Cranial Collision

Video: AJ Heil's Story

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Earlier in the week, I introduced a story -- A story about how my life has been radically changed through a series of intense events that prompted me with the need to find meaning and purpose in life. Through those events, I was led to make some tough decisions that combined to build the foundation of who I am today, and how I live my life.

This video is an attempt to express that same message in a different and unique way. My hope is that this visual aid proves to be an avenue of communication that somehow surpasses the words that I have written, and that it embodies who I am and how I have changed in a practical way...

If you have the time and desire to learn more about my story, please take five minutes to watch the video above. While it is certainly not all-encompassing, and also seems somewhat awkward to me, I believe that it has importance and meaning for others outside of myself. It is a story of how God has changed my life in vivid ways, and a brief explanation of how everyone can have the new-found meaning and purpose that is now central to my life.

Feel free to use the comments section below to share your thoughts,
or post on the Facebook link/page if it is more convenient... We would love to hear from you!

~ AJ Heil ~

AJ Heil's Story: A Life Transformed

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:30:00 +0000

While it can be said in many Christian circles that I “accepted Christ into my life” at a young age, genuine understanding and real transformation did not occur until my late teenage years. My lifestyle throughout middleschool and highschool was not one that reflected Christ – I was an abusive, scornful individual that was filled with desires for all sorts of things: money, good jobs, relationships, approval, and performance in sports and academics. Although I would refer to myself as a “Christian”, I was not focused on my faith, and my relationship with God was certainly not my ultimate priority and purpose in life. My mind and character was riddled with pride, pornography, envy, and malice in some cases. While it may sound like an awful lifestyle – and it was – these were all natural products of a life that was enslaved to sin.

It wasn’t until graduating from high school and working my way into college that I truly began to realize the path that my life was on and the implications of my actions. Then, on a fall day in 2010, one of my friends and co-workers of three years committed suicide right at the beginning of my college career. It rocked my world. Someone that I had known so closely, that was so near to me in age and friendship, is now dead. He was only two years older than me, and now he is gone – “What did his life amount to?” This thought ran through my mind for what seemed like every moment of every day.

The biggest impact of this event in my life was the culmination, from his suicide and other life events, that I did not want to waste my life – especially because I did not know, and still do not know, how much of it I have left. This led me to begin searching for some significance in life – something that I could anchor myself in that would provide lasting meaning and purpose. On every occasion that I searched for purpose and meaning, even without realizing it sometimes, the answer always came back to this guy named Jesus who lived thousands of years ago. Furthermore, I was led to see that life was completely meaningless and purposeless without something eternal, and that that thing of lasting significance had to be rooted completely in the person and God of Jesus Christ. No religion, philosophy, or belief that I studied could compare to what He offered and how he offered it. It was the only logical and meaningful conclusion.

While I still had doubts, and some that remain with me today, that was when I chose to put my faith, hope, and trust in Jesus to get me through. I prayed to God, asking Him to forgive me and change my life in order that I might live with meaning and purpose – something that I knew only He could offer.

Even within a week, my life began to change dramatically! With a new-found realization of the importance of a relationship with God, my perspectives, actions, beliefs, and values all began to change in accordance with this new-found sense of worth and purpose in Jesus Christ. It was a radical change from someone that had been formerly focused on achieving what the world sees as success and a “good life.” Dedicating my life to Christ involved surrendering and becoming dependent on Him to get me through the good and the bad times. It was a point at which I chose to believe that God has a plan for my life and will use me in unique and powerful ways. The realization of God as a Savior that loves me and cares for my life, was and is the single most influential thing that has entered my life! Relationships that I thought had been completely lost and ruined, even with those who were once closest to me, were restored by the power of God! Reconciliation that I had never thought possible, with my mother and sister, happened in an incredible and magnificent way! Sinful patterns, such as lust, pride, seeking popularity, selfish actions, and abusive behavior, were completely eliminated or cut down. (This may all sound great, and it’s true, I’m not making it up!)

Before I knew it, I went from being an apathetic, self-centered “Christian”, into a passionate Christ-follower. To this day, I continue to seek the Lord with all of my heart and I realize that He is what gives my life meaning and purpose. While life is far from perfect, and actually much more challenging and difficult than before, I know that I can achieve great things and have everlasting life through my faith in Christ.

I have reached a point in which there is no turning back. No longer can I ever go back to my old lifestyle of sin and selfishness… I have felt and seen a true transformation of heart and mind – God has made me a new creation; a new person!

Defusing the Bomb of the Problem of Evil: Part 2: Central Argument

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 00:50:00 +0000

Creative Commons Photo Credit

Click here to read Part 1 of this essay.

In the above argument as detailed by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, only three of God’s characteristics are highlighted: omnipotence, omniscience, and his moral perfection. This is an overly simplistic view of God. People who make these arguments based on this portrayal of his attributes are attempting to put God in a box and confine him to their strict limitations and their personal ideas of who they think he is or who they think he should be. Based on what the Bible says, God is the exact opposite of a being that can be summed up in three short statements. God is infinite, and therefore he is infinitely complex and multifaceted, and he probably has an infinite number of characteristics. Whenever we think about God, we must try our best to consider all of the different aspects of his character. The index of Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology lists at least 44 different attributes--and that is still just a partial list (1278). For instance, consider God’s justice. The Bible clearly states that the evil in this world is a result of the fall of man, due to man’s free will. Adam and Eve sinned, and through them all mankind has sinned (Geisler 390). In Romans 5:12 we read, “When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned” (Holy Bible 1059). Since God is a just god, man is receiving and will receive his just recourse for sin: “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) (Holy Bible 1060). As a result of man’s sin, the formerly perfect creation has been indelibly marred. It is no longer the perfect Eden that God first created.

Now, the topic of free will is an intricate one and is difficult to fathom at the best of times, not to mention when it is muddled with talk of the existence of evil. It brings up an obvious question: “if God is omniscient, outside of time, and omnipotent, how can we possibly think we have free will?” I have written a detailed paper on this topic previously, so I will only touch on the issue here. In short, the existence of free will is mostly dependent upon what perspective the issue is examined from. If we look at our will from our own perspective, it sure looks like it is free and feels like it is free. We do not have the blueprint of our lives laid out in front of us, so we have to make choices: there is no way around it. Yes, God knows what we will do before we do it, and yes, God knows the entire course of human history, but since we as humans do not know what will happen, we live our lives with apparent free will. Wayne Grudem puts it this way: “. . .we are nonetheless free in the greatest sense that any creature of God could be free—we make willing choices, choices that have real effects. We are aware of no restraints on our will from God when we make decisions” (331). As a result, God can hold us accountable for those choices. He has to hold us accountable for those choices because he is a just God.

In regards to this discussion of good and evil and free will, Geisler and Turek add a great point:

"My point is not the degree of evil, but the source of evil. The source of evil is our free choice. If God were to do away with evil, then he would have to do away with free choice. And if he did away with our free choice, we would no longer have the ability to love or do good. This would no longer be a moral world. (390)"

This is worth considering. In order for morality and good to exist, evil must exist as its necessary counterpart. For one to know what the good is, there has to be evil to contrast it against. In the same way, for one to know what light is like, one would have to have had an experience of darkness. As Iris Murdoch put it: “If there is to be morality, there cannot altogether be an end to evil. Discord is essential to goodness” (741).

