.e. people choose bad things because they don't know they are bad things.  This is nonsense when looking at virtue as an unchanging moral absolute that God has set forth.  Humankind is full of willful evil and debauchery.  "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; There is no one who does good." Psalms 14:1 (NASB)

I don't really have a plan for the next topic, I'm just going to play it by ear and find something to talk about later.

I love my family!

Divergence From the Plan

Well, I was planning on writing the part two of Plato's Socrates, but I feel the need to complain a little.  I know, nobody likes a whiner but I've been bothered by something for a while that I feel is worth talking about.

Have you ever been in a situation where you were (or at least felt you were) the only person who felt/believed a certain way?  It's like that for me, at work.  I've never felt so attacked and alone in my life.  I've been studying philosophy for a few weeks now, and a lot of what I've studied points to an important part of philosophy is questioning everything; looking around oneself and trying to understand how things are put together and why.  I think I've done a fair job and kept an open mind and I've enjoyed looking at some of the ancient history of western philosophy.  However, it seems like I'm surrounded by people that are what I call 'militant atheists.'

Now, don't get me wrong most of the people I'm referring to (they shall remain nameless) are friendly enough.  I don't interact with most of these people much outside this setting, but in general they're friendly enough.  But, whenever any topic (e.g. politics, morality, religion etc.) is brought up I am (seemingly) the ONLY conservative Christian voice in the group.  Sometimes the discussions are just that, discussions, but most of the time it seems like it's beat up on the stupid conservative time.  Well, that's enough...  No more complaining, it really got me down at first, then I came home and everything got better.  Of course my bad mood was contagious and my bad mood moved on to Michelle.  So now I'm in a better mood but Michelle has been sort of down since I came home.

Not sure what the next entry will be, I'm out of plans for now.  I'll think of something later.

NOW THAT'S A FISH!!

Guest Blogger #2 Will Haas

Part 2 of Socrates will have to wait.  My friend Will Haas has written a guest entry for my blog:

The advent of affordable, quality cameras has led to a world full of photographs. This has been multiplied exponentially when manufacturers began to include high-quality cameras in most mobile devices. It is safe to say that everything has been photographed. Since everyone has a camera, and is therefore taking pictures, we are exposed daily to the entire gamut of skill levels. Nearly every instructional booklet or text written about photographic criticism will begin with analyzing the technical qualities of the image---I believe this is exactly the opposite approach that should be used to analyze a photograph.

Instead we should start with the most fundamental attribute of any photographic image. The Subject - What is in the photograph?

The subject of the photograph is the most fundamental characteristic of an image. The subject exists without artistic vision, the subject exists regardless of post-processing, and most importantly the subject exists at any skill level. Since the 1800’s people have used a camera to photograph ‘something’, we do not photograph ‘nothing’. As photographers we have posed, we have hiked for a better view, and we have panned or zoomed to find a subject worth capturing. Capturing the subject is our true goal, the reason we photograph in the first place.

Simply put, any noun has the potential to become a subject. But when we analyze (or criticize) a photograph we subconsciously or consciously rank subject as the most important characteristic of a photograph. We “like” or “dislike” a photograph, regardless of artistic qualities or skill, based almost completely on the subject. I imagine that if we were teachers grading an exam, the Subject of the photograph would constitute 65% of the grade. Everything else that separates amateur photographers from top-ranked professionals exists in the remaining 35% of the grade.

Consider a soldier, entrenched in a foreign land months away from returning home. The soldier reaches into his pocket and pulls out a worn, faded photograph. Already in your mind you have pictured something on his photograph. The soldier does not concern himself with the kind of camera was used, how it was photoshopped, if the composition was strong or weak, or if the depth of field was shallow, it is the subject of the photograph that causes him to reach, with dusty hands, and take one last look at the picture.

Examine these 3 photos. Some were taken with advanced skill, while one was taken with no intentional skill whatsoever. However, it should be clear that what the skill-less photograph lacks in technique, it makes up for in subject.

I urge you, regardless of your skill level or familiarity with photography, to consider above all else what you are photographing.

