Life of Pi,
Only 3.14% Accurate
Scott Symington
An interesting encounter at sea is reported in the Naval Institute’s official magazine, Proceedings. A battleship had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather. A lookout reported a light in the distance, so the captain had the signalman send a message: “We are on a collision course. Advise you change course 20 degrees.” Minutes later a signal came back: “Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees.” The captain angrily ordered that another signal be sent: “I’m a captain. Change course 20 degrees.” Again came a reply: “I’m a seaman, second class. You had better change course 20 degrees.” Furious by this point, the captain barked a final threat: “I’m a battleship with a full naval escort. Change course 20 degrees!” The signal came back: “I’m a lighthouse.” The captain changed his course.1
Truth is like a lighthouse, both in the way we may stand on it as a foundation in the midst of the waves life consistently brings, and in the guidance it offers to navigate effectively through life. There are many sources of power, which that light of truth can draw upon, two of which, science and religion, are focused upon in Yann Martel’s, Life of Pi.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I expect it to be interesting, touching, an opportunity for incredible visuals, and a thoughtful movie – as long as you leave your logic at the concessions stand. Throughout the story, phenomenal symbolism and beauty are used in this fictional account to put a favorable spotlight on postmodernism, the belief that includes ideas such as: there is no absolute truth or authority to provide objective truth about reality, and all ideas are equally open to interpretation. Hinduism, relativism and other beliefs have added corollaries, such as: it is warranted to stand on whatever belief you want, and all beliefs can lead to the same top of the mountain experience. This article follows the tradition of countless prior works, which attempt to close the curtain on this nice sounding, but invalid belief, and will do so in three parts: 1) explain the beliefs the Life of Pi preaches, 2) discuss the appeal and 3.14% accuracy of that belief, 3) and briefly note why the incoherence of this idea needs to be recognized for the good of your non-fictional life.
Pi’s Postmodernism
Pi (his birth name comes to be replaced by this mathematical term) is raised in India by his parents, who are portrayed as secular modernists believing primarily in the power of science. Science comes into play often in the zoo his parents run. Pi’s favorite teacher shares the worship of science in his atheism. In addition, part one of the book also shows Pi as thirsting for spiritual knowledge, and after a visit to a Hindu temple, a Catholic church, and a visit with a Muslim baker, converts to all three faiths. Well “converts” isn’t the right word, because Pi accepts and incorporates all three faiths.
In one fortuitous incident, Pi’s pandit (Hindu scholar), priest, and imam (a Muslim leader) all run into Pi at the same time and argue over both him, and whose religion is best. Pi ends the embarrassing display by answering, “Bapu Ghandi said, ‘All religions are true.’ I just want to love God.”2 Pi is shown as meekly giving a heartfelt answer, and simultaneously silencing all discussion on the issue, which endears the audience to him and his views.
Pi evidently doesn’t care to, or even realize that such a claim can be tested for validity and philosophical soundness. His statement is treated in the book as a conversation ender, but that is where real thinking, and scientific, historical, and philosophical interaction with the differing ideas need to engage. Instead of any mental heavy-lifting with these issues, Pi is just supplied with religious appearances and pantheist unity with nature experiences.
So now we have a mathematically named child from secular upbringing, who simultaneously is so spiritual (whatever the author means by “spiritual”) that he adheres to three other worldviews. This is grasping postmodernism by the horns and attempting to ride that bull through the life struggles that follow. Will having one foot (well, one foot on one, one foot on another, and each hand on the remaining two worldviews, like worldview twister) on four different worldview foundations benefit or harm Pi, and validate or invalidate postmodernism? The remainder of the book places Pi in the fantastic position of having to survive on a lifeboat in the Pacific, and with a Bengal tiger passenger – postmodernism is put to the test – fictionally, which is fitting.
Part two of the book covers over two hundred days at sea, with numerous instances that require the productive utility of science and faith. Pi uses science to keep the tiger tamed, and provide food and water. But even with that use of science, at times survival seems lost, requiring Pi to utilize resources from religion, including religious experiences. So based on the experiences of Pi, all worldviews seem to have truth, great things to offer, and can all harmoniously be used for the benefit of one’s life: science to explain how things work in life, and when it reaches a limit, all the religions come into appropriate use for guiding one’s life.
The author is drawing an animated picture of the NOMA theory of the late Harvard professor, Stephen J. Gould, who provided a good description of a very common thought regarding science and theology. Gould claims that the two great tools of human understanding (science and religion) compliment each other in their totally separate realms: science as gaining knowledge and understanding about the factual state of the natural world, and religion when considering spiritual meaning and ethical values. While the eminent professor has credentials longer than this article, he was simply wrong, and in a four-part article I will post later, NOMA will be disproven and the real relationship between science and theology (a Symbiotic relationship, SOMA) will be explained.
Martel, however, has boarded Gould’s boat. The two characters, Pi and Richard Parker (name of the tiger) are on opposite sides of the boat on their journey, yet they have to get along. This is an allegory symbolizing science and religion being separated. Now I am unsure if Pi represents the spiritual side, as this kid is so super-spiritual he has three faiths, and the tiger is the science of raw nature, or the tiger represents divine-like beauty and power, and Pi represents science as he uses it on the tiger and ocean to survive. But either way, both science and faith are used to get along, and Pi even becomes more like Richard Parker along the journey.
A further connection is made within Pi himself, as the two passengers he carries within himself, science and faith, are reconciled during the journey.
Part three of the story brings another promotion of postmodernism. Investigators question Pi about the ordeal. Initially Pi tells the story, but the detectives do not believe him. Pi comments how our perceptions determine much or reality, which is right out of the postmodernist handbook, but eventually retells the story without the animals. That second story is terrible. Instead of the animals involved, his mom, a cruel cook, a young sailor, and a lot of beastly actions are involved.
Now the question is posed to the investigators, and to us, what story do you prefer? And while there are details in the account with the animals that are problematic, such as the carnivorous island, the readers, and the investigators in their final report, are challenged and encouraged to accept the “better story.” And so it goes with God is the connection we are encouraged to make in our own lives. Maybe science is all that is needed to explain the story, but we have to force faith to fit in too, because it makes for a better, more easily livable story.
Bottom-line: Pi shows no need to make a decision between contradicting belief systems, on the contrary, it is actually useful to bring them all into the boat. This is an apologetic for NOMA, Hinduism, and postmodernism.
Pi is 3.14% Accurate
There are appealing features of Pi’s postmodern approach: you can believe whatever you want; all ideas have inherent validity and value; others who disagree with you do so only from their perspective, not from truth, facts or real knowledge. It’s like a world where we are all of the same political party, or rooting for the same team. A nice thought, the only problem with it is logic and reality. The comfortable features may be what allows this idea to survive longer than actual merit warrants.
Don’t take this the wrong way, I would argue that every person has inherent value, and even those whom we disagree with must be treated with the dignity, respect and love that follows from their inherent worth. However, while all people are created equal, all ideas are not, and as Frank Turek has noted, ideas are in the free marketplace, where cross-examination is appropriate and beneficial. Tolerance does not mean we cannot disagree, on the contrary, tolerance occurs when we disagree with someone, yet still treat them as we hope others will treat us. In fact, if one cares about another person, they will not hold up, but instead put down inaccurate beliefs, which have a reasonable likelihood of leading to negative consequences. Caring for and respecting Pi would be especially easy, he is a lovable character, and Martel even writes in a soft, but insightful and engaging way. Excellent read, but the message leaves a bad taste in the mouth, err, mind.