Finally, when stating a deductive argument, it is critical to list all of the premises, including ones that might not be obvious. As I stated earlier, there is a premise in the argument against the existence of God based on the problem of evil as delineated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that was not stated. After number 4, this premise should be added: “If God has the desire to eliminate all evil, then he has the desire to eliminate all evil immediately.” It must be added because proponents of this argument seem to think that because they see evil still rampant in the world and that it has not been dealt with and that it is not being dealt with visibly, that that means that it will never be dealt with. I contest this unstated premise. The Bible clearly teaches that God will bring an end to evil’s reign on this earth. As Geisler and Turek put it, “Just because God hasn’t ended evil yet doesn’t mean that he never will end it” (Geisler 390). The entirety of scripture revolves around what theologians refer to as “the plan of redemption.” Man introduced sin and perversion into God’s perfect creation, but God was not content with throwing up his hands and leaving the world in its sorry state. Instead, according to the Bible, he is in the process of redeeming it and making it more glorious than it ever was before! In response to Murdoch’s conundrum about the necessity of evil for the existence of morality and goodness, the Bible does not teach that all who have done evil will be eradicated and will cease to be. Instead, it teaches that those who have sinned, and have not repented and accepted the free gift of forgiveness offered by Jesus Christ through his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection, will be locked away in hell for all eternity. The dichotomy will still exist, but the war will be over.

The problem of evil has weighed heavily on theologians and philosophers for thousands of years. Books have been written on this topic and many of the other topics that I addressed in this paper. While I do not think I have delivered the definitive answer to the problem of evil in this short paper, I believe I have provided valid points for consideration. Many people trying to argue against the existence of God utilizing this argument are presenting a false view of God by not considering some of his other characteristics that apply to this discussion. When trying to analyze God’s character and when critiquing what he should or should not be doing, at the very least we should try to take into account all of his characteristics. But in reality, for any mortal, finite being to make a claim about what God should or should not do is rather preposterous. As mere mortals, we cannot even begin to fathom the immensity and complexity of a being that has not known a beginning, a being that has existed for all eternity and that will continue to exist for all eternity. We are talking about a being that is infinitely powerful, a being that could wipe the entire physical universe as we know it from existence with less than a word. We are talking about a being that knows our thoughts before we even think them. As it is written in Isaiah 40:13, “Who is able to advise the Spirit of the LORD? Who knows enough to give him advice or teach him?” (Holy Bible 669). Some might claim that this is a cop out, but I think that it is a very valid point both theologically and philosophically. When compared with the majesty and magnitude of such a being, such a God, one might wonder who we are to even ask these questions about him?

Works Cited
Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004. Print.
Gould, Stephen Jay. “Nonmoral Nature.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 638-648. Print.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
Koepsell, David. “Peter Hare And The Problem Of Evil.” Transactions Of The Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal In American Philosophy 46.1 (2010): 53-59. Philosophers Index. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
Murdoch, Iris. “Morality and Religion.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 733-741. Print.
“The Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Phil

Reflections on Good Friday (2012)

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:38:00 +0000

Today is a day that is used to annually commemorate the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.

As I reflect on that solemn day in history, I cannot help but recognize and stand in awe of the transformative influence that Jesus' life, death, and resurrection has had on history; and, surpassing all other thoughts, the effect that His life has had on eternity.

Even though there are many people that could and will read this that do not believe Christ was and is God, Savior of all, we can all gain a deeper understanding of life, eternity, and history by taking this time to reflect on...

Who was Jesus?
What was the significance and meaning of Jesus Christ's life and mission?
Why did he die?... And why did he die so willingly?
How has he impacted history?
How has Jesus impacted our lives? (Spiritually, and even culturally)
What is the modern significance and meaning of Jesus' life, death,
and resurrection?

How does this man named Jesus apply to my life here and now?

1) One of the most relevant things that I can encourage you to do is to read 1 Corinthians 15 either today or this weekend. This writing provides one of the very best reflections on Jesus' death and resurrection and is a perfect transition from thinking about Good Friday to understanding and cherishing the totality of his defeat of death which we typically celebrate during this time of Easter.

2) The second thing that I would like to encourage you to do is to take a look at this blog post briefly, and accept this challenge to spend some time watching the Good Friday Film on the Mars Hill Church website. If you can find the spare minutes, I think it is well worth the time to watch, reflect, and think on this production:

"'Good Friday' is the most theologically-based modern film that has been produced attempting to show God's bloody sacrifice presented to serve as payment for our sins and shortcomings. It took 3 months to film and finish the the production of this movie on sets in Hollywood."

Thank you for taking this time to reflect on Good Friday with me.

I hope that you accept at least one of the two challenges listed above as it will certainly increase each of our understandings of Good Friday, Jesus, and his death and resurrection.

~ AJ Heil ~

Defusing the Bomb of the Problem of Evil: Part 1: Opposing Argument and Preview

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:00:00 +0000

Creative Commons Photo Credit.

The problem of evil: it is a topic that has haunted theologians and bolstered the faith of atheists for centuries.

In his introduction to “Nonmoral Nature,” Stephen Jay Gould references this exact problem. For his purposes, he puts a naturalistic spin on it. Gould writes, “If God is benevolent and the Creation displays his ‘power, wisdom, and goodness,’ then why are we surrounded with pain, suffering, and apparently senseless cruelty in the animal world?” (638) Gould then proceeds to defuse “the problem” by arguing that nature is actually “nonmoral.”

As a result, the problem of evil does not apply to nature. In this paper I am going to tackle a grander sense of “the problem of evil.” I will address it primarily as it relates to human pain and suffering in this world.

With the removal of the animal kingdom, the overarching problem is stated a slightly different way. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the argument can be concisely stated thus:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

Most of the arguments against the existence of God from the problem of evil follow this general form, or at least a portion of this argument. Many arguments given only address some of these premises or simply seek to flesh out a specific point with eloquent rhetoric and argumentation. For instance, many arguments only utilize premises 2, 4, 5, and 7.

Despite the fact that I will not explicitly address many intricate articles against my position, the fact that I am attempting to combat this seven-premise deductive argument instead of an argument that can be simplified into just three or four points is, frankly, rather bold. Also, by not countering any one article in an overly-involved way, my argument will hopefully avoid being sidetracked by minutiae that are not of vital importance. Instead, I will attempt to deal with the most crucial issues at hand.

This argument is usually used, as line 7 indicates, to attempt to prove that God does not exist. In our western culture, this argument is almost always used in an attempt to specifically disprove the existence of the Christian God of the Bible. At certain points it could apply to different ideas of god in different religions, but in this paper I will focus specifically on how it applies to the Christian God.

Discussions about the existence of God can be very complex and can take several different forms. The study of apologetics seeks to give evidence for the existence of God from science and textual criticism, thereby seeking to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt. Apologetics attempts to start from nothing and build to the conclusion that God exists.

The problem of evil argument presented above is a different type of argument altogether. Instead of the atheist walking up to the Christian and saying, “prove that God exists,” the atheist is instead trying to disprove the Christian position. With the problem of evil, atheists are taking a deconstructive approach to the worldview of Christianity.

When talking about the book Evil and the Concept of God by Peter Hare and Edward Madden, David Koepsell put it this way: “They argue that the problem of evil, which allows for the continued existence of prima facie gratuitous evil which does not become resolved in the world shows an impermissible deficiency, rather than a permissible mystery or paradox” (55).

Through the presentation of this problem, atheists are seeking to point out a major contradiction in some of the most foundational doctrines that Christians adhere to. They are essentially trying to destroy Christianity from the inside out. The grounds for this argument against God are not scientific in nature—they are theological and philosophical. As a result, I think it is highly appropriate to draw on the Biblical texts as a means of understanding what exactly the Christian conception of God is. Since it is a primarily theological argument, I will provide a primarily theological response.