Plato's Socrates Methods Myth and Man

Plato's Socrates part 1: So, I just started reading Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar... and so far it has been quite entertaining.  It seems like Socrates is probably the most famous Greek philosopher, several different ancient authors wrote about stuff that he did/said, but unfortunately or fortunately he apparently never wrote anything.

One thing all this study of ancient philosophers brings to mind is something I learned many years ago (high school) about ancient texts.  It was in a video about the trustworthiness of the biblical text.  I don't remember all the exact figures, but basically it went something like this: there are only a couple copies ancient texts and yet they are considered trustworthy (at least in the point of who wrote them and when) and there are ten times as many copies of the New Testament but people don't consider it trustworthy.  Seems a bit inconsistent doesn't it?  Anyways, I digress...  There are two initial points I would like to draw from Plato's version of Socrates, the socratic method, and socratic ignorance.

First, and arguably the most widespread lesson learned from Socrates is the Socratic method for learning/teaching.  Simply put, we as educators should answer students' questions with questions to get them to think through their assumptions.  This can be used incorrectly e.g. certain facts should be questioned/answered directly.  However, there are lots of times when we should use questions to seek out the roots of our questions and gain a deeper understanding of whatever we're studying.

Second, and I personally think that more people should adopt this self-image in order to drive themselves to continually pursue learning.  The idea of socratic ignorance is the conundrum that one much know that he/she doesn't know anything.  So, once you realize that you don't know anything you'll continue to seek out knowledge.

I love fireworks

Online Learning

As promised, or as threatened, today's topic is online learning.  The next topic, if I can tackle it (presumably it'll take more than one entry) is going to be (drum roll) Plato's version of Socrates.

So, first off...  Have you ever taken online courses?  Did you like them?  Did you learn as much as you did in "regular" classes?  Did you learn as much as you wanted or as much as was expected of you?  It's both a little sad and a little scary that so many schools are moving towards this new style of learning.  I've had the (dis)advantage of taking a few online courses since I joined the military.  But, before I get too deep into this topic a disclaimer: this is not a reflection on any particular university, education program, or professor etc.  This is about online learning in general.

The article that really started me thinking about this topic mentioned an interesting notion that I've heard  talked about before, "Ah, you're a [teacher]. You must learn so much from your students."  His reaction was kind of humorous to me... do doctors learn from their patients, or lawyers from their clients?  Obviously that's rhetorical but still a thought provoking idea.  I also really like the author's analogy of teaching and music, specifically jazz.  Interesting enough, I never have been good at improv musically, though I've always enjoyed the idea and attempting it.  Good teachers are like jazz musicians... they are creative and adapt well.  On the language learning podcast I listened to the other day (which often digressed from the topic of language learning to general education issues) they (it was an interview podcast) discussed how it's good for teachers to study acting.  Specifically, they mentioned improv acting.

Think about it, what were your favorite teachers like?  Don't say the lazy teacher that showed videos everyday.  I mean your favorite teacher from whom you actually learned a lot.  He/she was probably a great performer, improvisor, and he/she could feel the educational climate/mood of the room/class.  I want to be that kind of teacher someday!  As I said I've not been all that good at musical improv and I feel like sometimes when I'm teaching I "wax eloquent" (read: BORING) and sound authoritative on whatever I'm teaching.  Don't get me wrong, a teacher needs to be very knowledgeable about whatever topic they're teaching.  But, I think one of my problems is that I've seen education as receptive (on the student's end).  I still feel like that's a good method, though we should be careful to avoid the stereotypically east Asian education mindset that sets the teacher on too high of a pedestal and doesn't allow for free thinking or discourse in the classroom.  Now, we have online learning that doesn't really have either option.