Examination of Martel and Pi’s perspective reveals a small percentage of truth. There are some good things in each of those religions, but is that surprising? If nothing appealing were in those belief systems, those systems would likely have folded long ago. Also, religious beliefs, even if false, may provide “spiritual” feelings, experiences, and even hope in a situation where one has nothing else – an actual Marxist opiate. The non-controversial point that science provides factual knowledge about the physical world is also included, but not central to the primary postmodernist contention. These account for the approximately 3.141592% accuracy in the primary claim being promoted through Pi’s experience. I round off to 3.14% because I do not want to exaggerate my level of certainty. After all, you can make numbers say anything you want, 31.4% of all people know that. Seriously, a quantitative approach is not really applicable here, and the belief in postmodernism is refuted at an even more basic level, logic.
What Martel, and unfortunately many readers and movie goers, fails to realize is the real contrast wasn’t horizontally in the boat between the boy and the tiger, it was vertically between the very deep ocean and the very shallow thinking in the boat. Five examples are given below.
The Shallow Thinking in the Deep Ocean
First, Pi buys into the shallow connotation of “faith” common in our culture. Many have come to believe faith means having some vague or insubstantial belief, based on feelings or just hopes, entirely empty of supportive reasons. While that type of “faith” is demonstrated by people in diverse areas of life, to conflate all “faith” into that version is very narrow-sighted. Faith always has three parts: 1) The object of faith (for example, a chair), 2) The content of the faith (I believe the chair will support me), 3) And the reason(s) for the faith (haven’t been dropped by a chair yet, it looks sturdy, I don’t see Ashton Kutcher from Punk’d).
When Pi accepts the three religions, he does so based on a singular experience or feeling, because he liked something he saw, or felt and wanted to satisfy a spiritual need. He had a paucity of reasons, and simply assumed that was inherent with faith in a religion. Good thing Pi didn’t run into Marshall Applewhite of the Heaven’s Gate cult, or before ever getting on that fateful boat we may have found Pi laying on a bed wearing Nike’s and with an empty glass of poisoned Kool-Aid.
If we make a choice without any supportive reasons, aside from feelings or wishful thinking, then we are acting in the “blind faith” fitting both what our culture commonly associates with faith, and Pi’s acceptance of three religions. Sometimes we even believe in something against the available evidence, which is another type of faith, delusional faith. But, when we do not have certainty, and trust in something based on supportive reasons, then that is the most common faith we operate on throughout life – a reasoned faith.
We do not claim to be sitting or career agnostics, and refrain from using chairs or working a job because we lack certainty. We use the reasons we do have, and make our choices. Pi never attaches faith to science though (unless I missed it), event in his later studies in science and religion. Yet even those working in science recognize that many of their understandings and beliefs are far from certain, but can be trusted or used for direction based upon sufficient supportive reasons. We all exercise faith in almost all the decisions we make, and even Pi’s atheist dad and teacher exercised faith in animal taming and teaching biology theories respectively. Pi himself, in utilizing science to survive, was exercising faith that those techniques would work. Therefore, to relegate only the religious beliefs to faith, and to assume it must be blind faith is short-sighted. Belief in God (called theism), belief there is no God (atheism), belief we cannot know if God exists or not (agnosticism) are ALL faith beliefs.
Religious beliefs make claims about the factual state of reality, and therefore, can be tested scientifically, historically, philosophically, etc. Pi was given only religious appearances or subjective experiences to bolster his faith, which fits right in line with postmodern claims. If those experiences are the only support for his beliefs in God, then the kid should consider a psychiatric visit as his contradictory beliefs cannot all be true and validated. This brings us to a second error in Pi’s reasoning.
Second, the belief in the three contradictory religions is not blind faith, but delusional. Ghandi may have been a social-activist-visionary, but logic was not his strong point when it came to beliefs. “All religions are true,” violates a basic law of thought or logic, the law of non-contradiction. Contradictions are impossible, like a one-ended stick, or “My biological sister is an only child.”
Different paths to the top of a mountain are possible because they do not contradict each other, but different beliefs do. Wherever beliefs contradict each other, only one at most can fit reality and be true. The world religions may have some similarities, but it’s the differences that make all the difference.
You are offered two pills: both are white, the same size, color, smell, and taste, except that one is aspirin, and the other includes arsenic. So, one will cure a headache, and the other can kill you. The difference(s) make all the difference. If worldviews differ on even one of the big questions in life, tremendous impacts will follow, and religions differ not in marginal areas, but in the central points.
I personally would want to know the false ingredients, even in the belief I currently accept. If Jesus was crucified for our justification and resurrected, then there is truth and reality supporting a life lived on that foundation. If not, as Islam, atheism and other belief systems claim, that is catastrophic to Christian beliefs, and if one does not want their choices, thoughts, responses, priorities, goals, and direction in life to fall into the consequences of inaccurate guidance, then another foundation better be sought.
A third entirely false idea is the Hindu, relativist, and postmodern claim that there is no absolute truth. Two simple tests expose this idea. First, apply the claim to itself, in any of its common iterations, as shown below, and in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
1. There is no truth . . . Is THAT true?
2. You can’t know truth . . . How do you then know that is truth?
3. All truth is relative . . . Is that a relative truth?
4. It’s all just opinions . . . Is that just your opinion, or is that truth?
5. No one has the truth . . . But one, you, claim to have the truth?
6. It’s true for you, but not for me . . . Is that true for everybody, including you and me?
7. You ought not judge, or be intolerant . . . Isn’t that a judgmental statement, intolerant of those who do show judgment?
8. Whatever, I’ll do what I want . . . Cannot argue that, you can do what you want,
and you will slam against the hard reality of ignored truth.
There is also the Hindu belief in maya: ultimate realities are an illusion. If so, how does one holding this belief claim the ultimate reality of maya, if ultimate realities are not knowable? Maybe they are falling for an illusion in believing maya. The claims are contradictory, and their proof would be their disproof. While Pi is an irrational number, it doesn’t contradict itself as Martel’s Pi repeatedly does in trying to support his belief claims.
Another test is to attempt to use any of these claims in court, when trying to fight a ticket for being clocked at 100 in a 50 mph zone. After a third oncologist notifies you of your serious stage of cancer, which needs to be dealt with, will declaring no one knows the truth, there is no truth, you ought not judge, or any other variation alter the reality of your situation? The claim doesn’t work in reality.
If there is one instance of absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Anything that goes against something that is true – goes against reality – and is excluded from being true. Some people expected the Patriots to win the Super Bowl for the 2011 NFL season, others really wanted the Giants, and some sad fans even hoped the Lions would win. There were even similarities between the three teams, but there were also differences, and the differences are going to play out on the day where it counts. The bottom-line is that final scoreboard. The Giants won that year, that truth is universal, true for all people, in all places and times, and excludes ALL contrary claims. It is not being narrow-minded, intolerant, arrogant, or mean, it is simply the truth.
The beliefs espoused by Pi would also reject universal truth. Universal truth is true for all people, in all places, and at all times. But universality is in the nature of truth. People may look at things with different opinions, cultural perspectives, or hypotheses, but different views do not change the truth. Do not confuse truth and reality with opinions, perceptions, etc. Different cultures and times may not believe an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan – but the truth that it did happen is still the reality for all people, in all places, and for all time.
