continuu.net

Supremely Natural

Posted on 9 March 2010 | No responses

Excerpted from Reading the Bible in the Strange World of Medicine by Allan Verhey, footnote his (Copyright  2003 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., pg. 33-34):

There was, so the tale is told, a heart patient who was both quite sick and quite pious. He had the habit of opening his Bible at random and, without looking, putting his finger upon the page. He would take any passage thus identified to be a word from God for him in whatever circumstances he found himself. After he had been admitted to the hospital, and after the initial round of tests and procedures, when he was finally left alone in his room, he took his Bible and let it fall open upon his lap. It fell open to the Psalms, and he put his finger down upon Psalm 51:10. He opened his eyes to read it; “Create in me a clean heart, O God,” it said. And then he looked up with rapture that God should speak so directly to his condition. It was a word from God, surely — a message, a sign. And he knew what it meant. It could only mean that he should receive a Jarvik Seven, the artifical heart that he had recently read of in the newspaper. He summoned the nurse to report this remarkable event, and he sent a message to his doctor that he needed a Jarvik Seven.

The physician stopped by in the morning, and when she had heard the patient’s story, she refused to take Psalm 51:10 as an indication of a need for a Jarvik Seven. “A Jarvik Seven is probably not what the psalmist had in mind,” she said. The patient was not easily convinced; he kept pointing to the still-open Bible and to Psalm 51:10. As the doctor got up to leave the room and to quit the argument, she put her finger down upon that same Bible, upon the psalm before Psalm 51, upon its ninth verse, and she read its words: “I will accept no bull from your house.”¹ That sort of “bull” is probably not what the psalmist had in mind either, of course, but the patient was suddenly a little less confident about his method of “searching the Scriptures.” And so should we be.

It’s a very entertaining tale, and one, I’m ashamed to reveal, that I’m guilty of engaging in. I remember moments in my life where I would open my Bible and hope for a miraculous revelation, but, instead, what was miraculous was my steadfastness in finding what I wanted to find. I don’t think miracles happen today as they did with the early church. Certainly, unexplainable phenomena may be attributed the title of miracle, to which, I’m confident, staunch naturalists will attribute the title “that which has no explanation yet“. In light of that, I think miracles have an unfortunate association with miraculous things — or rather, “impossible” things. The miracles presented in the Bible are certainly miraculous, and they seem this way, I postulate, because they seem impossible. How do you feed 5,000 persons with a few loaves of bread and fish? How do you sustain a widow, her orphan, and a prophet for days with enough ingredient for only a day’s meal? How does a virgin conceive, or the dead resurrect?

I don’t doubt the existence of miraculous miracles, but I think miracles, for the most part, are much more natural today. That is, the impossibility of the biblical miracles has reduced. Certainly there exists a spiritual reason to ask for miracles, but their actuality, I believe, is more natural than we seek.² Instead of hoping for a miracle cure from an illness, it is a miracle that God has provided doctors; and it is the health care practitioners that perform the miracle. Instead of hoping for a miracle mark on your next exam, it is a miracle that God has provided tutors and peers that grasp the material more adequately, and are able to help — even then, it is a miracle that you can have a swing at the content, and can train yourself to understand it; and it is the tutors, peers, and yourself who perform the miracle.

Yet, certainly, there exists this supernatural realm of demons and spirits. It’s hard for me to surrender to the belief, but I am confident in professing my belief of spirits and demons.³ And it is in this realm that I am befuddled. I’m curious to know the prevalence of demons and spirits in the 1st century and why, or at least why it seems, the prevalence has decreased today. It’s also an interesting thought to ponder on why these spirits seem to be more populated in less developed areas.⁴

The dichotomy of science and spirit is an area that might summarize the pinnacle of my academic endeavor. I am so interested in that intersection. The most profound thing, I think, that I will find at that intersection is that the collision of these two subjects isn’t as immiscible as we have developed it to be. It could be that the two subjects are really more natural than we think.

Final Note: I feel like the excerpted story is irrelevant  to the entry, or vice versa. I’m not sure how I twisted either to support the other, but let me be firm in my purpose in writing this: sometimes God is more natural than we think, and sometimes science, the method and discipline, is more godly than it ought to be. The divine is, at times, more common, and reason, at times, is not the Absolute.

1. The patient’s Bible must have been a Revised Standard Version (RSV). [↩]
2. Isn’t it rather human to desire what, at times, seems unattainable? [↩]
3. As a professing Christian, I must believe that spirits exist, lest I denounce the existence of the Holy Spirit. And if the Spirit exists, it must follow that demons as well. [↩]
4. It makes me thinks of rural villages where witch doctors still exist, and where shamans heal patients by warding off evil spirits. These observations draw me back to a very interesting interpretation of Genesis that I put forth about a year ago. Perhaps I’ll revisit it and tie in this idea. [↩]

Jerkasaurus

Posted on 18 February 2010 | 2 responses

You will rarely find me using a cuss or derogatory words. My only allowance is when I’m quoting someone or something, and even then I find that I might not quote in entirety.

