A blog by an astrophysicist mostly about things that have nothing to do with astrophysics.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 11, Dirt Roads
This one I call Caravan.
But beware the sharp rocks.
I call this one Dust Trails.
This one has the not so interesting name The Straight Road. It's cropped from a larger picture, to emphasize the road more. The original had much more sky in it (over half). Notice the tire off to the side of the road. We weren't the only ones to lose a tire.
Monday, June 29, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 10, Desolate Places
These are pictures of desolate places. The pictures cannot fully convey the feeling, but those who have felt it will know.
This one I call Desolation.
This one I call And I Was Alone.
I was playing around with Photoshop and this one turned out nicely:
This one I call A Desert Place.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 9, Wild Flowers
Saturday, June 27, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 8, Boulder Fields
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Religious Origins of Our Democratic Society
In several of his books, most notably in the first section of On the Genealogy of Morals and in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche deals with the rise of Christian morality, or as he calls it, slave-morality. I will not attempt to give any type of analysis of his Master-Slave morality beyond a simple explanation to give context to his comments.
Simply put, according to Nietzsche the "strong" people of the world have the ability to create morality. They are the "masters" and they determine what is "good". After determining what is good the masters then consider everything else to be bad, or at least everything that impedes the good. The masters then impose their morality on the "weak" forcing them to accept it. In Nietzsche's interpretation the strong make up the minority, but they have the ability and the right to impose their morality (or value system) on the weak because they are strong and they can do it, and the weak must humbly or meekly accept their judgments of value (i.e. what is good and what is bad).
Nietzsche continues and explains that the rise of Christian morality was merely a reaction by the slaves to the master morality. The slaves in seeking to dominate the strong could not do so through force (as the masters dominate the slaves) thus they must do so through other means such as creating a morality where the strong must "voluntarily" abdicate their power for the "good of the community". Through this means the weak gain power over the strong and all people are "made equal", which according to Nietzsche means that the strong cannot exercise that which is their "right". It is this point that I wish to make, and it is also one of the points made by Nietzsche in his Master-Slave morality, that the concept of equality, of legal, political and social equality is derived from Judeo-Christian morality. As Nietzsche puts it in Section 202 of his book Beyond Good and Evil, "the Democratic movement is the inheritance of the Christian movement."
In effect, as Nietzsche argues, the whole concept of a democratic system, a system based on personal equality, is an attempt to deprive the privileged and strong of their right to govern and to create "morality", which is to say good and evil, right and wrong. Because the strong try to (and sometimes do) impose their judgments of value on everyone else, this inherently creates a social order of inequality. Some are privileged due to their "strength" while others are "forced" to meekly follow due to their weakness. On the other hand, under Judeo-Christian morality, or slave morality as Nietzsche calls it, everyone must be afforded the same ability and no one has claim to any special rights or privileges above anyone else, which is the foundation of a democratic society.
Thus in the question of what place does religion have in a free and democratic society, I would agree with Nietzsche in that religion, and the Judeo-Christian tradition in particular, is the foundation of a free, equal and democratic society. And if we as a society reject our Judeo-Christian heritage, we will reject the very thing that gives us our democratic society. We will lose the very foundation for our claim that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that no one should be afforded rights and privileges above, over and apart from all others.
I find it interesting that the portions of our society that most strongly call for the eradication of Christianity from public life are those that apparently have abandoned "slave morality" as they would call it, and have wholly given themselves over to Nietzsche's master morality. They do not live by principles of equality, but rather by the arbitrary and admittedly self-serving morality so strongly and clearly advocated by Nietzsche. But in a fit of irony they do so by claiming it is their "democratic" right and that they should be afforded the "inalienable" right to impose their morality (or lack thereof) on all others.
I find it sad that a price we pay to live in our free society is that we must tolerate the preaching of the false priests and Anti-Christs who are so intent on destroying the very thing that allows them to do so. We must tolerate the Nehors who endeavor to give the "masters" their "privileged" status, and then attempt to enforce it by the sword (despite it being the means to their own destruction). We must also tolerate the words of the Korihors, or Anti-Christs, who want nothing more than to eradicate the very system that gave them the freedom to act, and replace it with a system of masters and slaves, where a privileged few are afforded the "right" to determine what is good and what is evil.