The fourth error is another logic mistake, a false dilemma. Pi supposedly sat in his boat on the horns of a dilemma, science or faith, as though believing in either was mutually exclusive to the other. The whole dichotomy between science on one side and faith on the other, both in the boat and within Pi, is a false dichotomy. A third option splits the horns of the dilemma: science and theology could already be joined together in a mutually supportive view of reality. This third option I support in an article on NOMA v. SOMA, mentioned earlier.
For now, we can point out that the conflict Pi was experiencing was not between science and faith as he supposed, it was between atheist naturalism, which atheists and naturalists like to equate with science, and theism and pantheism. Resolution of that conflict is impossible as atheism and theism contradict each other; one is true, the other false.
Pi, however, resolves the conflict by not even challenging atheist naturalism, assuming science explains everything in the physical world just fine without God, and simply hypothesizes spiritual things can and must exist outside the grasp or limits of science. This resolution is supported by Martel providing untestable religious experiences, and almost desperate claims that we need the spiritual when all other hope is lost, or to make sense of an otherwise terrible world. This all amounts to a very strained plea for the postmodern case, which is all the support such a delusional belief can hope to have.
It’s desirable to hear that we all create our own realities, there is never one true story, and since we have a choice, why not chose the more beautiful one and just add God in on the side (where God won’t interfere with what you want). However, wants do not create truth. If they did, then Lebron would be both in Miami, and in Cleveland still.
Instead Pi should have applied science, history, philosophy, and other fields of study on all four worldviews involved: Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and atheist naturalism (scientism and relativism could be included too), to ensure he was founded on truth, which would not melt away when reality and consequences washed up against him. But that would not make for a best-selling book, exciting movie, or pander to what the public seems to be hungry to hear. Bringing us to the fifth problem.
Finally, Pi argues that we should believe what makes for a more comfortable life and good story now, rather than concerning ourselves with truth and consequences overall. Pi exclaims, “I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently. You want a flat story.”3 He is onto something, there is endless evidence of people frequently placing a higher priority on comfort – what they want to believe – than on the truth and overall consequences. Smokers or people in bad relationships come to mind. Those believing the link to cancer is not proven, or that he will treat me better once we get married, and letting confirmation bias take over, are people who want to stay in comfort in the short-term, regardless of evidence of long-term consequences. This can be observed with people in their worldview beliefs too. My contention is that one would only accept the beliefs espoused by Pi for exactly the reasons given in Pi’s quote above.
Pi’s last two sentences lead into the purpose for the quote. He used that quote with the investigators in part three of the book, and is basically saying the factual experiences won’t be changed whether you believe the story with the animals or without, however, the story with the animals is more appealing, and that is reason enough to accept it. The same applies to God, in his view. He is arguing that if there is something beyond the physical universe, we can’t know, and it won’t have an impact except to make for a better view of life. How does he know that we can’t know? Has he looked into the evidence available?
In the classic book by the renowned authority Huston Smith, the following observation is given: “If we were to take Hinduism as a whole – its vast literature, its complicated rituals, its sprawling folkways, its opulent art – and compress it into a single affirmation, we would find it saying: You can have what you want.”4 Isn’t that true of Pi’s perspective? Isn’t that the case with postmodernism in general? And true in all of us to an extent, but there need to be limits. Do you really want to be so open-minded your mind falls out? The limit should be when the belief will have significant consequences on our lives, or the lives of others, and when it is shown to be invalid or inferior to a better-supported belief.
If I were one of those investigators, I would investigate. Has a tiger been found in Mexico where the boat landed, what’s on the ship’s manifest, examine Pi’s boat, search for a carnivorous island, and obtain psychological examination supporting either the animal or non-animal account? The findings may not impact me much, whichever account I found to be true. On the other hand, how much more should we investigate the claims of the worldview we ourselves stand on? Whether an almighty authority created us with a purpose and has expectations of us, or not, will have an impact on us. Whether we are basing our choices, actions, responses, priorities, goals and direction in life on a worldview that is accurate, or one that is inaccurate – will have serious consequences on us.
Conclusion
Postmodernism, Hinduism, and Pi paint a nice story, but is it accurate and reliable? Based on just the handful of errors presented in this article, it seems the answer is no. While it may have helped Pi in his boat, all of us are in our own survival and growth journey. And when talking about our real lives, we want the ending that is best for us, and that depends on founding lives on valid ideas.
Every decision takes us down different paths. Sure there are similarities regardless of the path, but the differences make all the difference. So the worldview you take (trying to take them all is also a path, a twisted one) will carry you along a specific path, and every path brings different overall consequences, good and bad, to your life, and possible after-life.
I can predict this overall impact of worldview choice on you, your own scoreboard, and present this an a much briefer blog to be posted later, Your Obituary in Advance: The 4 Quad Approach.
It seems that our culture is still stuck in modernism, and I heard it argued that the last bastion academically for postmodernism is the English Literature department, but postmodern talk does flare up when some people attempt to appear politically correct, and in some popular media. It is legitimate for an author to explore different ideas, encouraging others to further evaluate potentially useful and relevant ideas. The problem with Life of Pi, and the motivation for this article is, postmodernism is neither relevant nor beneficial, and is evidentially bankrupt. In fact, bringing up an idea that has been disproven long ago through proof of logical incoherence, adds to the confusion and dumbing down of culture. Present any foolish idea in a catchy way, and some will be caught, as Goebbels displayed. People can sometimes be as shallow in their search as Pi, especially when reinforced with the idea that no authoritative truth exists anyway (except that authoritative truth).
I was actually on a ship that ran into a lighthouse. The judgment-impaired captain followed an incorrect path. Worldview truth can be just another immovable obstacle that we may ram up against in our existence, and in the collision between us and truth, we receive all the consequences. Or, truth can be a lighthouse to found our decisions and path upon, and provide the reliable foundation of support to ensure we are traveling a path that is best for us, and for those close to us.
Notes
1) Frank Koch, Proceedings, as cited in Max Lucado, In the Eye of the Storm, Word Publishing, 1991, p. 153.
2) Yann Martel, Life of Pi, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2001, p. 69
3) Martel, p. 302
4) Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991, p.13.
DNA Replication: An Engineering Marvel
CrossExaminedRecently I have been reviewing some literature on the elegant molecular mechanisms by which DNA is replicated. As an undergraduate biology student, I recall being struck by their sheer complexity, sophistication, and intrinsic beauty. As I read about such a carefully orchestrated process, involving so many specific enzymes and protein complexes, and its extraordinary accuracy, it was almost as though the word “design” jumped off the pages of my textbook and slapped me in the face. The rate of DNA replication has been measured as a whopping 749 nucleotides per second (McCarthy et al., 1976) and the error rate for accurate polymerases is believed to be in the range of 10^-7 and 10^-8, based on studies of E. coli and bacteriophage DNA replication (Schaaper, 1993).
I want to provide here a brief overview of the central processes involved in DNA replication. In subsequent articles, I will examine the individual components in more detail.
Click here to continue reading>>>
Was the Old Testament Invented During the Babylonian Exile? The Answer is NO.
CrossExaminedJust recently the History Channel aired the six-part docu-drama, “Mankind: The Story of Us.” Perhaps you might have watched it. Last year I was contacted by the producers and asked if I would like to participate as one of the “experts.” While I certainly don’t consider myself an expert, I thought it would be a great opportunity to give some reasonable and more conservative responses to what are typically liberal slanting programs. So last April I flew to New York where I was interviewed for approximately 2 hours with about thirty questions which would be posed on the “Mankind” series. Here is the second question sent to me by the producers.