Oddly enough even while reading this article that's critical of online learning, I'm currently working through my individual online learning (philosophy, Korean, Japanese, Bible etc.) also while reading the article I went to the link in the article about Coursera and I signed up for a few of their classes on things that I find interesting.  So, as critical as I am of online learning, I'm constantly participating in it and promoting it.  I think maybe the issue is maturity and interest in the topic.  There is more information out there (we're living in the information age) online than has ever been available before, and anyone can learn anything if they put their mind to it.  However, making high-school or lower online is a bad idea (not including parent-led homeschooling with online assistance), but most people at that age are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of teaching themselves the information.  That's not an indictment of all high-schoolers, but by and large, age = maturity and the ability to handle responsibility.  So get out there and study/learn/teach, preferably face-to-face, but if that's not an option go online.

The new adventure dogs in the Space Needle in Seattle enroute to Japan

Doubt Versus Close-mindedness

Bear with me, this is the first entry I'm typing on my iPad with a tiny bluetooth keyboard, getting ready for my trip to southwest Asia. Since I've committed to planning my future blog entries each time, the plan for my next entry, will be about online learning. On to today's topic.

So, as I said in my last entry, I've started listening to a new podcast from Apologetics.com. The first episode in the podcast (as I've started it) is about doubt. One of the interesting points I started to think about was how doubt makes faith stronger after it's been overcome. A touch of doubt is healthy for anyone who believes anything. Then I began to think, if it's healthy for a Christian to doubt because it can strengthen one's faith is it healthy for an atheist to doubt? My assumption is that it's NOT in the sense that it makes an atheist more consistent in their disbelief in a deity.

So I was thinking something along these lines: Are you completely sure there's no such thing as God? There's nothing that I can say to make you doubt that? So, you're completely sure that all the facts about evolution, let's take a specific example here, the earth is millions of years old? What would convince you that that isn't true? Then you know all the science behind, say, carbon dating? I imagine their response would be: Uh, not really. But... Continuing with the questions: So, you're not really sure that carbon dating is guaranteed correct in every circumstance? Do you know all the variables that might affect carbon dating? Do you know that all those variables have always stayed the same? If you're doing an experiment the goal is to only have one (maybe two) variable(s) change. If someone had some way to scientifically prove that the earth was only a few thousand years old, would you doubt the science that says otherwise?

The whole idea, is that turnabout is fair play. If scientists can make claims of proving something without all the variables and call into question biblical faith, then we can use doubt against such close-mindedness on the other side of the fence. Especially in the discussion where scientist/atheists claim that a biblical view of the world is close-minded, because in reality, scientist/atheists are just as close-minded. Don't fear doubt, think about what you believe, study other beliefs, understand that people won't agree with you, don't worry about it all will be meted out in the end.

Tree climbing, always tons of fun

Sophists and Relativism

So, I've decided to try to state my plan for the next blog each time so that I have a plan for future blog topics.  I've switched podcasts to the podcast from Apologetics.com (which isn't the usual podcast format that I like; each episode is over an hour long and they're recordings from an apologetics radio talk show).  But the next topic for blogging will be doubt versus overconfidence/close-mindedness.  On to today's topic sophists and the (possible) birth of relativism.

First a bit of history...  The sophists, from the same Greek root for sophisticated, in general originally had a meaning akin to "wise man."  Though, as other ancient Greek writers reference these sophists the meaning changes to something like today's vernacular would say: "know-it-all."  There isn't really much directly written about these people but suffice it to say they were lecture-teachers-for-hire.  They travelled around Greece hiring themselves out to teach people how to win arguments.  They were so skilled at argumentation that they prided themselves on being able to take either side of an argument and make it the stronger (basically they could convince an eskimo to buy snow).  They were skilled unscrupulous orators that sold their skill to anyone that could pay.  Interestingly enough Socrates was sometimes lumped in with the sophists though he didn't take payment for his teachings, and in some texts is shown seriously disagreeing with other sophists.

All of that history and yet (to me) the worst thing that comes out of sophists' teachings is relativism.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy relativism is really only attributed to one sophist, Protagoras.  However, the influences of moral relativism have been huge.  This was (apparently) the main disagreement between sophists and Plato/Socrates, the idea that there is no true morality.  The moral relativist says "what's true for you may not be true for me," which can be played out in the social moral relativist argument, that society makes right and as society changes so does what's right and wrong.  There seems to be some distinction between moral relativism and moral skepticism (the idea that we cannot know what's moral), but honestly, the results are more or less the same.  As long as you can convince enough people that what you're doing is not wrong then you're in the right, morally speaking.