Over the course of this essay, I will argue that one of the main issues is that the problem of evil presents an overly simplistic view of the Christian God’s character, and that there are many more of his characteristics that come into play when we discuss the topic of evil. I will also argue that while this seems like a valid, deductive argument at first glance, there is an unstated premise that has not been included. Specifically, after 4, there should be another premise that reads: “If God has the desire to eliminate all evil, then he has the desire to eliminate all evil immediately.” I will also argue that the existence of evil is a necessary condition for the existence of the world that we live in.

Click here to read Part 2 of the essay.

Works Cited
Geisler, Norman L., and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004. Print.
Gould, Stephen Jay. “Nonmoral Nature.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 638-648. Print.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
Koepsell, David. “Peter Hare And The Problem Of Evil.” Transactions Of The Charles S. Peirce Society: A Quarterly Journal In American Philosophy 46.1 (2010): 53-59. Philosophers Index. Web. 21 Feb. 2012.
Murdoch, Iris. “Morality and Religion.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 733-741. Print.
“The Problem of Evil.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford.edu, 21 Aug. 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2012.

Viral Video: Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:00:00 +0000

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Spoken Word

Spoken Word Lyrics (source: http://rapgenius.com/):

"Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus"

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion
What if I told you voting Republican really wasn't His mission?
What if I told you republican doesn't automatically mean Christian
And just because you call some people blind doesn't automatically give you vision

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars
Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor
Tells single moms God doesn't love them if they've ever had a divorce
But in the Old Testament, God actually calls religious people whores

Religion might preach grace, but another thing they practice
Tend to ridicule God's people, they did it to John The Baptist
They can't fix their problems, and so they just mask it
Not realizing religion's like spraying perfume on a casket
See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core
It's just behavior modification, like a long list of chores
Like lets dress up the outside make look nice and neat
But it's funny that's what they use to do to mummies while the corpse rots underneath

Now I ain't judging, I'm just saying quit putting on a fake look
Cause there's a problem if people only know you're a Christian by your Facebook
I mean in every other aspect of life, you know that logic's unworthy
It's like saying you play for the Lakers just because you bought a jersey
You see this was me too, but no one seemed to be on to me
Acting like a church kid, while addicted to pornography
See on Sunday I'd go to church, but Saturday getting faded
Acting if I was simply created just to have sex and get wasted
See I spent my whole life building this facade of neatness
But now that I know Jesus, I boast in my weakness

Because if grace is water, then the church should be an ocean
It's not a museum for good people, it's a hospital for the broken
Which means I don't have to hide my failure, I don't have to hide my sin
Because it doesn't depend on me it depends on him
See because when I was God's enemy and certainly not a fan
He looked down and said I want, that, man
Which is why Jesus hated religion, and for it he called them fools
Don't you see so much better than just following some rules
Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the bible, and yes I believe in sin
But if Jesus came to your church would they actually let him in
See remember he was called a glutton, and a drunkard by religious men
But the son of God never supports self righteousness not now, not then

Now back to the point, one thing is vital to mention
How Jesus and religion are on opposite spectrum
See one's the work of God, but one's a man made invention
See one is the cure, but the other's the infection
See because religion says do, Jesus says done
Religion says slave, Jesus says son
Religion puts you in bondage, while Jesus sets you free
Religion makes you blind, but Jesus makes you see
And that's why religion and Jesus are two different clans

Religion is man searching for God, Christianity is God searching for man
Which is why salvation is freely mine, and forgiveness is my own
Not based on my merits but Jesus's obedience alone
Because he took the crown of thorns, and the blood dripped down his face
He took what we all deserved, I guess that's why you call it grace
And while being murdered he yelled
"Father forgive them they know not what they do."
Because when he was dangling on that cross, he was thinking of you
And he absorbed all of your sin, and buried it in the tomb
Which is why I'm kneeling at the cross, saying come on there's room
So for religion, no I hate it, in fact I literally resent it
Because when Jesus said it is finished, I believe he meant it

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This man certainly has some strong convictions and thoughts to share.

What do you think of this video and its message?
Do his thoughts stand up to and reflect Biblical teachings and the message of the Gospel?

We would love to hear your input and you can share with us and others by leaving a comment below or on the Facebook link for this blog-post.

Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave": Philosopher Kings and Philosophy Gone Wrong, Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:59:00 +0000

Plato

Click here to read Part 1.

He then makes a significant transition from this hypothetical example by claiming that it applies to real life. Plato begins to make this transition on page 453 when he writes, “this entire allegory, I said, you may now append, dear Glaucon, to the previous argument.”

Plato is involving a little bit of trickery here by convincing the readers with the allegory and then leaping into his real agenda with how we should view the world and the state, using the allegory as the foundation for it. He is basically using an ancient version of the bait-and-switch scam. He baits us by using a plausible hypothetical allegory and switches by diving into his philosophical agenda without giving logical reasons for the transition.

This piece is not a hard-and-fast philosophical argument. It is an allegory, a hypothetical situation, an illustration at best. In order to assert that the allegory relates directly to real life, Plato should have given us some concrete evidence for that transition. A true philosophical argument is built upon a priori logic and reasoning, and potentially empirical fact.

A true argument is built by presenting specific reasons for believing X (his assertions about the state). Plato could have said, “I believe X on the basis of A and B.” Instead, he says, “Assume A. If A, then B. B equates to R, where R is real life. If B, then X.” The issue with the argumentation is that he does not give us reasons--empirical, a priori, or otherwise--to believe that B equates to R. In order to find this argument convincing, we should require Plato to provide additional reasons C and D to show that the move “B equates to R” is justified. So while “The Allegory of the Cave” might give evidence for what he is talking about, it is by no means a solid argument that an entire metaphysical and epistemological view of the world should be based off of.

There are additional ways in which the real-life application of the allegory breaks down. Plato does not take the time to tell us how some of the specific items in the allegory translate to real life. In the allegory, the prisoners were restrained in such a way that they could not deduce the truth of their circumstances.

Plato says that most people live in such a way, but he does not specify how exactly they are restrained. Apparently, they must be able to seek the light in some way because one man is able to do so.

Plato does not answer several obvious questions: Why are others not able to do the same thing? Who was the first person to reach true enlightenment? Is achieving enlightenment a one-time event: do you understand the true world of the forms and then have a true understanding of all knowledge?

Also, the allegory seems patently unrelated to issues of the state. “The Allegory of the Cave” discusses enlightenment and the search for knowledge, by Plato’s own admission. Yet he wants to take the allegory and make specific applications in regards to government and politics. While this makes sense as far as philosophers and enlightenment are concerned, it does not seem to bear directly on the issues that he wish it would.

“The Allegory of the Cave” is an important text that still has the potential to stimulate introspection about our nation, the world, and the nature of reality even in the year 2012. However, it is far from a conclusive argument for “the world of forms.” Plato has a very specific rhetorical purpose and target audience, and he uses a somewhat devious rhetorical strategy to attempt to sway them to his viewpoint. Despite a convincing analogy, the leap from the analogy to the practical life applications is largely unwarranted. If Plato was to make “The Allegory of the Cave” a truly effective argument, he should have given us some sort of concrete reasons to think that his transition was warranted.

Works Cited

Plato. “The Allegory of the Cave.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2010. 449-457. Print.

Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave”: Philosopher Kings and Philosophy Gone Wrong, Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Plato

Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” is a pivotal philosophic text for many reasons. One of the primary reasons that it is so monumental is that Plato addresses so many different areas of philosophy in this one piece: epistemology, metaphysics, asceticism, ethics, and more.

