April 2007 Archives

I was scrolling through my morning feeds and came across this gem on Slashdot, "Should Schools Block Sites Like Wikipedia?
" The story goes on to describe someone's question regarding the fact that the local school board decided to block access to Wikipedia "because students may be exposed to misinformation". This simply describes an opportunity lost and a new form of book banning.

I grew up learning about how books like the Wizard of Oz were banned from schools because some people didn't like the fact that it had a witch. Other books were banned because they praised opposing political ideals. Now, apparently, it's vogue to ban something because it might not be accurate. However, this is still just as bad an idea as all the original book bans.

Where do you stop? The New York Times has in the past few years had at least one reporter fired because he fabricated information published in the Times. Should we block the New York Times because it might expose students to misinformation? Should we also block cable television because certain news anchors published stories in that medium without verifying the facts? Should we start blocking the text books because they sometimes contain errors or misrepresent facts?

Should we stop allowing teachers in the class room because sometimes teachers share incorrect informatino? I once had a teacher tell me that NASA was experimenting with mounting monkeys heads on robots and that the monkeys were controlling the robots successfully, but only for a few hours until the head died. Should we throw all the teachers out because there are some that are crackpots?

No! Of course not. This is an opportunity to explain that all sources are suspect until they are corroborated. If you read something in Wikipedia, you take a note to check any fact you can't verify from your own experience. You then verify that fact in the quoted source (for articles that properly quote sources), you can check your local library and do a database search, check another encyclopedia, look in a journal or magazine, find related books, etc. I find that Wikipedia is a great place to get started, but I certainly don't think of it as authoritative.

On the other hand, you should always do the same thing, insofar as you are able, for any source of information. If a source of information makes a claim, you should check it's sources and possibly verify the claim in other places. It's easy to make an unverified claim. It's hard to make a claim that is cited and backed up with facts and also backed up by other unrelated sources.

The lesson is that some sources are more trustworthy than others, but none are beyond suspicion. The lesson should be that you should always check your sources and verify that what you're reading is factual and reliable. Banning a source only means that you take this object lesson away and you raise students that are actually less able to think for themselves and more ignorant. Great, that's just what we need. Good job Anonymous School Board.

Cheers.

This is something of blogged on before and I'll repeat it because it bugs the heck out of me. Evangelicals, such as myself, believe that God is control of the universe. He didn't create it and jump ship and He hasn't allowed it to run it's random course. The control itself isn't something we casually observe and when we do it's of a very subtle nature. We get this belief from a number of Bible verses, but one such verse is Romans 8:28, "For we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him." (My paraphrase since my brain is not capable of word-for-word memorization.)

From this belief in God's control, Christians want to make decisions that are according to God's will, i.e., his plan. Unfortunately, I've seen too many Christians take this to an extreme that both muddies up what God's will is, implies that God works through superstition, and, worst of all, allows Christians to justify whatever they want to do by cloaking it in "God's will."

Let's take a common example, let's say I get fed up with my job,which isn't likely since I truly love where I am like I've never loved a job before, but let's say I do for the sake of the argument. I do what any atheist would do: I go update my resume and start checking out job postings or consider using a head hunter if I'm really desperate. Let's say I'm very talented and I get two different offers. Now, I have a dilemma, do I try to get a better offer where I'm at based on the best other offer I'm given, do I take the job that sounds coolest and pays better than I'm getting now, or do I take the job that pays best and looks like the best long-term career path?

Okay, all of that is completely normal for any person looking for a job. As a Christian, I could start cloaking this as so: "I think that God's leading me to look for a new job. I think He's placed a seed of dissatisfaction in my heart. So, I've updated my resume and looked for jobs and I've got two offers. Do you think that God wants me to try and improve my current situation, or take one of these other jobs and, if so, which one? God's really laid this on my heart to pray about and I'm really listening to God on this." All I've done is taken a completely non-spiritual task and ritualized it in a way that is neither Biblical nor godly. This is a way of making yourself look good to other Christians who also do this so that they think, "Wow, he's so spiritual." Not only this, but it's done in such a way that makes it difficult to challenge. Who can tell me that I made the wrong decision since it's God that led me to these decisions?