On the other side there are many problems with divine morality; I understand that.  However, does there have to be a resolution to all the issues in divine morality?  One of the main issues that comes from Plato's Euthyphro (about divine morality) is: Is something good because God commands it, or is something good commanded by God because it is good?  Ironically, it's kind of like the chicken or egg first question.  To me, the whole concept is a non-issue, because God is the source of all things, what we conceive as bad is all just a part of a grand scheme that God set in motion but He allows to run its course, and of course we can't see anything but what is right now and a fuzzy view of the past.  One of the best descriptions of the concept of God's omniscience and concept of time: All of time and the universe is like a section of the sidewalk, and we are like ants on the sidewalk (though we can only go one direction).  God is like a person looking down on the sidewalk; He sees the cracks at both ends, i.e. the beginning and the end of what we conceive as time, and he sees all directions that we (as the ants) can go.

While the analogy may not seem to apply think about it in terms of, because God knows all the routes to the end He knows which is the best route because he can see all the obstacles and can change them to be easier or harder to suit His plan.  So, the right way to live is BOTH what He says to do, and just the right thing to do, we don't need to make a distinction.  It is interesting to note that C.S. Lewis uses universal morality as an apologetic argument for God.  So, just the idea that there is a right/wrong, begs the question that there must be someone that determines which is which.  How arrogant is man to stand up and say that he is the end all be all, that he decides what is right/wrong and has all the answers to life and the universe.

My boys are so photogenic sometimes!

Rational Religious

I'm going to have to make this post into two different parts, I was planning on writing a post on rational religion and the far reaches of ancient sophists' relativism. However, since that would lead to a very long post I'll break up the two topics. Again, stuck on philosophy... I had more time in my car than usual today so I listened to two episodes of the History of Philosophy and I have even more time later (it's lunch time), though I might switch to listening to Korean for the remainder of my car time today.

Today's topic of rational religion actually comes from the episode on Hippocrates' corpus. That may seem like a stretch to go from the father of modern (western) medicine to religion but if you listen to the episode you'll see from where I draw my topic.

Here's a question for you: Why do people naturally assume all religious people are irrational? Why can't a religious person be logical/rational/scientific? Why can't religion be rational or logical (I can understand why not technically scientific in some cases)? That's one of the points professor Adamson makes with the Hippocratic corpus. Sometimes it may seem like they (the corpus was probably written by a number of people but all attributed to Hippocrates because he was famous) are trying to wrest medical study from the religious and place it into rational philosophy's (capable) hands, but not necessarily. Because, the way they seemed to view the gods made the study and treatment of aliments or medical study in general was actually a higher form of piety.

The same should be true in Christianity! It seems like atheists/agnostics (especially antagonistic ones) like to use the extreme examples. Often times such antagonists set up straw man arguments pointing out extremists and claiming those extremists are an equal/fair representation of that particular religion or of all religions as a whole. I'm religious, and I have no problem with taking a critical view of the world. LOTS of people in religion are not open-minded, but atheists, despite their claims to the contrary, can also be close-minded. AND, just being dogmatic on one particular issue doesn't mean one cannot be rational. The book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist uses pretty clear arguments that atheism is (just as) dogmatic on the idea that there isn't a god as deists are that there is.

Makes me think of the whole "grass is always greener on the other side" cliche; though oftentimes it's the opposite! People raised in the country stereotype the city (and it's inhabitants) as being full of crime and poverty, while city folk often stereotype the country dwellers as backwards and uneducated etc. People on one side of an issue, often times without realizing it (but sometimes intentionally), vilify those on the opposite side of the issue. A clear example is in the debate (which saddens me because there shouldn't be a debate) about abortion: those for abortion call themselves "pro-choice" and vice versa "anti-abortion," those against abortion call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-abortion." Honestly, the point broke down a little bit there because pro-lifers don't really have a negative term for pro-abortionists. But, in the case of "pro-choice" advocates it's clear that just the term "anti-abortion" clearly has a negative connotation to vilify the enemy.