Due to the import of “The Allegory,” writers have been analyzing it for well over 2,000 years. Some have interpreted it to have one meaning, others, another.

As we seek to understand exactly what Plato was seeking to accomplish with his allegory and subsequent analysis, we must think about the argument he was trying to make, and whether or not he was successful. As I will point out, the connection between his allegory and his analysis is quite tremulous.

It is important to realize that “The Allegory of the Cave” is just a small part of a larger work: The Republic. In The Republic, Plato attempts to communicate what he views as the ideal government. As he progresses through The Republic, he is trying to provide evidence for all of his positions and his thoughts on government.

His end goal with “The Allegory of the Cave” is to convince the readers that politicians should not want to rule and lead for the sake of power, but they should rather not want to lead at all. Instead, they should only lead out of compassion for those who are unenlightened: people who are like the prisoners in his allegory.

But why are the rulers the enlightened ones? In Plato’s theoretical world, Kallipolis (the ideal city) is ruled by philosopher kings, as they are the only ones qualified and enlightened enough to make decisions of such magnitude. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and yearn for true understanding, and in Plato’s view rulers must also love wisdom and yearn for true understanding in order to rule fairly and intelligently.

Whether the philosopher becomes a ruler or the ruler philosophizes does not matter. In the ideal world, all kings are philosophers, says Plato. “The Allegory of the Cave” and the following argumentation is supposed to support this broader argument: that some people truly are enlightened and see things “ten thousand times better than the inhabitants of the den,” and that those people who see so much better are the ones that should be ruling the country (456).

Since philosophers were the most enlightened of all people, and since Plato wants them to take on the role of rulers and to rule with compassion, Plato specifically targets them with this allegory. In the actually writing, Socrates addresses Glaucon, a student of his that he presumably is trying to lead to enlightenment. Socrates is acting exactly like one of the people in the allegory that he shares who has gone up to the light and returned to help other people reach true understanding.

However, Plato is not writing to people like Glaucon. I think he is writing to people much more similar to himself and to Socrates. He is saying to fellow philosophers that they should be like Socrates and be the people that return to the darkness to help others see the light. They should not be satisfied with just enjoying their understanding, but should rather seek to help others achieve understanding too. On page 452, Plato says that philosophers who are enlightened will most likely remember their old friends in the cave and “felicitate [themselves] on the change, and pity them.” While Plato is saying that this is what they will likely do, he is also saying that they should want to do this, too.

In order to convince his audience of the above points, Plato presents his inherently logical allegory first, expecting the reader to agree with him. Indeed, one of the primary strengths in “The Allegory of the Cave” is Plato’s language and logic.

He layers his arguments one on top of the other to create a mighty tower of argumentation that is tough to crack. He does this by thinking of all possible angles and objections as he builds his story. For instance, the prisoners have always been in the cave, they have always been shackled, and they have never been able to look around. In this hypothetical situation, all of what Plato says will bear out.

At times it seems obvious that Glaucon just has to agree with Socrates. While this is an allegory, all of Plato’s assumptions and examples seem very plausible and intuitive As far as the allegory itself is concerned, Plato has considered all of the angles and the possible objections.

Click here to continue reading with Part 2.

Works Cited

Plato. “The Allegory of the Cave.” A World of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writers. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Bedford/St. Martin’s: Boston, 2010. 449-457. Print.

Internet Censorship in Schools Is Hindering Student Success

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:43:00 +0000

“Look up some porn.”

“What?”

“Go to a porn site!”

“I don’t know any porn sites,” was my response to the order from my high school principal to ogle nude women. Perhaps a bit of context might be appropriate.

During my senior year of high school, the IT department decided to install an internet filter that could not be easily circumvented by the students, unlike the previous one. All information in and out of the building was strictly controlled, and there was no way around it. Well, almost no way. I did my research and discovered a method of circumventing their expensive, new filter. When they found out a few months later, they were not happy.

As a senior with several study hall periods per day, I did what all seniors did: I surfed the Internet on the library computers. Except, unlike most seniors, I had something I wanted to accomplish. I was, and still am, a writer, and I wanted to use my free time in the library to work on writing posts for my blog and spreading those posts via social media. However, the government had decided that anything that was classified as a “blog” could not contain any valuable information and could not possibly be a good use of student time.

How the government decided that blogs are not educational, I do not know. Nowadays, blogs are one of the biggest sources of information on the Internet: some of the biggest websites in the world are blogs or are blog-driven. There has even been an interest in many school systems, complete with academic studies, to incorporate blogging into the classroom as a learning tool. Yet my high school had censored all websites labeled as “blogs and blogging.”

Why does the government feel they have the right to censor social media sites as well? Assuming that students could not possibly use social media in an intentional way is insulting, and it restricts the creativity and innovation of students. With business and marketing on social media sites exploding in this digital age, censoring them in school is not helping students succeed.

As someone who now makes his living as a blogger and Social Media Coordinator, I continue to succeed despite my high school education, not because of it. If we want our students to be able to learn and adapt in this new digital era, our public schools must stop this backwards-looking censorship and learn to embrace the Internet and all of the opportunities it provides.

Ten Ways to Love

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:30:00 +0000

1) Listen Without Interrupting

"To answer before listening—that is folly and shame."

Proverbs 18:13

2) Speak Without Accusing

"My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires."

James 1:19-20

3) Give Without Sparing

"All day long he craves for more, but the righteous give without sparing."

Proverbs 21:26

4) Pray Without Ceasing

"For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding."

Colossians 1:9

"Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus."

1 Thessalonians 5:16-18

5) Answer Without Arguing

"Better a dry crust with peace and quiet than a house full of feasting, with strife."

Proverbs 17:1

"Better a meal of vegetables where there is love than a fattened calf with hatred."

Proverbs 15:17

6) Share Without Pretending

"Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ."

Ephesians 4:15

"In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Acts 20:35

7) Enjoy Without Complaining

"Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.”Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. And then I will be able to boast on the day of Christ that I did not run or labor in vain."

Philippians 2:14-16

8) Trust Without Wavering

"Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

1 Corinthians 13:7

9) Forgive Without Punishing

"Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."

Colossians 3:13

10) Promise Without Forgetting

"Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life."

Proverbs 13:12

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

Matthew 5:33-37

Strengths and Weaknesses of Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave”

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:27:00 +0000

Creative commons photo credit: matthewvenn

The following was written as a short assignment in my Advanced Composition course.

Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” is a pivotal philosophic text for many reasons. One of the primary reasons that it is so monumental is that Plato addresses so many different areas of philosophy in this one piece: epistemology, metaphysics, ethics, and more. Despite the fact that this piece has had a massive impact down to our present day, it is by no means free from weaknesses. In this short essay I will discuss the many strengths and some of the serious weakness of “The Cave.”

One of the primary strengths is Plato’s language and logic. He layers his arguments one on top of the other to create a mighty tower of argumentation that is tough to crack. At times it seems obvious that Glaucon just has to agree with Socrates.

While this is an allegory, all of Plato’s assumptions and examples seem at least plausible. As far as the allegory itself is concerned, Plato has considered all of the angles and the possible objections. For instance, the prisoners have always been in the cave, they have always been shackled, and they have never been able to look around. In this hypothetical situation, all of what Plato says will bear out.

However, there are some serious issues. Plato takes his allegory to be more than an allegory, but a fact of how we live our lives. On page 454 of the text, he writes, “our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already. . . .”

I believe that Plato is mistaken. This piece is not a hard-and-fast philosophical argument. It is an allegory, a hypothetical situation, an illustration at best. While this illustration might give evidence for what he is talking about, it is by no means a solid argument that an entire metaphysical and epistemological view of the world should be based off of.