Sometimes I like to call someone a jerkasaurus as opposed to those jerky other colloquialisms. If I call you one, here’s why you ought to be offended:

1. It denotes you as an archaic and extinct beast . . .
2. . . . which subtly implies that I am younger and more likely to live longer than you.
3. It’s suffix, jerk-, means that you are, in fact, a jerk.
4. Am I being cute, or do I legitimately think you awful? If neither of the above cause offense, surely decoding why I called you one will cause you stress . . .
5. . . . which will lead to offense on account of stress; for it is offensive for a friend to commit such an act to another.
6. The English derivation of the suffix, jerka-, is cousinally related to the Mario creeps, Koopa Troopas, idiotically mundane creatures slaughtered with a bounce on either their skull or shell . . .
7. . . . implying that you are just as easily erased with a tap on the noggin or spine . . .
8. . . . and also that you belong in a video game where you are creamed by an Italian plumber in overalls.
9. The plural of the noun is jerkasaurus, the plural additive “-s”, being identical to the “s” following “jerka”, causing you to wonder whether I have called cussed you in the multiple or singular form . . .
10. . . . causing you stress which leads to offense on account of stress.
11. I derive pleasure in calling you such which is incredibly offensive (and I might add, unethical on my part).
12. You are, in fact, a jerkasaurus, and I am rude in addressing you directly as such.

Completely silly post, but I do enjoy calling people jerkasaurus.

On Why These Happen

Posted on 11 February 2010 | 1 response

My roomate, Kyle, proposed the following situations to me, and asked why they don’t occur:
1) A light turns yellow, and a car should slow down. Instead, the person speeds up or continues driving because he or she thinks he or she can make the light before it turns red. The driver is unable to do so, and continues through the intersection, through a red light. On the other hand, rarely does anyone stop, let the cars pass, and then move through the light. In both cases, you break the law. The net result is breaking the law.
2) It is normal to stay up late and watch movies, but rarely does one ever get up early to watch movies. In both cases, the actor is up at “abnormal” hours. The net result is breaking the body’s homeostasis to watch a film.

I’m going to take an Aquinasian approach to this.

I answer that, The proposed situations are only odd since we commonly view them from outside of the situation. Surely, anyone in the midst of these scenarios would most likely carry out what is usually executed. That is, a driver will most likely attempt to speed through a yellow, but never leave when it is red; and that one will remain into the early hours of the morning to watch a film, but never wake up early with the intent to start a session. When we divorce ourselves from the situation, we drastically examine each scenario out of its context. In the scenario’s context, we may discover natural comforts which cause us to do what is most likely done.

Reply to scenario 1. It is obviously illegal to speed through a yellow or to proceed when it is red. However, a driver is in his or her confidence when gauging whether it is safer to stop in response to a yellow, or to speed to preserve the welfare of the drivers behind. Those in charge of street lights are cognizant of these tendencies; there is a short respite between a side changing red, and the other to green. Yet, since Kyle has proposed that we can break the law either way, let us examine why it is not. In the first, we see that the driver is in motion. In the second, we see that the driver has stopped. When the driver is in motion, they possess a rationale to excuse their illegal deed. When the driver is halted, they possess no rationale to excuse their illegal deed; their only reason is because they chose to break the law and run the red. It is a matter of comfort and confidence.

Reply to scenario 2. Clearly, humans enjoy a screening when it is closer to night; that is explanation for the existence of matinees and more showings at night at the cinema. However, Kyle proposes that is equivalent to stay up late to watch a movie as it is to get up early to watch one. Let us examine this as we did the first, since the scenario is, once again, a matter of comfort. In the first, the persons remain awake to watch a film. In the second, the persons must awake to watch the film. Here it is evident that in the first scenario, nothing needs to be done besides remaining awake. In the second scenario, considerable effort must  be exerted in order to achieve the activity. Therefore, we can conclude that, on the basis of effort, it is easier to stay awake and watch a film later at night than it is to rouse oneself from a deep slumber. Conclusively, it is a matter of comfort. Humans will stay up late to watch a movie because it is more comfortable than waking up to watch one.

Departing from this Aquinasian approach, let me share a thought. We like to be comfortable. Comfort breeds unoriginality. Never stay comfortable because then you will encounter things people will never have ventured into because they remain comfortable. If you want to discover new things, create new things, and change the old, you might begin by running reds and getting up early to watch movies. I wouldn’t necessarily endorse those two examples, but to each own, his own.

This is, of course, a very silly entry, but I suppose it has elicited some truth. I did this thought experiment in lieu of studying for my Biochemistry exam. I have also started a discourse on the meaning of life, if such exists, during my Biochemistry lecture. It sure beats hearing jargon about how old the Earth is and how many base pairs exist in E. Coli.¹

1. When will such information ever be relevant? And how is either directly relevant to the study of Biochemistry? [↩]

older posts »