Is it unreasonable to assume a deity? As I pointed out yesterday the concept of infinity points to the idea that there's a deity... That's not the only argument either. The evident design of the observable universe indicates a deity, a universal/common moral compunction points towards a deity, as well as many other apologetic arguments. Interestingly enough on this topic of apologetics, in my search for the Amazon.com link to that book I found an interesting book: Apologetics Never Saved Anyone I just might have to read it.


Okinawan glass blowing

Infinity

So, I've totally failed at my plan of studying a different subject every day (already). I'm doomed, the philosophy podcast is too interesting and easy to listen to; each podcast is about 15 minutes which fits well into my commute time. Anyways, one of the podcasts was about pre-socratic philosophers and their ideas of atomism. Which, as you may know atom comes from the Greek meaning, (essentially) uncuttable. Amazingly enough, with just logic and some shrewd thinking they, more or less, came up with a correct understanding of how the physical world is ordered. Though I take issue with one of their concepts.

They stated that there must be an infinite amount of atoms in the universe. This cannot be possible. Do atoms take up space, i.e. have mass? If the answer is yes, which it must be, then there cannot be an infinite amount of atoms, because if there's an infinite amount then there cannot be any space between atoms. Think about it, infinite is a really tough concept to grasp, but if there's an infinite amount of anything then there cannot be any space. If it's infinite then there can be no room between because that space must be taken up by more of whatever, because there's an infinite amount of whatever. One response could be; then the only thing that's infinite is space. That's not possible either because there's stuff in the space bouncing around, which means there must be a lack of space where things exist. A thing cannot move from one space to another if there's infinite space because there would always be more space.

Nothing, in the material universe can be infinite. We can try to conceptualize infinity in the material universe (e.g. cut the stick in half, now in half again, and again, on to infinity; conceptually we would never achieve "nothing" because you could always cut it in half again), but as humans we cannot ever hope to achieve an infinitely small part. Same with the size of the universe, it must be finite at least in our hope to understand it. Think about it... Even if you had a spaceship that could travel a billion lightyears an hour and lived thousands of years, and you wanted to go an infinite distance, it would take an infinite amount of time to get there, which you could never do. Because, it would take infinite amount of time, no matter how fast you go.

Only God is infinite, in any way; only God could exist before the concept of existence. Only God could be outside of time able to make something out of nothing, and know all future and all past. Only God can conceive infinite, because only the infinite can understand infinity.

The light at the end of the tunnel (if the tunnel was infinitely long you'd never see the light)

Hobbies

Do you have any hobbies?  I think I have too many!  It seems like I never have time to do them all!  One of the other problems is hardly any of my hobbies go well together.  Pretty much the only hobbies I have that go together are the ways I like to workout (e.g. biking running and swimming all go together well, in triathlon'ing).  Other than that, it's hard to mix my other interests, like photography and chess.  Then there's all the studying I want to do, like philosophy, language, Bible, Korean, Japanese, music, etc.  But, there's no way I can make time for all that and my family and the rest of my life (like work, that's kinda important).  How can I juggle all these different things?  How do you?

There is such beautiful flora and fauna here

Study Plans and Fireworks

I've been listening to podcasts about learning languages, and learning philosophy but I really haven't done anything about applying what I've been learning (e.g. learning a new language myself). Since there's really not a direct way I can apply my learning in philosophy, I really feel I should learn Japanese! I think I'm going to try starting a study plan, wherein I study philosophy one day, Korean the next, Japanese the next, and Bible the next. So, I'm going to have a four-day study cycle for Korean, Japanese, Philosophy, and Bible. I'm hoping that I can quickly advance in Japanese and someday have it at the same level as my Korean. Hopefully, I have plenty of time this deployment to keep up this study plan. I really can't let my Korean slip like the last two times I deployed.