“Describe how the Hebrew Bible originates during the exile in Babylon. How significant a moment do you think this is?
I have often wondered how most Christians would answer this. I did have an answer ready but when I began to give it the interviewer stopped me and said that he was “looking for a different answer” and that the series “wasn’t going to be focusing on controversies and debates” and such. So, I had to politely refuse to answer the question – which of course, “begs the question” on the origins of the Bible as well as Hebrew monotheism.
So I would like to set the record straight and publicly but briefly respond to what the “Mankind” series program promoted as well as what many other popular documentaries teach and promote on Israel’s early history. There are actually two major views among archaeologists and Bible scholars on Israel’s early history. One view is called biblical maximalism which holds that the Biblical text, archaeological and historical data are in general agreement. The other view is called biblical minimalism and holds that there is virtually no correlation between the Bible and history at all. Biblical minimalists are historical revisionists and believe that much of what we think we understand about the Old Testament needs to be completely rewritten. The Old Testament is epic poetry, and nothing more.
In the documentary (see above clip) Dr. Reza Aslan, an Iranian born, Shia Muslim writer, states in essence, that the Jews didn’t actually believe that the God they worshipped (Yahweh) was the “one true God for all of mankind” until after their experience in Babylonian captivity in 604-586 B.C.. Another point made in the episode dealt with the origins of the Hebrew Bible itself. The selected experts in no uncertain terms, either stated or implied that Hebrew monotheism, the Bible, and the stories contained therein such as Abraham, Noah, David & Solomon, etc… “emerged” from the experiences of the Jews during the Babylonian exile.
Unfortunately and not surprisingly, this view is not new. It’s been around for quite some time, at least since the late 19th Century when the German Old Testament scholar Julius Welhausen was making some inroads into biblical studies with his new “Documentary Hypothesis” on the authorship and dating of the Pentateuch. More recently it has emerged again in a more radicalized form under scholars such as John Van Seeters, Thomas Thompson and N. Peter Lemche under the unofficially titled “Copenhagen school.” The Copenhagen school is essentially the application of postmodern philosophy & hermeneutics applied to the study of the Old Testament.
So what’s the answer? How do we answer this charge against the Old Testament? Well, first we have to keep in mind that there are no simple answers, or short answers, but there is an answer. In this blog post I can only offer the beginning of an answer, as it would be impossible to bring to bear all of current conservative Old Testament scholarship to bear on these questions. For a more in-depth treatment on this subject and on the general trustworthiness of the Old Testament, I would recommend these two excellent books. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (2003), by Egyptologist, Professor Kenneth A. Kitchen and the insightful volume, Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? (2008), Edited by Daniel I. Block.
To begin with, the claim that the Hebrew Bible, and monotheism began during the exile ignores or overlooks literally tons of epigraphic and archaeological evidence to the contrary which reveals that Hebrew Bible and the nation Israel have roots deeply embedded in real history. The first artifact discovered which referred to Israel as a people was in 1896 by the British archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie. The find by Petrie was called the “Merneptah Stele”[1] and is also known as the “Israel Stele.” It got its name from the fact that the main text on the stele commemorates the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans and their allies. In line 27 “Israel” is mentioned by name as one of the people groups who were conquered. What is significant is that in Egyptian hieroglyphics the determinative for “people” is used which indicates that there was a group of people who identified themselves by the name “Israel” in the 13th Century B.C..
In recent years there have been an increasing number of artifacts and inscriptions which have come to light that indicate that there was indeed a Hebrew people along with their most well known kings such as David & Solomon. During the 1993-1994 excavation season at Tel Dan in Northern Israel, archaeologist Avraham Biran discovered fragment of a stele (fragment A) which clearly mentions the ‘house of David’ in ancient Aramaic providing the very first solid extra-biblical authentication of the existence of King David.
Most recently – Israeli archaeologist Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University, who is now excavating a site known as Hirbet Qeiyafa, located in the Judean hills not far from the modern-day city of Beit Shemesh.— has uncovered two model shrines, one of clay and one of stone. This discovery echoes elements of Temple architecture as described in the Bible and strengthens his claim that the city that stood at the site 3,000 years ago was inhabited by Israelites and was part of the kingdom ruled from Jerusalem by the biblical King David. In addition to this, according to the excavation project website, “The city has the most impressive First Temple period fortifications, including casemate city wall and two gates, one in the west and the other in the south. The gates are of identical size, and consist of four chambers. This is the only known city from the First Temple period with two gates.”[2] This evidence certainly doesn’t sound like an “invented” history.
Secondly, upon closer examination the Babylonian exile is not where Israel invented her past or started preaching and promoting monotheism. What and where exactly were the Israelites exiled from? They were exiled from Jerusalem and the Temple where they had practiced worshiping God as the sole God since the time of Abraham. As British scholar, Simon J. Sherwin correctly observes, “…it is unlikely that the crisis of the exile in itself could have turned polytheistic Israelites into monotheists. This is as true for those who were nationalists and those who where not. In order to maintain a distinct national religious identity it only necessitates the worship of Yahweh, not the denial of all others.”[1]
Finally, I readily admit that Israel’s early history is not easy to reconstruct from archaeological and extra-biblical epigraphic sources alone, but it is there. But there’s something else to keep in mind and it is that a meticulous reconstruction of the ancient past is not just a problem with Israel’s early history, but all of ancient history. The further back in time we go, the more unclear things become. It takes hard work, but we can get at the past. Israel was a small nation, so we wouldn’t expect to find huge urban centers such as we find in Mesopotamia or monumental architecture such as the great pyramids of Egypt. Yet, as the archaeologist’s spade & trowel continues sifting through the sands of history, a picture of early Israel is emerging from the artifacts that very closely resembles what we read about on the pages of the Old Testament.
Lastly, we must keep in mind that there is still much that we do not know. As one scholar once observed, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” As the much respected archaeologist Dr. Edwin Yamauchi reminds us:
1. Only a fraction of the evidence survives in the ground.
2. Only a fraction of possible sites have been detected.
3. Only a fraction of detected sites have been excavated.
4. Only a fraction of what has been excavated has been thoroughly examined and published.
5. Only a fraction of what has been examined and published makes a contribution to biblical studies.[3]
What we have discovered about the Bible both epigraphically and archaeologically is impressive indeed. And who knows what future excavations will reveal?
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merneptah_Stele (accessed, January 5, 2013)[2] http://qeiyafa.huji.ac.il/ (accessed, January 5, 2013)[3] Edwin M. Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1972), 146-62
Tragedy Then Hope: Like the First Christmas
CrossExaminedI was physically sick when I heard the news. The mass murder of children and adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary in Connecticut is shocking and sadly too common. Evil is a reality in our world, and, tragically, evil has been perpetrated on children for centuries. Just before the birth of Moses, Pharaoh commanded that all Hebrew males were to be killed (Ex. 1:3). When Israel entered the Promised Land, the Ammonites practiced child sacrifice, offering their newborns to the god Molech (Lev. 18:10). And at the Birth of Christ, the very first Christmas, King Herod commanded that all male children born in Bethlehem, two years old and younger, be put to death (Matt. 1:16-18).