In reality, this is totally selfish and an abuse of God. It's as if I sent an email to someone asking them for their opinion and then making the decision I liked without getting a reply, but saying they recommended it. Everyone has feelings. Feelings don't validate our decisions as if they were revelations from God.

So how does one make this decision in a way that follows God's will? It's pretty simple, do it the way everyone else does it. Measure your situation and make a decision based upon all the factors. Seek the guidance of friends and mentors. The major difference is that you are to make sure that any decision you make will be in tune with the principles laid out in the Bible.

Does God speak to us through the opportunities presented to us in our life? Certainly. However, it's just as certain that if your job sucks that God is teaching you perseverance and patience. It might actually be more in tune with Biblical principles to stick to a job you don't like because it allows you to better take care of your family, reach out to people you work with, or just because you know you should take joy in hard situations. Make sure you aren't making a decision because you want to and that it really is in tune with Biblical principals. If you want to be really Biblical about giving God control over your decisions, you should cast lots (roll the dice) to make the decisions when you aren't sure, as the Apostles did in selecting Mattias to replace Judas.

So, whether this be to get a job, figure out when to have children, or just determine whether to take a left or right on your next walk, make sure that when you attribute a decision to God's will you aren't just disguising your will as His.

Cheers.

Reading a friend's blog
today, he quoted the Dalai Lama:

As a general rule, I think the religion our parents follow is the most appropriate for us to follow too. In addition, it is not good to follow a religion and then to change to another one.

Ryan and I were roommates once and he was the best man at my wedding. He and I have taken divergent paths since then. He went into the Marines and was stationed in Japan and lost his faith. I switched majors and reinforced mine. It's not hard to imagine that our roles could have been flipped. Don't read me wrong, I'm not attempting to be patronizing. I'm grateful for where I am, but I do not look down upon Ryan. I'm just saying that my faith is not my own and I wouldn't have it but for a sliver of key moments in my life. It could have been very different for me.

Now, I expect Ryan will probably read this (Hi Ryan!), so this is as much to him (you) as anyone else that reads this. There is a thing that I've learned and I wish more people (believers and unbelievers alike) would understand: pursuit of religion is a waste of time.

I've decided that it is religion that is the source of most hypocrisy in the world. Religion is the basis upon which people make statements like, "That guy is an idiot!" Religion is the reason for much of the persecution, wars, abuse, immorality, and murder in the world. Whether it's Jihadists or Crusaders, Hari Krishnas or the Inquisition, they carry their cause not because it's right, but because it's religious. "My religion is better than yours and you're an idiot/you should die if you believe anything else." The same statements are made by atheists and agnostics, except they try to disguise themselves behind science or politics, "Religion is a crutch for the weak minded." "We can show that the universe could exist without any God by scientific exploration." "Modern society has learned to live ethically without gods." Bah. Just more religion. Just another way of building oneself up into the idolistic supreme and kicking the rest over. That's what nearly all religion is.

Religion is, generally, just a waste of time. Therefore, I must, respectfully, disagree with the Dalai Lama. The religion of our parents isn't the most appropriate. It's probably just as damned as the rest. Keep your religion or change it. You'll probably still think of everyone who disagrees with you as dumb or unenlightened or ignorant or not worth the air they breath or unfortunate or all of the above. You'll look down on them for not being quite so smart or good looking as you.

If you're interested in good and appropriate religion, follow the religion of love. Love your friends. Love your enemies. Love everyone you meet. And if you meet God, love Him too. Any other religion is just a religion tainted with hate. This is a hard religion too. Love is complicated and messy. It's frequently painful and not often does it come naturally. Love requires making tough decisions, sometimes decisions that hurt others even while you love them. Love has it's rewards as well, but if you love expecting reward, you really are an idiot.

As a follower of Christ, this is what Jesus taught during a couple short years You shall love your neighbor as yourself." ¿ Matthew 22:37-39
and then magnified infinitely more on the cross. I call myself a "Christian" as those first believers of the Way did back in Antioch. When I'm being true to Christ, I mean only that Christ is a dear friend of mine. When true, I mean that rather than meaning that Christianity is my religion. When I'm being myself, my human side, I'm stating my religion and just as prepared to engage in that hateful hypocrisy as anyone else. If Christians (myself included) and the other religious people out there would worry a bit more about loving people and stop giving in to that human invention, religion, I am certain this world would be a better place.

Love,
Andrew