On a totally different note... We went to see the fireworks tonight at the Ocean Expo Park/Aquarium. They, were, awesome! I don't think I've ever seen such an awesome display. We can't understand the Japanese announcements so after about the first 15 minutes or so the fireworks stopped and we thought they were over, but not very many people started leaving. We were tired and ready to go so we packed up our stuff and started to leave. It took us about 45 minutes or so walking up to our car and getting ready to go/situated and whatnot. That whole time they continued shooting off fireworks. Even just the first 15 minutes were better than pretty much any fireworks show I've ever seen. Great fireworks, great timing shooting the fireworks, great colored fireworks and a great sunset (just before the show). Hopefully we can go back next year; though we plan on timing it differently. Because we left home around 1pm we hit way too much traffic on the way there and it tured what is normally an hour-long drive into a two hour drive! Apparently the Japanese really know their fireworks!

Not where the fireworks were, but the view from the front steps of the aquarium

Work and formatting again...

It was brought to my attention that blogger wasn't working for comments...  I don't know if it was just a temporary problem or what, but it appears fixed now.  I tried to comment on my own post yesterday and it didn't work but this morning I tested it again and it worked and there's a new comment from someone else.  So, I don't think I'm going to change the format (again).  If for whatever reason, you can't comment and would like to, feel free to email me sam.r111481@gmail.com or look me up on Facebook as far as I know there are only two Sam Ronickers on Facebook and one is my dad.  I do also have a Twitter account but I hardly ever use it.

On to the topic of work...  I recently got the news that I have to trade in this beach for a much dustier, dryer and hotter "beach" somewhere in southwest Asia.  In all honesty I'm not terribly surprised, because of my situation.  I've had two deployments' experience in this other program (that I'm going back to).  Even so that program was supposed to be built up on its own and not need to "borrow" people from my job to do that job anymore.  But, since I'm experienced on that plane and still in training for this new (to me) plane, I am the most logical choice to send.  Sucks though, because the first time I deployed with the program (Project Liberty) I had a bad time.  I didn't like the deployment AT ALL!  I never wanted to go back.  Of course as soon as I got back from that first trip out I tried to get a different assignment or anything else that would keep me from having to go back.  Well, obviously that didn't work as I said I've done two deployments with the program.  Fortunately though the second time wasn't nearly as bad as the first and I didn't hate every minute of my time there.  Also, as far as deployments go this one shouldn't be too bad because the plan is for me to only do half the standard time.  I'm sure it will be easier to handle the shorter time, though my family situation will be tougher.  The last two times I deployed my wife took the kids back to Ohio to be with family for some of the time.  However, because we're now in Japan that's probably not going to be an option.  The only way that would work out is if they can get on a military flight back to the U.S., but those are difficult (read: impossible) to plan and not convenient or comfortable at all.

I don't know how much I'll get to blog while I'm gone, or it might be that I have way too much time on my hands and I'll be writing all the time.  I don't really know.  The last two times I went out I had different experiences both times.  The first time I was incredibly bored all the time but I didn't have internet service readily available.  The second time I kept myself busy with working out and calling/texting home every night because the internet was easily accessible.  We'll just have to wait and see.

I'm going to miss them!

The Sub-tropical Paradise Jungle

So I love living in this beautiful subtropical paradise, but today I had an interesting day. As many of you know I'm in the military (US Air Force) and that I work a job on an aircraft. Well, today I went into work at about 8am for a briefing that was supposed to last all morning but because there were only two of us in the class it was cut short. Then around 12 noon the other person (an aeromedical evacuation medic) and I went out into the jungle. We went with the survival instructor to an abandoned (mostly anyways) old base and practiced evasion. At first the instructor walked with us and talked about plans of how to evade and navigate through the jungle.

I've only been here a little over 3 months and I've never ventured into the jungle before, so today was new! After a short instructional bit we were sent on a short (about 200 yard) land-nav trek without the instructor. Since I've done this before I let the medic lead (plus if I went too fast I would just have to keep stopping to wait for her) and I counted steps. It was cool. Then the instructor took us to another point on base, showed us where the pick-up point was on the map and sent us on our way. This time though there was a small group of people chasing us (at least 4 counting the instructor). The goal was to walk through the trackless jungle quietly without getting caught. The "bad guys" had some distinct advantages: they had cars, more comfortable clothes, no backpack, a virtually unlimited amount of food and most importantly, they knew where we started and where we were headed.