God allows evil because this is a moral universe where our free choices really matter. Without free will evil wouldn’t exist, but neither would love. While we don’t know the reason why God didn’t intervene to stop this particular evil, we do know what the reason can’t be—it can’t be because He doesn’t love us. The glorious truth of Christmas is that God so loved the world that He sent us His only begotten Son in the form of a child to save us. The eternal Logos (Word) of God entered human flesh (John 1). He entered the sphere of human suffering, tragedy and death and took it upon Himself. In His human life on earth Christ was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” (Isa. 53:3), and it is for that reason that He is able to heal and comfort those who grieve. The very purpose of His birth and life was to defeat sin and death by serving as a sacrifice for our sin.
Now marinate on that thought: Because of His love for us, the Creator of the universe did not spare Himself from suffering! Christ suffered and paid it all.
So as we grieve this Christmas as many did at the first Christmas, we need to praise God. It is because of Christ that death doesn’t get the last word. He defeated death and evil by rising from the dead (Luke 24:1-12). With Christ there is victory and hope beyond this world riddled with evil and death.
More Functions for “Junk DNA”
CrossExaminedA new paper has just been published in the journal Genome Biology by John Rinn and David Kelley, identifying a role for transposable elements in gene regulation in stem cells.
Click here to continue reading>>>
Life of Pi, Only 3.14% Accurate
CrossExaminedLife of Pi,
Only 3.14% Accurate
Scott Symington
An interesting encounter at sea is reported in the Naval Institute’s official magazine, Proceedings. A battleship had been at sea on maneuvers in heavy weather. A lookout reported a light in the distance, so the captain had the signalman send a message: “We are on a collision course. Advise you change course 20 degrees.” Minutes later a signal came back: “Advisable for you to change course 20 degrees.” The captain angrily ordered that another signal be sent: “I’m a captain. Change course 20 degrees.” Again came a reply: “I’m a seaman, second class. You had better change course 20 degrees.” Furious by this point, the captain barked a final threat: “I’m a battleship with a full naval escort. Change course 20 degrees!” The signal came back: “I’m a lighthouse.” The captain changed his course.1
Truth is like a lighthouse, both in the way we may stand on it as a foundation in the midst of the waves life consistently brings, and in the guidance it offers to navigate effectively through life. There are many sources of power, which that light of truth can draw upon, two of which, science and religion, are focused upon in Yann Martel’s, Life of Pi.
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I expect it to be interesting, touching, an opportunity for incredible visuals, and a thoughtful movie – as long as you leave your logic at the concessions stand. Throughout the story, phenomenal symbolism and beauty are used in this fictional account to put a favorable spotlight on postmodernism, the belief that includes ideas such as: there is no absolute truth or authority to provide objective truth about reality, and all ideas are equally open to interpretation. Hinduism, relativism and other beliefs have added corollaries, such as: it is warranted to stand on whatever belief you want, and all beliefs can lead to the same top of the mountain experience. This article follows the tradition of countless prior works, which attempt to close the curtain on this nice sounding, but invalid belief, and will do so in three parts: 1) explain the beliefs the Life of Pi preaches, 2) discuss the appeal and 3.14% accuracy of that belief, 3) and briefly note why the incoherence of this idea needs to be recognized for the good of your non-fictional life.
Pi’s Postmodernism
Pi (his birth name comes to be replaced by this mathematical term) is raised in India by his parents, who are portrayed as secular modernists believing primarily in the power of science. Science comes into play often in the zoo his parents run. Pi’s favorite teacher shares the worship of science in his atheism. In addition, part one of the book also shows Pi as thirsting for spiritual knowledge, and after a visit to a Hindu temple, a Catholic church, and a visit with a Muslim baker, converts to all three faiths. Well “converts” isn’t the right word, because Pi accepts and incorporates all three faiths.
In one fortuitous incident, Pi’s pandit (Hindu scholar), priest, and imam (a Muslim leader) all run into Pi at the same time and argue over both him, and whose religion is best. Pi ends the embarrassing display by answering, “Bapu Ghandi said, ‘All religions are true.’ I just want to love God.”2 Pi is shown as meekly giving a heartfelt answer, and simultaneously silencing all discussion on the issue, which endears the audience to him and his views.
Pi evidently doesn’t care to, or even realize that such a claim can be tested for validity and philosophical soundness. His statement is treated in the book as a conversation ender, but that is where real thinking, and scientific, historical, and philosophical interaction with the differing ideas need to engage. Instead of any mental heavy-lifting with these issues, Pi is just supplied with religious appearances and pantheist unity with nature experiences.
So now we have a mathematically named child from secular upbringing, who simultaneously is so spiritual (whatever the author means by “spiritual”) that he adheres to three other worldviews. This is grasping postmodernism by the horns and attempting to ride that bull through the life struggles that follow. Will having one foot (well, one foot on one, one foot on another, and each hand on the remaining two worldviews, like worldview twister) on four different worldview foundations benefit or harm Pi, and validate or invalidate postmodernism? The remainder of the book places Pi in the fantastic position of having to survive on a lifeboat in the Pacific, and with a Bengal tiger passenger – postmodernism is put to the test – fictionally, which is fitting.
Part two of the book covers over two hundred days at sea, with numerous instances that require the productive utility of science and faith. Pi uses science to keep the tiger tamed, and provide food and water. But even with that use of science, at times survival seems lost, requiring Pi to utilize resources from religion, including religious experiences. So based on the experiences of Pi, all worldviews seem to have truth, great things to offer, and can all harmoniously be used for the benefit of one’s life: science to explain how things work in life, and when it reaches a limit, all the religions come into appropriate use for guiding one’s life.
The author is drawing an animated picture of the NOMA theory of the late Harvard professor, Stephen J. Gould, who provided a good description of a very common thought regarding science and theology. Gould claims that the two great tools of human understanding (science and religion) compliment each other in their totally separate realms: science as gaining knowledge and understanding about the factual state of the natural world, and religion when considering spiritual meaning and ethical values. While the eminent professor has credentials longer than this article, he was simply wrong, and in a four-part article I will post later, NOMA will be disproven and the real relationship between science and theology (a Symbiotic relationship, SOMA) will be explained.
Martel, however, has boarded Gould’s boat. The two characters, Pi and Richard Parker (name of the tiger) are on opposite sides of the boat on their journey, yet they have to get along. This is an allegory symbolizing science and religion being separated. Now I am unsure if Pi represents the spiritual side, as this kid is so super-spiritual he has three faiths, and the tiger is the science of raw nature, or the tiger represents divine-like beauty and power, and Pi represents science as he uses it on the tiger and ocean to survive. But either way, both science and faith are used to get along, and Pi even becomes more like Richard Parker along the journey.
A further connection is made within Pi himself, as the two passengers he carries within himself, science and faith, are reconciled during the journey.
Part three of the story brings another promotion of postmodernism. Investigators question Pi about the ordeal. Initially Pi tells the story, but the detectives do not believe him. Pi comments how our perceptions determine much or reality, which is right out of the postmodernist handbook, but eventually retells the story without the animals. That second story is terrible. Instead of the animals involved, his mom, a cruel cook, a young sailor, and a lot of beastly actions are involved.
Now the question is posed to the investigators, and to us, what story do you prefer? And while there are details in the account with the animals that are problematic, such as the carnivorous island, the readers, and the investigators in their final report, are challenged and encouraged to accept the “better story.” And so it goes with God is the connection we are encouraged to make in our own lives. Maybe science is all that is needed to explain the story, but we have to force faith to fit in too, because it makes for a better, more easily livable story.