While at times Glaucon must agree with Socrates’s reasoning, he does not need to bend over and take a beating at every juncture. Glaucon should stand up to Socrates at many points in the text, particularly the one highlighted above.

While Plato builds a strong hypothetical situation, the jump to real life application is like a leap across the Grand Canyon. How does he know that most people are like the chained prisoners in the cave? I can think of reasons why he might think that, arguments he could give, but the fact is that Plato does not provide any reasons. He simply assumes that we, like Glaucon, agree that most people are simply looking at shadows, and that philosophers need to show them the light.

Let us disregard the people and take on the topic of the whole world: how can Plato just assume that we will agree with him that this world is like the cave, and there is another above it with grander things? He might be playing on the Greek conception of the afterlife and the gods, but it is unclear.

In conclusion, this is an important text that still has the potential to stimulate introspection about our nation and the world even in the year 2012. However, it is far from a conclusive argument for “the world of forms.”

Life as a Vapor: Marcella of Rome

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000

Marcella had an enviable life as the daughter of a prominent Roman family who married a wealthy man. But less than a year after her wedding, her husband died. She was given a chance to continue living in wealth when she was proposed to by the wealthy consul Cerealis. She chose instead to convert her mansion into one of the earliest communities of women, where she and other noblewomen formed a group known as the "Brown Dress Society" and used their riches to help the poor. Marcella said she preferred to, “store her money in the stomachs of the needy than hide it in a purse.” In 410, when the Goths invaded Rome, they broke into Marcella’s home. When they demanded money, she calmly responded that she had no riches because she had given all to the poor. Though she was an elderly woman, they beat and tortured her mercilessly. Her attackers were eventually shamed by her piety and she was released.

Marcella of Rome (325-410), Widow

Near the end of her life, she wrote "By heaven’s grace, captivity has found me a poor woman, not made me one. Now I shall go in want of daily bread, but I shall not feel hunger since I am full of Christ."

Source of article and summary: http://commonprayer.net/yesterday

The Pursuit of Imperfect Happiness: Part 4

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:08:00 +0000

The following is the final segment of an essay that I wrote for my 4000 level Topics in Philosophy class: "Happiness and Suffering."

Click here to read part 3.

Since I think that this pursuit and use of spiritual gifts does justice to the philosophers that I have been examining in this paper, specifically Aquinas and Haybron, I will spend the remainder of the paper discussing spiritual gifting and some of its applications to happiness. This will in no way be an exhaustive treatment of spiritual gifts. Instead, it will be a cursory introduction. As I mentioned above, a belief in our own inability to reconcile ourselves to God and an acceptance of Jesus’s blood and his work on the cross in order to reconcile us to God is a prerequisite for an understanding of spiritual gifts. In this way, my view is completely in line with Aquinas’s view.

As defined by Wayne Grudem in his Systematic Theology, “A spiritual gift is any ability that is empowered by the Holy Spirit and used in any ministry of the church” (1016). The range of spiritual gifts is quite vast, and it can be very difficult to say exactly how many there are. There are six specific passages in the New Testament that list spiritual gifts, but none of them are designed to be a comprehensive list (Grudem 1019). Many of the lists have gifts that overlap, and yet many have gifts that are unique only to that specific list. Grudem has collected a list of 22 gifts that are named explicitly, and they include: “apostle, prophet, teacher, miracles, kinds of healings, helps, administration, tongues, word of wisdom, word of knowledge, faith, distinguishing between spirits, interpretation of tongues, evangelist, pastor-teacher, serving, contributing, leadership, mercy, marriage, and celibacy” (1020). Grudem adds, “Another reason for thinking that Paul could have made much longer lists if he had wanted to is the fact that some of the gifts listed will have many different expressions as they are found in different people” (1021).

As we can see, there are any number of different spiritual gifts, and they can be applied in all sorts of different contexts and ways. However, does a person have their spiritual gift stamped on their forehead by God when they become a Christian? No. Discovering one’s spiritual gift or gifts is a process that requires introspection and experimentation on the way to self-discovery. It is a long process that can sometimes take a lifetime, and it is entirely possible that one never truly understands the extent of his or her gifting. This unique gifting and the application of those gifts is very internally dependent, and is very reminiscent of what Haybron refers to in his concept of self-fulfillment. It also reminds me of his implicit claim that a person can fail to discover her true self: what would make her truly happy (181).

However, this pursuit of spiritual gifts as the means to imperfect happiness in this life is guaranteed to be more successful with the presence of the infinite in this pursuit as compared to Haybron’s. As I discussed above and as Aquinas also affirms, only an infinite God can satisfy all human thirsts and longings and provide true happiness. And while perfect happiness is only attainable in the afterlife once we are with God, imperfect happiness is the beginning of that perfect happiness. The key to imperfect happiness, then, rests in discovering one’s spiritual gifts and then using them to the glory of God.

The study of happiness is messy. Many philosophers such as Daniel M. Haybron try to define terms without any room for misinterpretation and attempt to set up differences and delineations between different ideas, yet so many of these terms resist definitions and there is so much crossover above the boundaries that these philosophers try to erect. There is one important distinction that Haybron fails to recognize, and that is the distinction between perfect happiness and imperfect happiness. Thankfully, Thomas Aquinas sheds some light on the topic with his considerable body of work. Since perfect happiness is only achievable in the next life when we are finally with our infinite God, it makes sense that imperfect happiness is the one primarily addressed in philosophical literature. In pursuit of imperfect happiness, Haybron’s move to self-fulfillment from Aristotle’s nature-fulfillment was a wise one. However, the infinite is still required for our desires to be satisfied, for us to experience real happiness. As a result, the best way to achieve imperfect happiness in this life is through the discovery of and use of our spiritual gifts. This keeps our eyes on perfect happiness, and also brings the infinite to bear in our daily lives, instead of muddling about futilely on our own. While the study of happiness may be messy, it is an important one, as there are few ends in human life that are as basic as happiness.

Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Print.
Haybron, Daniel M. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
McGill, V.J. The Idea of Happiness. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Print.
Reginster, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.

Editorial on College Merger

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:36:00 +0000

My school, North Georgia College and State University, is in the process of merging with another nearby school, Gainesville State College. While everyone else is boo-hooing the entire process, I decided to write an editorial for my college newspaper arguing the other way.

In my article entitled "GSC and NGCSU Were Already Closely Tied; Why not Merge?" I examine the facts and apply sound reasoning to argue that this merger isn't nearly as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. In fact, it might be a good thing.

If you are interested in reading it, click on over to The Saint and examine the reasoning behind this argument.

The Pursuit of Imperfect Happiness: Part 3

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:26:00 +0000

The following is an essay that I wrote for my 4000 level Topics in Philosophy class: "Happiness and Suffering." I have split it up into several pieces and will be publishing it here on Cranial Collision over the next week or two.

Click here to read part 2.

Before I address the issues with Haybron’s concept of self-fulfillment, I do want to acknowledge the fact that his move from Aristotle’s broad nature-fulfillment to a narrower self-fulfillment was a wise one. Haybron spends the entirety of chapter 8 in his book The Pursuit of Unhappiness developing this transition, but I think there are a few critical points which he makes that can illuminate the transition for us in a few short sentences. On page 157 he writes, “. . .what counts toward my well-being must not depend on what any other individual, or group or class of individuals—actual or hypothetical—is like.” Later on 168 he adds, “The perfectionist’s fundamental mistake lies in not recognizing that well-being is what we might call a success value: it concerns the success of an organism in achieving its goals.” By perfection, Haybron is of course referring to Aristotle’s nature-fulfillment: becoming the perfect example of the human race.