Right away, we went down a hill and had to cross a small "stream" the reason I put that in quotes... it was more like a narrow bog. Since the medic was leading, she made it across first (nearly) unscathed, she stepped in up to her thigh just as she was about to get across. Well, my fat old self, with a backpack on tried to cross also, yeah, first two steps, up to my thighs in mud/muck. Oh well, gotta keep going, crawled the rest of the way across without much sinking; great way to start off let me tell you! After that we went on quietly and slowly till we came up to a road. If you learn anything about evading bad guys from this, learn this: crossing roads, paths, rivers, streams etc. is the hardest part of running away from bad guys because that's where they'll be patrolling.

So, being the more experienced, (the medic girl had been through only minimal evasion training and never been in the field running from bad guys before) I went first. I crawled up slowly and looked out. Of course what do I see but one of the bad guy's head and his black ball-cap. I thought he saw me so, as quickly as I could, I hurried back down the hill to the waiting medic and we take off down the ravine. Unfortunately, because we went too fast, we were making more noise than usual and they heard us and tracked us (this we found out later).

After hurrying (as much as one can hurry through jungle mess) on down away from the bad guys, we finally figure we've lost them and it's safe to try to cross the road again. We make it across with no problems, but in our haste again we leave a mark where we crossed the road because we had to slide down the hill on our butts off the road. We make it to about 50 yards from our pick-up point with about an hour and a half to spare and we're chilling in a little thicket when the bad guys walk up and find us! Aaah! Of course they pretend to be capturing us for a minute or so, then they tell us where we went wrong and how they tracked us, then they walk off. We still have about an hour before we're going to be picked up so we just sit around for a while. After some time we're told to go to the pick-up point 15 min earlier than previously planned so we leave our not-so-hidden-spot and head for the pick-up point. As it turns out, we're literally only about 50 yards away, though we though it was about 150 yards, and we put out a little rescue marker and again sit and wait.

The rest of the story is pretty anticlimactic since we just get picked up by the good guy and we go back to base and talk over what was good and what was bad about how we evaded. All in all a fun yet exhausting day! I painted my face with camo paint and got to hike around the jungle for "work" today. It was fun, but when I got home I had to take a really long shower to wash off all the jungle muck. I don't think I'd want to do that for real, but I'm sure I could if my life depended on it.

Black & White of the boys at sunset at our favorite sunset beach

Brothers

So I was considering writing a blog about what I learned about ancient philosophers today when I changed my mind and decided to write about something more positive.

I have a brother, I don't know if he reads this blog but brothers always have a unique bond, though to be honest I envy my boys' relationship.  Honestly, I don't very well recall my relationship with my brother when we were young, but I certainly don't remember having the kind of friendship with my brother that my boys have.  I remember going fishing with my brother and we spent a lot of time together (obviously, by virtue of living in the same house for several years), but I don't remember having fun with my brother the way my boys have fun together.

Today (like every day) they ran around pretending to be in some fanciful world as dragons, ninjas, jedi or some other character of fantasy.  They run around the house "shooting" imaginary guns at each other, and making up all sorts of weapons (Wes usually runs around with a little hammer like Thor's and Alex makes some sort of staff like Loki's).  They laugh incessantly and run around chasing each other.  I hope that their childhood friendship lasts their whole lives.

Yes, those are Michelle's feet

Response to Facebook Discussion about Higgs Boson

A friend of mine Steven Specht posted an interesting news link (must login to Facebook to view) about the Higgs Boson on Facebook which sparked a discussion on the existence of god and the power of prayer. I won't copy/paste the whole discussion here but this is one of my replies:

"I personally don't know much about physics, so I can't really speak to their methods. But from what I have seen is that modern science seems more about assumptions based on presuppositions than actual testable theories. Trying to "see" things as small as what the collider makes and "understand" what they're "seeing" sounds more like guesswork than actually tried and true testable experiments. Don't get me wrong the geniuses working on this kind of stuff probably know what they're doing and it's too complicated to explain to a layman like me, but even if they could it doesn't PROVE anything. It's just a new, smaller form of matter that we didn't know about before and don't know the characteristic of before. When the atom was discovered it didn't shake the foundations of faith, or PROVE that there is or isn't a God."