Bottom-line: Pi shows no need to make a decision between contradicting belief systems, on the contrary, it is actually useful to bring them all into the boat. This is an apologetic for NOMA, Hinduism, and postmodernism.
Pi is 3.14% Accurate
There are appealing features of Pi’s postmodern approach: you can believe whatever you want; all ideas have inherent validity and value; others who disagree with you do so only from their perspective, not from truth, facts or real knowledge. It’s like a world where we are all of the same political party, or rooting for the same team. A nice thought, the only problem with it is logic and reality. The comfortable features may be what allows this idea to survive longer than actual merit warrants.
Don’t take this the wrong way, I would argue that every person has inherent value, and even those whom we disagree with must be treated with the dignity, respect and love that follows from their inherent worth. However, while all people are created equal, all ideas are not, and as Frank Turek has noted, ideas are in the free marketplace, where cross-examination is appropriate and beneficial. Tolerance does not mean we cannot disagree, on the contrary, tolerance occurs when we disagree with someone, yet still treat them as we hope others will treat us. In fact, if one cares about another person, they will not hold up, but instead put down inaccurate beliefs, which have a reasonable likelihood of leading to negative consequences. Caring for and respecting Pi would be especially easy, he is a lovable character, and Martel even writes in a soft, but insightful and engaging way. Excellent read, but the message leaves a bad taste in the mouth, err, mind.
Examination of Martel and Pi’s perspective reveals a small percentage of truth. There are some good things in each of those religions, but is that surprising? If nothing appealing were in those belief systems, those systems would likely have folded long ago. Also, religious beliefs, even if false, may provide “spiritual” feelings, experiences, and even hope in a situation where one has nothing else – an actual Marxist opiate. The non-controversial point that science provides factual knowledge about the physical world is also included, but not central to the primary postmodernist contention. These account for the approximately 3.141592% accuracy in the primary claim being promoted through Pi’s experience. I round off to 3.14% because I do not want to exaggerate my level of certainty. After all, you can make numbers say anything you want, 31.4% of all people know that. Seriously, a quantitative approach is not really applicable here, and the belief in postmodernism is refuted at an even more basic level, logic.
What Martel, and unfortunately many readers and movie goers, fails to realize is the real contrast wasn’t horizontally in the boat between the boy and the tiger, it was vertically between the very deep ocean and the very shallow thinking in the boat. Five examples are given below.
The Shallow Thinking in the Deep Ocean
First, Pi buys into the shallow connotation of “faith” common in our culture. Many have come to believe faith means having some vague or insubstantial belief, based on feelings or just hopes, entirely empty of supportive reasons. While that type of “faith” is demonstrated by people in diverse areas of life, to conflate all “faith” into that version is very narrow-sighted. Faith always has three parts: 1) The object of faith (for example, a chair), 2) The content of the faith (I believe the chair will support me), 3) And the reason(s) for the faith (haven’t been dropped by a chair yet, it looks sturdy, I don’t see Ashton Kutcher from Punk’d).
When Pi accepts the three religions, he does so based on a singular experience or feeling, because he liked something he saw, or felt and wanted to satisfy a spiritual need. He had a paucity of reasons, and simply assumed that was inherent with faith in a religion. Good thing Pi didn’t run into Marshall Applewhite of the Heaven’s Gate cult, or before ever getting on that fateful boat we may have found Pi laying on a bed wearing Nike’s and with an empty glass of poisoned Kool-Aid.
If we make a choice without any supportive reasons, aside from feelings or wishful thinking, then we are acting in the “blind faith” fitting both what our culture commonly associates with faith, and Pi’s acceptance of three religions. Sometimes we even believe in something against the available evidence, which is another type of faith, delusional faith. But, when we do not have certainty, and trust in something based on supportive reasons, then that is the most common faith we operate on throughout life – a reasoned faith.
We do not claim to be sitting or career agnostics, and refrain from using chairs or working a job because we lack certainty. We use the reasons we do have, and make our choices. Pi never attaches faith to science though (unless I missed it), event in his later studies in science and religion. Yet even those working in science recognize that many of their understandings and beliefs are far from certain, but can be trusted or used for direction based upon sufficient supportive reasons. We all exercise faith in almost all the decisions we make, and even Pi’s atheist dad and teacher exercised faith in animal taming and teaching biology theories respectively. Pi himself, in utilizing science to survive, was exercising faith that those techniques would work. Therefore, to relegate only the religious beliefs to faith, and to assume it must be blind faith is short-sighted. Belief in God (called theism), belief there is no God (atheism), belief we cannot know if God exists or not (agnosticism) are ALL faith beliefs.
Religious beliefs make claims about the factual state of reality, and therefore, can be tested scientifically, historically, philosophically, etc. Pi was given only religious appearances or subjective experiences to bolster his faith, which fits right in line with postmodern claims. If those experiences are the only support for his beliefs in God, then the kid should consider a psychiatric visit as his contradictory beliefs cannot all be true and validated. This brings us to a second error in Pi’s reasoning.
Second, the belief in the three contradictory religions is not blind faith, but delusional. Ghandi may have been a social-activist-visionary, but logic was not his strong point when it came to beliefs. “All religions are true,” violates a basic law of thought or logic, the law of non-contradiction. Contradictions are impossible, like a one-ended stick, or “My biological sister is an only child.”
Different paths to the top of a mountain are possible because they do not contradict each other, but different beliefs do. Wherever beliefs contradict each other, only one at most can fit reality and be true. The world religions may have some similarities, but it’s the differences that make all the difference.
You are offered two pills: both are white, the same size, color, smell, and taste, except that one is aspirin, and the other includes arsenic. So, one will cure a headache, and the other can kill you. The difference(s) make all the difference. If worldviews differ on even one of the big questions in life, tremendous impacts will follow, and religions differ not in marginal areas, but in the central points.
I personally would want to know the false ingredients, even in the belief I currently accept. If Jesus was crucified for our justification and resurrected, then there is truth and reality supporting a life lived on that foundation. If not, as Islam, atheism and other belief systems claim, that is catastrophic to Christian beliefs, and if one does not want their choices, thoughts, responses, priorities, goals, and direction in life to fall into the consequences of inaccurate guidance, then another foundation better be sought.
A third entirely false idea is the Hindu, relativist, and postmodern claim that there is no absolute truth. Two simple tests expose this idea. First, apply the claim to itself, in any of its common iterations, as shown below, and in I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
1. There is no truth . . . Is THAT true?
2. You can’t know truth . . . How do you then know that is truth?
3. All truth is relative . . . Is that a relative truth?
4. It’s all just opinions . . . Is that just your opinion, or is that truth?
5. No one has the truth . . . But one, you, claim to have the truth?
6. It’s true for you, but not for me . . . Is that true for everybody, including you and me?
7. You ought not judge, or be intolerant . . . Isn’t that a judgmental statement, intolerant of those who do show judgment?
8. Whatever, I’ll do what I want . . . Cannot argue that, you can do what you want,
and you will slam against the hard reality of ignored truth.
There is also the Hindu belief in maya: ultimate realities are an illusion. If so, how does one holding this belief claim the ultimate reality of maya, if ultimate realities are not knowable? Maybe they are falling for an illusion in believing maya. The claims are contradictory, and their proof would be their disproof. While Pi is an irrational number, it doesn’t contradict itself as Martel’s Pi repeatedly does in trying to support his belief claims.