Based on the above quotations, I take Haybron to be essentially saying that it seems highly unlikely that every single person could achieve happiness and well-being by striving to achieve perfection as a human being. We are all so different from each other: is there any way that every single one of us can be made happy by achieving the same thing, namely reasoning well, according to Aristotle? Haybron writes, “There is indeed something appealing about the idea that goodness in a lion consists in perfecting its nature qua lion. But is it so obvious that lion well-being consists in being a good lion, or in the exercise of liony excellence?” (174-175) He does not completely reject perfection, though. He admits that it is, in fact, necessary for the good life. He simply denies that it constitutes well-being and happiness. He concludes by saying, “But it seems more plausible to say that perfection matters, period—whether it benefits us or not” (175).

In his discussion of self-fulfillment in chapter 9, Haybron is not even claiming that fulfilling one’s emotional nature is what would really make one happy. Instead, he seems to be proposing that it would only make one happier. However, the mere fact that he is not even worried about long-term happiness in this life seems problematical.

In the case of Henry’s occupation, farming versus the train shop, it seems likely that at some point even the train shop will become dull and common place to Henry. While it might be something new and exciting at first, and it may seem like it more closely fulfills Henry’s nature, after doing the same thing day after day and year after year, it seems likely that he will get so accustomed to the routine that it could even become monotonous. Nothing can stay fresh and exciting forever, no matter how interesting and how stimulating it might be. This is the problem of boredom that Nietzsche references (however, I will leave Nietzsche and his will to power out of it) (Reginster). For some reason, Haybron seems satisfied with this short-lived version of imperfect happiness, but it does not seem logical for him to be. I think that Haybron should have pursued the topic further, that he should have dug deeper and analyzed harder.

Haybron’s concept of self-fulfillment seems accurate as discussed two paragraphs above, but his analysis of how to go about this self-fulfillment is flawed based on the reasoning directly above. Based on Aquinas’s analysis, the best way to achieve imperfect happiness in this life is linked in part to the anticipation of perfect happiness in the next life. Specifically, the achievement of somewhat long-term imperfect happiness is still dependent on God (McGill 84). As McGill writes, “Aquinas assures us [that] the gifts of the Holy Ghost that are necessary for salvation can also have the effect of increasing imperfect happiness on earth. And the beatitudes also promote perfection, and thus prepare the individual for happiness both here and hereafter” (83-84). Further down the page McGill draws on Augustine as well as Aquinas when he says:

"That happiness on earth is an imperfect image and a preparation for happiness in heaven is expressed in another way. Augustine repeatedly says that no happiness is possible in this life save for the hope for it in the next. Aquinas also remarks that “one is said to possess [happiness] already, when one hopes to possess it,” but he is far from maintaining that hope for future happiness, though important, is the whole of our earthly happiness." (84)

To even more explicitly affirm the connection that Aquinas wants to forge between happiness in this world and happiness in the world to come, McGill writes, “Happiness in heaven, after all, has its beginnings in the happiness here on earth, where the soul may be drawn toward God or weighed down by the body” (89). Based on the reasoning presented by Aquinas, Augustine, and McGill, the pursuit of happiness in this world should be centered in some way around God’s ultimately-satisfying infinite nature.

However, Haybron’s move from Aristotle’s nature-fulfillment perfection to self-fulfillment is still quite valid. It naturally follows that the principle of what self-fulfillment looks like is indeed internal while the overall governing concept is objective. But how does this relate to Aquinas’s view? I believe that I found the key in one of the lines quoted above: “Aquinas assures us [that] the gifts of the Holy Ghost that are necessary for salvation can also have the effect of increasing imperfect happiness on earth” (83-84). While yes, this does relate to the anticipation of perfect happiness in the life to come based on the assurance of salvation in Jesus, I think that the application of the other spiritual gifts in this life, those not essential to salvation, would in fact increase one’s happiness based on the service, love, and adoration of an infinite God. Due to the fact that not everyone has the same spiritual gifts and that many people seem destined for a specific purpose or purposes, it seems logical that the process of discovering one’s unique spiritual gifting, understanding where to use it, and applying it to the glory and honor of an infinite God in anticipation of perfect happiness in the life to come would be the best possible way to maximize imperfect happiness in this current life. This view gives significant credence to the important distinction between perfect happiness and imperfect happiness, the move from an externalist view to an internalist view, as well as the requisite objectivity.

Click here to read part 4.

Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Print.
Haybron, Daniel M. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
McGill, V.J. The Idea of Happiness. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Print.
Reginster, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.

The Pursuit of Imperfect Happiness: Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:14:00 +0000

The following is an essay that I wrote for my 4000 level Topics in Philosophy class: "Happiness and Suffering." I have split it up into several pieces and will be publishing it here on Cranial Collision over the next week or two.

Click here to read part 1.

Aquinas goes on to set up a distinction between “imperfect happiness” and “perfect happiness.” He says that imperfect happiness is the kind achievable in this world, and that perfect happiness is the kind that is only achievable by being with God and knowing him in the afterlife (81). “Aquinas argues” that “perfect happiness, or ultimate felicity, cannot consist in moral actions,” because “actions cannot be properly attributed to God, whereas happiness can,” among other reasons (80-81). Only “knowledge of that which is above the human intellect can perfect it directly, not through participation in something higher, and here then must lie man’s ultimate felicity” (81).

He points out that Aristotle does not deal with this sort of perfect happiness at all, and that he is completely concerned with imperfect happiness in his Nicomachean Ethics (81). In a way, it would make sense for Aristotle to only be concerned with this sort of happiness, because this is the only sort of happiness that man has the possibility to influence positively or negatively in this life. The same could be said of Haybron: one could say that he is only concerned with this sort of imperfect happiness because it is the only happiness worth worrying about.

Or is it? Bringing the importance of perfect happiness in the afterlife to the forefront of people’s minds could radically impact the way they go about their daily lives and view their current “imperfect” happiness. Achieving imperfect happiness might not be nearly as important. Making sure that their levels of attunement, engagement, and endorsement are appropriate would not be nearly as important as making sure that their spiritual lives were on track, although perhaps their spiritual lives would indeed factor in to psychic affirmation in some way. They may also be much more willing to accept suffering if it was a means to the end of achieving perfect happiness. While this is undoubtedly not what Nietzsche had in mind with his revaluation of suffering, because in this instance it would not be an affirmation of suffering on the basis of its own inherent goodness, it does drastically eliminate many of the issues associated with the abhorrence of difficulty and resistance.

Indeed, I think this view with perfect happiness as the ultimate and imperfect happiness as a mere shadow and largely unimportant is well-supported Biblically. The Bible affirms suffering repeatedly, although only as a means to an end, as I discussed above. In James 1:2-4, we read, “. . .when troubles come your way, consider it an opportunity for great joy. For you know that when your faith is tested, your endurance has a chance to grow. So let it grow, for when your endurance is fully developed, you will be perfect and complete, needing nothing” (Holy Bible: New Living Translation). And in 1 Peter 2:21 we read, “For God called you to do good, even if it means suffering, just as Christ suffered for you. He is your example, and you must follow in his steps” (Holy Bible: New Living Translation). Again, it is readily apparent that Christianity affirms suffering, although almost always a means to an end. Nietzsche’s characterization of Christianity as a whole-sale condemnation of suffering is unwarranted, although developing that topic would require another paper entirely. As a result, I will lay it to rest for the time being.