I choose to keep our Judeo-Christian heritage a prominent part of our government and our society, because it is what gave us our freedom in the first place, and I want to keep it that way.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
My Personal Parenting Philosophy
"For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him."
I think that many people in Christianity forget how great a man Abraham was, and how much he influenced the world. Despite his example and influence I rarely hear people say, "Try to be more like Abraham, he was a good man." There were great promises made to Abraham and part of the restored gospel includes an understanding that the promises made to Abraham are available to us. What made Abraham worthy to receive these blessings is that he commanded "his children and his household after him", that "they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment".
That is something I want to emulate.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A Friend's Defense of Marriage
"Marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman since this country started. The big issue is that homosexuals are trying to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples. No one is blocking their right to marry someone of the opposite sex as marriage dictates, but their effort to confuse what marriage really is. If the definition of marriage is changed to include same sex couples, this form of marriage will be preached in our public schools and by our government as equal to heterosexual marriage. Adoption agencies will be forced to allow homosexual couples to adopt children, ministers of all religions would be forced to marry gay couples even though it is against their beliefs, and many other huge legal ramifications will come as a result.
Legalizing gay unions is also the same thing as gay marriage, except the term marriage is not used. Traditional marriages performed by the justice of the peace were and are still called civil unions. The only difference between a union and marriage is that in unions the court marries you and for marriages a minister marries you. Legislators try to sell the union idea because people are less shocked by the label then when marriage is used. They also try to sell the idea that if homosexual unions take place, without the marriage title, that It will insulates schools from preaching homosexual marriage, and preachers from having to marry homosexual couples by force of law. This may be true for now, but can you see how the line between unions and marriage almost doesn't exist? How long do you think it would be before that fussy line doesn't exist and unions turn into fully legally recognized marriage? True, it’s anyone’s guess, but do you want to take the chance that your kids or grandkids will be confused about what marriage they should have? Please let’s not let it get that far."
Monday, June 8, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 7, Water on Flowers
Sunday, June 7, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 6, Light Snowfall
I have used both of these as backgrounds for my computer at various times.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 5, Trees
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 4, Lakes
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Every Once in a While...
"Why is liberalism evil and conservatism good? There is no good or evil. That gives your arguments a religous tone that has no place being there. It is about freedom.
That is what this nation, and all of its greatness, is about at it's core.
It is not about good vs evil. Right vs Wrong. It is about free or slave.
Anyone can say that their own view is right and someone elses view is wrong, but to date..no one has proved it."
As in cases like this I really can't think of a good response to this comment. I think the comment itself does an adequate job of disproving itself. Despite that I would like to take a moment to point out that this comment does a perfect job at demonstrating the prevalence and pervasiveness of moral (and ethical relativism) in our current society. If this quote makes no sense to you it may be because you recognize that there is good and evil and that there is right and wrong. It is already hard enough to teach people what is right and what is wrong, but when they begin to deny that there is even right and wrong, then things become truly difficult.
Even in attempting to deny there is right and wrong, good and evil, the person making the comment gives a standard for good and evil, right and wrong. Thus we see the underlying problem of moral relativism, even by rejecting clear morals or any moral foundation they must put in its place some other moral standard, in this case freedom. Thus by rejecting all moral and ethical axioms they create a new one, that there should be no axioms. This logical inconsistency leads, or can lead to many problems. Anything that is inconsistent with reality can only bring trouble and heartache.
What I Like About the Earth: Part 3, Waterfalls
Monday, June 1, 2009
What I Like About the Earth: Part 2, Mountains
Our Mountain Home So Dear
Our mountain home so dear,
Where crystal waters clear
Flow ever free,
Flow ever free,
While thru the valleys wide
The flow’rs on ev’ry side,
Blooming in stately pride,
Are fair to see.
We’ll roam the verdant hills
And by the sparkling rills
Pluck the wildflow’rs,
Pluck the wildflow’rs;
The fragrance on the air,
The landscape bright and fair,
And sunshine ev’rywhere
Make pleasant hours.
In sylvan depth and shade,
In forest and in glade,
Where-e’er we pass,
Where-e’er we pass,
The hand of God we see
In leaf and bud and tree,
Or bird or humming bee,
Or blade of grass.
The streamlet, flow’r, and sod
Bespeak the works of God;
And all combine,
And all combine,
With most transporting grace,
His handiwork to trace,
Thru nature’s smiling face,
In art divine.
--Emmeline B. Wells