First I would like to clarify a distinction in what I meant by, and how I can say "I personally don't know much about physics..." then go on to say that it's "assumptions based on presuppositions..." I know it may seem like splitting hairs, but if you read carefully I'm referring to physics specifically when I say I can't speak to their methods, and then I refer to "modern science" in general when I say that it's becoming more and more about assumptions and untestable theories. What I do know about the collider is that it's a place to study sub-atomic physics by causing various particles to travel at high speeds and collide and break into smaller particles which are collected and studied.

I don't know how much you know about the show "The Big Bang Theory" but I'd like to draw a humorous, albeit interesting point from an episode of that show. For those of you that don't know, it's a show about these nerd physicists that live next to a pretty blonde girl. It most often pokes fun at nerds, intellectuals, dweebs, dorks, etc. Since I fit some of the stereotypes they make fun of I see it as a sort of self-deprecating humor. Well, one of the episodes the group of four nerds get to take a trip to the north pole to try to find magnetic monopole particles. Well, in the course of their experiments the lead character is driving his friends crazy with his idiosyncrasies and they are trying to devise a way to cut the trip short. Then they discover that whenever they run the coffee grinder it gives positive results on their experiment so they give their friend the impression that he's discovered what he's looking for and becomes the laughingstock of their university. My point in this reference is that particle physics, while surely a crucial field in science, is sometimes thrown off by some of the most mundane circumstances. I say this because particle physics is about studying stuff that is so small it can't directly be observed, all we know about these substances is conjecture from the effects these types of particles have on other substances.

My real beef with modern science is that it seems like all modern scientists start out with the presupposition that there isn't a god and therefore all that is observed that can't currently be explained must be explained with some new inovation or science. All that exists cannot be explained by science. I'm not saying we should give up scientific inquiry, on the contrary it is a great form of worship. But, when such and such scientist gets up and tries to explain such and such as taking place millions of years ago, or taking place over millions of years or something to that effect; that scientist has lost all claim on truth in my eyes because no one, without making wild leaps of faith, can make grand statements like that because there is no verifiable proof of anything beyond a couple thousand years into the past.

Cool building near the aquarium at ocean expo park

Yay 1,000 pageviews!

To be totally honest I don't really care about how many people read my blog, I'm not so vain to think I have something so important that everyone needs to listen to what I have to say. Honestly, like my friend wrote in his blog, this blog is all for my own personal benefit. I use this as my journal. I write down my thoughts and interests. That's probably why it seems like my topics range all over the place. I hope someday I'll look back and read what I wrote and see how what I think now still makes sense and is still applicable years in the future.

Speaking of the future, what do you want to be when you grow up? Michelle (my wife) is always picking on me because whenever we watch an inspirational movie, I always say something about how I'd like to do that some day. For example when we watch a movie about inspirational firefighters, it makes me want to be a firefighter. She always jokes, "What are you going to be when you grow up?" I'm 30, I am grown up! But you know what? I'm still not done with life. I plan to do 14 more years in the Air Force, then, the sky's the limit.

I really want to be a teacher/volunteer firefighter/paramedic. I've often contemplated trying to change the job I do with the Air Force to aeromedical evacuation. It seems like people who work in the medical field (should) have the highest job satisfaction. How satisfying must it be to have a job where your work is to make people healthy/save lives. Or in the case of teachers how rewarding teaching should be, your whole job is to fill young people's minds with knowledge. How satisfying that must be. I like what I do, I'm glad I learned Korean it's an interesting job, but really I have little to no satisfaction in what I do. I've done some research into changing jobs in the past but I don't think it'll work now that I've reenlisted. I might be stuck. Whatever the case, can old dogs learn new tricks? I think they can, plus, I'm not an old dog... yet.

How can I make this into a job?