While Aquinas posits that imperfect happiness is the only sort of happiness available to us in this life, he thereby affirms that some sort of happiness is, in fact, immediately attainable. So despite the fact that perfect happiness is not attainable at the moment, and because of it, I will turn my focus to the best way to attain the most of this “imperfect happiness.” Further, it is apparent from the above arguments that imperfect happiness, as defined by Aquinas, is the only type of happiness that Haybron is concerned with. I will therefore take the assault on his concept of self-fulfillment to his own turf and deal primarily with imperfect happiness for the remainder of this paper.

Click here to read part 3.

Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Print.
Haybron, Daniel M. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
McGill, V.J. The Idea of Happiness. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Print.
Reginster, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.

Life as a Vapor: Sarah Burke Dead at 29

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 21:59:00 +0000

As a true freeskiing pioneer, Sarah Burke's competition and lobbying has affected the lives of countless skiers, spectators, and athletes. Over the course of her lifetime, Sarah Burke became a
six-time X Game gold medalist, a prominent professional ski athlete, a beloved wife, and a world-wide ambassador of professional and non-professional female athletes. Sarah Burke was quite possibly the most influential and outstanding female skier that has ever lived.

After lobbying for and earning the rights to compete in events such as the X Games and other skiing events on an equal level with men, Sarah Burke and other women gained the opportunity to compete in the 2014 Olympic Winter Games that are scheduled to take place in Sochi, Russia. Burke was a shoe-in for Canadian representation in the new super-pipe freeskiing events and was likely already starting to prepare for the coming Winter Games. Not only was she an automatic qualifier, Sarah Burke was favored to win the entire competition and expected to receive gold-medal Olympic standing.

While training and preparing for upcoming competitions in Park City, Utah, Burke incurred life-threatening injuries from a "freak accident" skiing in the Eagle Superpipe. Shockingly, Sarah had performed the tragedy-sparking trick dozens of times before with near perfection and had never suffered severe injury from it. The trick, a flat spin 540 (link one, link two), is a relatively simple feat for an athlete of Burke's caliber. Having performed it well, it was reported that Burke came down from the air and landed on her feet, but proceeded to "bounce onto her head," incurring injury, after the trick had already been completed.

Burke suffered cardiac arrest at the time of the accident, depriving her brain of oxygen which caused severe and irreversible brain damage that led her into a nine-day comatose. After being in critical condition for over a week, Sarah died the morning of January 19th, 2012. All from a freak skiing accident.

She never had the chance to see and participate in what she had worked so hard for in recent years - Olympic level competition - and will not have the opportunity to capitalize on the product of her lobbying and labor by achieving gold-medal standing.

Now, her family and husband are left without Sarah and with an additional $550,000 in hospital bills. A fund-raising effort has been garnered to support such expenses.

This is one very vivid example that makes me realize how short life really is. Sarah Burke; a young, beautiful, top-of-the-line professional athlete, has just died at the age of 29 years old. A mere handful of years older than myself; and her life is now over. And what did it amount to? Certainly a great deal of fame, fortune, fun, and attention - But to what end? As a great admirer and an individual pursuing a professional career in snowsports, by no means will I ever minimize Sarah's life and death! However, it does sober me even more to the truth and relevance of James 4:

"Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes." (James 4:13-14 ESV)

Read more about Sarah Burke, her accident, and the tragedy of her death:

http://espn.go.com/action/freeskiing/story/_/id/7466421/sarah-burke-dies-injuries-suffered-utah

http://www.powdermag.com/stories/sarah-burke-dies-from-injuries/

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/sarah_burkes_family_faces_550000_in_bills/0824f6cd

(^sources for this Cranial Collision article^)

The Pursuit of Imperfect Happiness: Part 1

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:11:00 +0000

The following is an essay that I wrote for my 4000 level Topics in Philosophy class: "Happiness and Suffering." I have split it up into several pieces and will be publishing it here on Cranial Collision over the next week or two.

The Pursuit of Imperfect Happiness

Throughout the course of his book titled The Pursuit of Unhappiness, Daniel M. Haybron makes numerous distinctions and delineations between different aspects of happiness, and he attempts to define the relationships between these aspects in clear, distinct ways. On the whole, Haybron does an excellent job of explaining and supporting the arguments in his book, especially in relation to his emotional state theory of happiness and psychic affirmation.

However, I think that Haybron runs into trouble in regards to self-fulfillment as his primary means of happiness in relation to well-being. Specifically, Haybron's self-fulfillment concept is incomplete because it addresses only incomplete happiness--temporary happiness.

I will draw on Thomas Aquinas to make a case for the importance of lasting happiness, also referred to as perfect happiness, complete happiness, and long-term happiness. I will accept most of Haybron's changes from Aristotle's eudaemonism, but will color those changes in light of a more permanent happiness. While giving weight to Aquinas's distinction between short-term and long-term happiness and Haybron's self-fulfillment, the best solution seems to be self-fulfillment on an individual internalist level, yet in relation to an infinite God. I will conclude that lasting well-being can be best understood as discovering one's spiritual gifts and using them to serve an infinite God.

The most important distinction between Aquinas and Haybron, and Haybron’s main downfall, is that Haybron is preoccupied with a type of happiness that is truly impermanent. As Aquinas points out, “to have all one’s desires perfectly satisfied” would be a good definition for happiness if indeed happiness “would satisfy desires completely” (McGill 76). Aquinas argues that happiness cannot satisfy desires completely, that only knowledge of an infinite God can do that (82). In arguing this, he says that, “the thing which is desired as an end is that which constitutes happiness, and makes man happy; but the attainment of this thing is called happiness” (qtd. in McGill 80). It is also important to Aquinas’s cause to verify that there is just one last end, namely God. He utilizes a three-step argument to make his point:

"First, 'it is necessary for the last end so to fill man’s appetite that nothing is left beside it for men to desire.” Second, the last end can only be one since it is naturally desired, and “nature tends to one thing only.” Finally, since “all that can be desired by the will, belong, as such, to one genus, the last end must be one. And all the more because in every genus there is one first principle.'" (Mcgill 78)

McGill goes on to add that while this is the way that Aquinas chose to make his point, that there are many other ways he could have chosen to do it (78). In support of Aquinas’s argument, I would add that most human desires are nigh unquenchable. We as humans have an immense penchant for desiring more and better of whatever it may be. We desire to have more money, more fame, more sex, more food, more fun, more knowledge, more understanding, more humility, more simplicity, and the list goes on. We can never simply be satisfied and remain happy. At some point comes the desire, the thirst, for more, and the unhappiness, the dissatisfaction, ensues. It seems logical that the only thing that would truly satisfy is something of infinite worth and infinite goodness, namely God himself.

Click here to read Part 2.

Works Cited
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994. Print.
Haybron, Daniel M. The Pursuit of Unhappiness: The Elusive Psychology of Well-Being. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Print.
Holy Bible: New Living Translation. 2nd ed. Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2009. Print.
McGill, V.J. The Idea of Happiness. Ed. Mortimer J. Adler. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1967. Print.
Reginster, Bernard. The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006. Print.

The Fishless Fishermen's Fellowship

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:00:00 +0000

The following video contains a creative and interesting illustration about evangelism for modern Christians. I definitely believe that it's worth viewing and thinking about as a follower of Christ integrated as a member of society and that it does speak a lot of truth in regard to the current state of the Church and how the Christian community (in general) views evangelism and sharing their faith. I hope that you find it equally as thought provoking, creative, and entertaining.

What do you think of this short video on evangelism?

What thoughts does it bring to mind?

Why is there such a passive and suppressive stigma associated with Christian evangelism and how can we actively work to change it?