Another test is to attempt to use any of these claims in court, when trying to fight a ticket for being clocked at 100 in a 50 mph zone. After a third oncologist notifies you of your serious stage of cancer, which needs to be dealt with, will declaring no one knows the truth, there is no truth, you ought not judge, or any other variation alter the reality of your situation? The claim doesn’t work in reality.
If there is one instance of absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Anything that goes against something that is true – goes against reality – and is excluded from being true. Some people expected the Patriots to win the Super Bowl for the 2011 NFL season, others really wanted the Giants, and some sad fans even hoped the Lions would win. There were even similarities between the three teams, but there were also differences, and the differences are going to play out on the day where it counts. The bottom-line is that final scoreboard. The Giants won that year, that truth is universal, true for all people, in all places and times, and excludes ALL contrary claims. It is not being narrow-minded, intolerant, arrogant, or mean, it is simply the truth.
The beliefs espoused by Pi would also reject universal truth. Universal truth is true for all people, in all places, and at all times. But universality is in the nature of truth. People may look at things with different opinions, cultural perspectives, or hypotheses, but different views do not change the truth. Do not confuse truth and reality with opinions, perceptions, etc. Different cultures and times may not believe an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan – but the truth that it did happen is still the reality for all people, in all places, and for all time.
The fourth error is another logic mistake, a false dilemma. Pi supposedly sat in his boat on the horns of a dilemma, science or faith, as though believing in either was mutually exclusive to the other. The whole dichotomy between science on one side and faith on the other, both in the boat and within Pi, is a false dichotomy. A third option splits the horns of the dilemma: science and theology could already be joined together in a mutually supportive view of reality. This third option I support in an article on NOMA v. SOMA, mentioned earlier.
For now, we can point out that the conflict Pi was experiencing was not between science and faith as he supposed, it was between atheist naturalism, which atheists and naturalists like to equate with science, and theism and pantheism. Resolution of that conflict is impossible as atheism and theism contradict each other; one is true, the other false.
Pi, however, resolves the conflict by not even challenging atheist naturalism, assuming science explains everything in the physical world just fine without God, and simply hypothesizes spiritual things can and must exist outside the grasp or limits of science. This resolution is supported by Martel providing untestable religious experiences, and almost desperate claims that we need the spiritual when all other hope is lost, or to make sense of an otherwise terrible world. This all amounts to a very strained plea for the postmodern case, which is all the support such a delusional belief can hope to have.
It’s desirable to hear that we all create our own realities, there is never one true story, and since we have a choice, why not chose the more beautiful one and just add God in on the side (where God won’t interfere with what you want). However, wants do not create truth. If they did, then Lebron would be both in Miami, and in Cleveland still.
Instead Pi should have applied science, history, philosophy, and other fields of study on all four worldviews involved: Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and atheist naturalism (scientism and relativism could be included too), to ensure he was founded on truth, which would not melt away when reality and consequences washed up against him. But that would not make for a best-selling book, exciting movie, or pander to what the public seems to be hungry to hear. Bringing us to the fifth problem.
Finally, Pi argues that we should believe what makes for a more comfortable life and good story now, rather than concerning ourselves with truth and consequences overall. Pi exclaims, “I know what you want. You want a story that won’t surprise you. That will confirm what you already know. That won’t make you see higher or further or differently. You want a flat story.”3 He is onto something, there is endless evidence of people frequently placing a higher priority on comfort – what they want to believe – than on the truth and overall consequences. Smokers or people in bad relationships come to mind. Those believing the link to cancer is not proven, or that he will treat me better once we get married, and letting confirmation bias take over, are people who want to stay in comfort in the short-term, regardless of evidence of long-term consequences. This can be observed with people in their worldview beliefs too. My contention is that one would only accept the beliefs espoused by Pi for exactly the reasons given in Pi’s quote above.
Pi’s last two sentences lead into the purpose for the quote. He used that quote with the investigators in part three of the book, and is basically saying the factual experiences won’t be changed whether you believe the story with the animals or without, however, the story with the animals is more appealing, and that is reason enough to accept it. The same applies to God, in his view. He is arguing that if there is something beyond the physical universe, we can’t know, and it won’t have an impact except to make for a better view of life. How does he know that we can’t know? Has he looked into the evidence available?
In the classic book by the renowned authority Huston Smith, the following observation is given: “If we were to take Hinduism as a whole – its vast literature, its complicated rituals, its sprawling folkways, its opulent art – and compress it into a single affirmation, we would find it saying: You can have what you want.”4 Isn’t that true of Pi’s perspective? Isn’t that the case with postmodernism in general? And true in all of us to an extent, but there need to be limits. Do you really want to be so open-minded your mind falls out? The limit should be when the belief will have significant consequences on our lives, or the lives of others, and when it is shown to be invalid or inferior to a better-supported belief.
If I were one of those investigators, I would investigate. Has a tiger been found in Mexico where the boat landed, what’s on the ship’s manifest, examine Pi’s boat, search for a carnivorous island, and obtain psychological examination supporting either the animal or non-animal account? The findings may not impact me much, whichever account I found to be true. On the other hand, how much more should we investigate the claims of the worldview we ourselves stand on? Whether an almighty authority created us with a purpose and has expectations of us, or not, will have an impact on us. Whether we are basing our choices, actions, responses, priorities, goals and direction in life on a worldview that is accurate, or one that is inaccurate – will have serious consequences on us.
Conclusion
Postmodernism, Hinduism, and Pi paint a nice story, but is it accurate and reliable? Based on just the handful of errors presented in this article, it seems the answer is no. While it may have helped Pi in his boat, all of us are in our own survival and growth journey. And when talking about our real lives, we want the ending that is best for us, and that depends on founding lives on valid ideas.
Every decision takes us down different paths. Sure there are similarities regardless of the path, but the differences make all the difference. So the worldview you take (trying to take them all is also a path, a twisted one) will carry you along a specific path, and every path brings different overall consequences, good and bad, to your life, and possible after-life.
I can predict this overall impact of worldview choice on you, your own scoreboard, and present this an a much briefer blog to be posted later, Your Obituary in Advance: The 4 Quad Approach.
It seems that our culture is still stuck in modernism, and I heard it argued that the last bastion academically for postmodernism is the English Literature department, but postmodern talk does flare up when some people attempt to appear politically correct, and in some popular media. It is legitimate for an author to explore different ideas, encouraging others to further evaluate potentially useful and relevant ideas. The problem with Life of Pi, and the motivation for this article is, postmodernism is neither relevant nor beneficial, and is evidentially bankrupt. In fact, bringing up an idea that has been disproven long ago through proof of logical incoherence, adds to the confusion and dumbing down of culture. Present any foolish idea in a catchy way, and some will be caught, as Goebbels displayed. People can sometimes be as shallow in their search as Pi, especially when reinforced with the idea that no authoritative truth exists anyway (except that authoritative truth).
I was actually on a ship that ran into a lighthouse. The judgment-impaired captain followed an incorrect path. Worldview truth can be just another immovable obstacle that we may ram up against in our existence, and in the collision between us and truth, we receive all the consequences. Or, truth can be a lighthouse to found our decisions and path upon, and provide the reliable foundation of support to ensure we are traveling a path that is best for us, and for those close to us.
Notes
1) Frank Koch, Proceedings, as cited in Max Lucado, In the Eye of the Storm, Word Publishing, 1991, p. 153.