Tim Tebow Responds About Jesus Christ

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 01:59:00 +0000

My reaction:
What a powerful and well-spoken reflection of intimacy and pursuit of Christ! A tangible and practical example that everyone can related to (a relationship), and an encouraging explanation of his faith in Christ and why Tebow displays it... While I use the word "display," it may be misleading, because Tebow intentionally chooses not to make a public spectacle of his actions displaying for all to see. In fact, he attempts to merely act how he would in any setting - it just reflects differently than many other football players, showing what Tebow values and believes. The difference comes into play not because other people don't have values and beliefs, but rather that Tebow places his value and believes in something that is completely contrary and drastically different than so many other people - namely, Jesus Christ as a loving sacrifice of God.

Read more about Tim Tebow and his active expression of the Christian faith here:
http://www.cranialcollision.com/2011/12/tim-tebows-faith-in-jesus-christ.html

We'd love to hear your thoughts and comments!

Feel free to drop us a note below, by email, Facebook, or other means.

Aaron Gwin: Riding Mountain Bikes for Jesus

noreply@blogger.com (Greg Heil) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:00 +0000

Aaron Gwin
Photo Credit.

2011 was a big year for the USA in downhill mountain biking: it marked the first time in the history of mountain biking that an American took the overall men's World Cup title! Despite the fact that America was the birth place of mountain biking, it took us 34 or 35 years to grab this title, and it was done by a talented 23 year old by the name of Aaron Gwin.

But why do I share this here, on Cranial Collision? Wouldn't it be much better suited for GregRidesTrails or Singletracks?

In a recent feature article about Gwin in BIKE magazine, we read:

"His faith in God drives his plan, he says.

'God has a plan that's bigger than mine, so I don't worry, I just enjoy it. If it doesn't happen, then it wasn't meant to be.'"

I thought it was so cool that Gwin gave the credit for his historic achievement to God. What really makes this so special is that the sport of mountain biking is generally a very rowdy, secular lifestyle. Seeing someone like Gwin who is at the absolute top of the world talent-wise give all the credit to God is just unheard of.

To cap it all off, this was published in a magazine that is known for being somewhat irreverent and rough around the edges... although I guess that's just about every mountain bike magazine.

Be sure to grab the most recent issue of BIKE and read up on Gwin!

Tim Tebow's Faith in Jesus Christ

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 15:46:00 +0000

Tim Tebow Praying - Photo Credit

In a recent article on Fox Sports Exclusive, Jen Engel chooses to examine the constant scrutiny and ridicule that Tim Tebow, starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos, has been subjected to lately. The source of such insults and slander span from private to public sectors - from national television, to casual conversations between friends. All of these confrontations and comments have created a growing "debate" and argument in the sports community, which actually encompasses the United States and beyond in this case. As of late, it has provided constant fuel for the conversation regarding religion, faith, and the constrictions (or lack there of) that should be placed on such 'aspects' of life.

One of the paragraphs in Engel's article that stands out the most to me is this:

"What this whole repeating cycle of Tebow — rip his game, mock his faith, rise to his defense, repeat — has revealed about religious discourse in America is ugly. We have become so enamored of politically correct dogma that we protect every minority from even the slightest blush of insensitivity while letting the very institutions that the majority holds dear to be ridiculed. And this defense that Tebow invites such scrutiny with his willingness to publicly live as he privately believes calls into question what exactly it is we value."

- Jen Engel, Fox Sports

I encourage you to read the entire article here:
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Tim-Tebow-why-the-heck-do-we-hate-him-110211
It provides interesting insight into how the public views Christianity, specifically in regard to professional sports, and also outlines the stigma and dispute surrounding Tim Tebow and his actions that reflect his faith publicly.

Reader Response:

What are your thoughts on this? What stands out to you?
Are Tebow's actions of praying and talking about Jesus acceptable
in the setting of the NFL?

Feel free to leave a comment below or to write a reply on Facebook.

The Power of Choice: Luke 9:23-26

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 13:00:00 +0000

My God, shall sin its power maintain

And in my soul defiant live!

'Tis not enough that Thou forgive,

The cross must rise and self be slain.

O God of love, Thy power disclose:

'Tis not enough that Christ should rise,

I, too, must seek the brightening skies,

And rise from death, as Christ arose.

~ Greek Hymn ~

“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self? Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels." (Luke 9:23-26)

The Self-sufficiency of God

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:00:00 +0000

The following post outlines some key points and maxims concerning the attribute of self-sufficiency that Yahweh, God, possesses as determined from Biblical scriptures.
I hope you find these statements to be interesting and thought provoking and that they will impact your life and how you view God; that it would lead you into a more reverent and worshipful mindset based on His holiness and glory.

• If anything was necessary to God, that thing would be a measure of His imperfection.
Imperfection is something that is entirely impossible of God's character.

• "Whatever God is, and all that God is, He is in Himself."
   All life is a gift from God. He cannot receive anything that He has not first given.

• God is solely unique in that he is the only thing that is complete - the only thing that does not
   require something outside of itself in order to exist.

Why did he create the universe then? (If he does not need it or anything in it)

God is not greater because of our existence, nor would he be lesser if we did not exist.

God does not need our help in any way for anything. To assume God has specific goals or plans that require our participation is to set fallacious, finite limitations on His being.

"God has a voluntary relation to everything that He has made, but He has

no necessary relation to anything outside of Himself...

His interest in His creatures arises from His sovereign good pleasure..."

Christianity has to do with God and man, but its focal point is God, not man.

"Unbelief is actually perverted faith, for it puts its trust not in the living God but in dying men."

Self-sufficiency of God, "while a needed rebuke to human self-confidence, will when viewed in its Biblical perspective lift from our minds the exhausting load of mortality and encourage us to take the easy yoke of Christ and spend our lives in Spirit-inspired toil for the honor of God and the good of mankind."

"The blessed news is that God who needs no one has in sovereign condescension stooped to work by and in and through His obedient children."

Fulfillment lies in the obedience of God's commandments.

He needs no one, but when faith is present, He works through anyone.

A.W. Tozer. The Knowledge of the Holy. Harper One. 1961.

The Clash Between Theology and Philosophy-Science: A.W. Tozer

noreply@blogger.com (AJ Heil) — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 21:08:00 +0000

Excerpt from A.W. Tozer's Knowledge of the Holy

(Chapter 5: "The Self-Existence of God"):

"The human mind, being created, has an understandable uneasiness about the Uncreated. We do not find it comfortable to allow for the presence of One who is wholly outside of the circle of our familiar knowledge. We tend to be disquieted by the thought of One who does not account to us for His being, who is responsible to no one, who is self-existent, self-dependent and self-sufficient."

"Philosophy and science have not always been friendly toward the idea of God, the reason being that they [philosophy and science] are dedicated to the task of accounting for things and are impatient with anything that refuses to give an account of itself. The philosopher and the scientist will admit that there is much that they do not know; but that is quite another thing from admitting that there is something which they can never know, which indeed they have no technique for discovering. To admit that there is One who lies beyond us, who exists outside of all our categories, who will not be dismissed with a name, who will not appear before the bar of our reason, nor submit to our curious inquiries: this requires a great deal of humility, more than most of us possess, so we save face by thinking God down to our level, or at least down to where we can manage Him. Yet how He eludes us! For He is everywhere while He is nowhere, for "where" has to do with matter and space, and God is independent of both. He is unaffected by time or motion, is wholly self-dependent and owes nothing to the worlds His hands have made."

Reader Response:
Thoughts? Comments?

Feel free to share below.