2) Yann Martel, Life of Pi, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, 2001, p. 69
3) Martel, p. 302
4) Huston Smith, The World’s Religions, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991, p.13.
Intergenic Retrotransposons Can Serve Long-Range Functions
CrossExaminedRetrotransposons (which include LINEs, SINEs, and ERVs) are known for the ability of their long-terminal repeats (LTRs) to serve as promoters and enhancers for regulating the expression of genes that are immediately downstream (Conley et al., 2008; Dunn et al., 2005). The majority of retrotransposons, however, are located considerable distances from genes (often hundreds of kilobases away) — and this has often been taken as evidence that the majority of these retrotransposons are, in fact, non-functional.
Click here to continue reading.
The Design of the Complement Cascade
CrossExaminedWhen I was an undergraduate biology student, one of my favorite topics was the complement system in immunology. The complement cascade is an array of sequentially interacting proteins that serve a vital role in innate immune responses. The complement cascade can be activated via interactions with antibody-antigen complexes. Proteins involved in the complement cascade react with one another and with components of the target cell, marking pathogen cells for recognition by phagocytes or inducing cell membrane damage, leakage of contents, and cell lysis.
Click here to continue reading.
Asteroid Belts and Planet Biohabitability
2. Does God Exist?A new study by Rebecca Martin of the University of Colorado finds that “Solar systems with life-bearing planets may be rare if they are dependent on the presence of asteroid belts of just the right mass.” Science Daily summarizes:
Moreover,
This discovery can be added to the constantly expanding list of factors that make our planet’s position in the universe pretty special.
Cross-posted from Evolution News & Views.
You Can’t Preach the Gospel without Freedom
Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian ApologeticsWhen I hear Christians saying we ought not get involved in politics but just “preach the Gospel,” I show them this satellite picture of the Korean peninsula. Here we see a homogenous population of mostly Koreans separated by a well-fortified border. South Korea is full of freedom, food and productivity—it’s one of the most Christianized countries in the world. North Korea is a concentration camp. They have no freedom, no food, and very little Christianity.
What’s the primary reason for the stark difference between these two countries? Politics. The South politically allows freedom, while the North does not.
Ironically, Christians who shun politics to supposedly advance the Gospel are actually allowing others to stop the Gospel. How so? Because politics and law affects one’s ability to preach the Gospel! If you think otherwise, visit some of the countries I have visited—Iran, Saudi Arabia and China. You cannot legally “preach the Gospel” in those countries—or practice other aspects of your religion freely—because politically they’ve ruled it out as they have in North Korea.
In fact, politics affects virtually every area of your life through the laws made by government. So if you care about your family, business, church, school, children, money, property, home, security, healthcare, safety, freedom, and your ability to “preach the Gospel,” then you should care about politics.
Politics affects everything, which is why leaders throughout the Bible—including Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Nehemiah, Mordecai, Esther, John the Baptist, and Paul— “went political” to influence civil governments to govern morally. Even Jesus himself got involved in politics when he publically chastised the Pharisees—the religious and political leaders of Israel—for neglecting “the more important matters of the law.”
Unfortunately, our lawmakers today are doing the same thing. They use the force of law tell us what light bulbs to use and what the school lunch menu should be, but neglect to put any restrictions on the taking of human life by abortion! What could be more important than life? The right to life is the right to all other rights. If you don’t have life, you don’t have anything.
But what can Christians do? After all, we can’t legislate morality, can we? News flash: All laws legislate morality! Morality is about right and wrong and all laws declare one behavior right and the opposite behavior wrong. So the question is not whether we can legislate morality, but “Whose morality will we legislate?”
The answer our Founding Fathers gave was the “self-evident” morality given to us by our Creator—the same Moral Law that the apostle Paul said that all people have “written on their hearts.” In other words, not my morality or your morality, but the morality—the one we inherited not the one we invented. (This doesn’t mean that every moral or political issue has clear right and wrong answers. It only means that “the more important matters of the law” – life, marriage and religious freedom for example—do have clear answers that we should heed.)
Notice our Founders did not have to establish a particular denomination or force religious practice in order to legislate a moral code. Our country justifies moral rights with theism, but does not require its citizens to acknowledge or practice theism. That’s why Chris Matthews and other liberals are wrong when they charge that Christians are trying to impose a “theocracy” or violate the “separation of Church and State.” They fail to distinguish between religion and morality.
Broadly defined, religion involves our duty to God while morality involves our duty to one another. Our lawmakers are not telling people how, when, or if to go to church—that would be legislating religion. But lawmakers cannot avoid telling people how they should treat one another— that is legislating morality, and that is what all laws do.
Opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, for example, does not entail the establishment of a “theocracy.” Churches and the Bible also teach that murder, theft, and child abuse are wrong, but no one says laws prohibiting such acts establish a theocracy or are a violation of the “separation of church and state.” In fact, if the government could not pass laws consistent with church or biblical teachings, then all criminal laws would have to be overturned because they are all in some way consistent with at least one of the Ten Commandments.
Second, there are churches on both sides of these issues. In other words, some liberal churches, contrary to scripture, actually support abortion and same-sex marriage. So if church-supported positions could not be put into law, then we could not have laws either way on abortion or same-sex marriage. Absurd.
Finally, most proponents of same-sex marriage argue as if they have some kind of moral right to having their relationships endorsed by the state. They claim that they don’t have “equal rights” or that they are being “discriminated” against. Likewise, abortion advocates claim they have a moral “right” to choose an abortion. None of these claims are true, as I have explained elsewhere. Nevertheless, their arguments, while flawed, expose the fact that independent of religion they seek to legislate their morality rather than the morality.
If you have a problem with the morality, don’t blame me. I didn’t make it up. I didn’t make up the fact that abortion is wrong, that men are not designed for other men, or that natural marriage is the foundation of a civilized society. Those unchangeable objective truths about reality are examples of the “Laws of Nature” from “Nature’s God,” as the Declaration of Independence puts it, and we only hurt others and ourselves by suppressing those truths and legislating immoral laws.
When we fail to legislate morally, others impose immorality. For example, totalitarian political correctness is already imposed in states such as Massachusetts where the implications of same-sex marriage override the religious liberties of businesses, charities and even parents. As documented here and illustrated here, same sex marriage prevents you from running your business, educating your children, or practicing your religion in accord with your Conscience. And soon, as is the case in Canada, you may not be able to merely speak Biblically about homosexual behavior. That is because those who say they are fighting for “tolerance” are often the most intolerant.
Unless Christians begin to influence politics and the culture more significantly, we will continue to lose the very freedoms that enable us to live according to our beliefs and spread the Gospel all over the world. That’s why you should not vote for candidates because of their race or religion, but because they will govern morally on the more important matters of the law—life, marriage and religious freedom. (To see where all the major candidates stand visit the non-partisan website http://www.ontheissues.org.)
If you are a pastor who is worried about your tax-exempt status: 1) you have more freedom than you think to speak on political and moral issues from the pulpit; 2) if you do not speak up for truth now, you will soon lose your freedom to speak for anything, including the Gospel; and 3) you are called to be salt and light, not tax-exempt.
The Molecular "Clutch" of the Dynein Motor Protein
CrossExaminedOver at Evolution News & Views, I have just published a blog post on the recent paper in the journal Cell regarding the molecular clutch of the dynein motor protein:
Click here to continue reading>>>