UnderAgeThinker

Look Below for the Latest from J. W. Kraft dotcom!

J W Kraft — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:50:47 +0000

Moving Day

J W Kraft — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:00:39 +0000

Greetings and salutations I’m sure. I have moved my blog to JWKraft.com. So, be sure and change your bookmarks! This new set up will work much better. I have added many new features including a RSS feed, so you can follow along to your heart’s delight!

Huckabee Defeats Romney!

J W Kraft — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:53:46 +0000

This just in from CBS, Mitt Romney is ’suspending’ his campaign for the White house.

Romney had tried to portray the race for the Republican nomination as a two way race. He had attempted to sideline Mike Huckabee, and portray himself as the alternative to McCain. On Super Tuesday however, Huckabee had a very good showing and vowed to stay in the race until the end. This effectively ended Romney’s hope for beating McCain. He would have needed 3/4 of the delegates left and cannot afford to split them with Huckabee.

This now gives Huckabee a fighting chance to top McCain. Huckabee has polled very well in Texas, by far the biggest prize left. He is also in good position in Virginia and Mississippi.

Blinking Your Way Through Life

J W Kraft — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 05:53:13 +0000

I recently heard an episode of “Culture Shock” on the BBC in which they were interviewing a Professor Gerd Gigerenzer (I’m not making that up) about his ideas on so called, intuition. His latest book Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious is on that very subject and the man is considered something of a leader in the field. What he claims to have verified through various studies is that decisions made through first reaction responses or gut reactions are often more accurate than those made through careful deliberations. This is something of a new idea though a trendy one, in 2005 another popular book, Blink, by Malcolm Gladwell, was published. It had a very similar premise.

The question then comes up, is this a form of irrational decision making? If so, then the soundness of logic (and math) is bought into question. For, if accurate decisions can be made with out the use of logic, then logic may be faulty. Even if no fault is found with logic per se it could be deemed unuseful, and relegated to a novelty of history in an entirely laissez faire impulse driven society. The future imagined by H. G. Wells in The Time Machine comes to mind.

So then, after this bleak foretelling, you may expect me to be opposed to the whole blink idea. Well, I am more interested with truth, than with what lie will bring a more pleasant future. I happen to believe there is something to this whole idea, which I have taken to calling, blink, after the book. I also happen to believe it is entirely rational. (Crowds cheer: Alas, the future is saved!) But, that doesn’t mean that it will be taken as rational by irrational (postmodern) people. (Crowds stare as deer in headlights: Doom and Gloom.)

I believe the human mind is far more complex than is understood, and this blink speaks to that. I also believe that humans are far more complex than is usually admitted by the experts. Every human is unique. Some may be gifted with far greater instinct than others. Some may have it in certain fields and not in others. I think it can certainly be learned. An example was given in the episode of Culture Shock, I mentioned earlier, of a veteran police officer who knew by instinct that a particular person in an airport had a gun. They could not explain how they knew this, they just had honed their instinct over many years.*

I have several reasons for believing that this instinct is rational. Let me first define what I mean by rational. I do not mean, well thought out. Obviously these gut decisions are not well thought out. I mean logical, I mean that the decision process follows a logical stream. The person making the decision does not need to be conscience of all the intricacies of that logic for it to be a logical decision. That is infact what I believe is happening, I believe that the mind is making logical decisions without the person being conscience of them. They are simply presented with the answer.

It is like a calculator. A calculator takes in data (from the user pushing the keys) and displays the answer. It does not display all the logical steps it had to go through in order to arrive at that answer, but it did go through them. I believe the mind is powerful enough to take in sensory data, in fields that the person is especially gifted in (by nature or by education) and calculate a rational and logical response without the person have to deliberate over it.

Daniel Tammet is one example of this. He was the host and one of the subjects of a Science Channel documentary called Brain Man. He is incredibly gifted in the field of mathematics. He can come up with the answers to highly complex math problems nearly instantly, and to hundreds of decimal places. He claims to not calculate the problems in his head but rather that the answers just come to him.

I have always been a logical person. Some (i.e. my mother) would say that I’m logical to a fault. So when I was a freshman (in college or at university for the Brits) I enrolled in a logic class, thinking it would be a cakewalk. When I would take the tests, I generally knew the answers; they were obvious to me. However in order to get credit for an answer you had to show your work. This I could not do, certainly not in the timeframe of one class period. I ended up dropping the class because of this. Since then I have been more aware of it and have noticed many time when I would hear an argument that I knew was invalid but I could not put my finger on just why. Often if I continued to think about it, I would see the hole in the argument a day or more later.

So is this instinct an advantage? Well, it was certainly a handicap in my logic class, but in certain instances I think it could be very useful. I think it is there to aid us in making decisions when we do not have time for careful deliberations. Think of it as a kind of mental adrenaline. It can be very useful in an emergency but you wouldn’t want to be on an adrenaline high all the time. I believe the reason that the studies that Doctor Gigerenzer cited showed that blink decisions were more accurate than those that were carefully thought out is because most people rarely make rational decisions at all. One of my favorite quotes comes from Blaise Pascal,

“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”

This must be even more accurate today than when Pascal wrote it. The only explanation for why blink decisions are more accurate is that they are more rational. It is a sad state of affairs when this is the norm rather than the exception. So for the masses who make irrational descisions when given the chance, blink decisions are their best hope, but for a rational person, given the time, it should be thought out.

*I am not sure that it was some one with a gun, but it was along those lines.

MLK Controversy, Cast in Stone

J W Kraft — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:34:10 +0000

Now is the time when people the world over reflect on the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King and a story on CNN caught my attention this morning. Plans are under way to construct a massive memorial to Dr. King in Washington D.C. The apex is to be a very large granit statue of MLK himself. A black sculpture who has done many statues of MLK, was contacted for the project but he only works in bronze and so the commitee decided against him. The commitee decided on a Chinese sculptor (who works in granite) for the project and this has caused quite a controversy. Many Americans and blacks especially, have been upset by this. This set me to thinking, are we judging men by the content of their character or by the color of their skin?

A New Ethic? Absolute Uniquanatism?*

J W Kraft — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:32:03 +0000

I am generally a moral absolutist. I believe that there is a right and wrong path to take on moral issues. However I also believe that decisions must made completly on a case by case basis. I believe that in the exact situation, defined by the exact parameters X, there is a right and a wrong. X parameters will never exist again, so you cannot use X as an exact precedent for any future situations. X can at best be an imperfect analogy to learn from.

An interesting facet of this is that, two very similar situations in two different times or locations could have opposite correct answers. This starts to sound allot like relativism but it is not. I will use an example that most of us are familiar with, getting a job.

1. You submit your CV to Mr. Z, HR manager for the company you want to work for.

2. You make a follow up call to make sure Z got your CV, and he did.

3. You hear nothing from Z.

4. To get a job you will need to be persistent.

5. Calling again would mean that you believe that (A) Z is incompetent or that (B) he has rejected you and you don’t care.
(A) is insulting
(B) is dehumanizing

6. There is a moral imperative to support yourself and your family. Unless you have deep pockets or some other means of making a living that, means you need a job.

In this case, I believe that (6) trumps (5) and you should be persistent. However in a more Utopian world, where people have progressed mentally and ethically, there would be no (4) and so you should notcall again. This is because the man on the street and Mr. Z alike, would both be aware of how rude it is to call someone after they have dealt you a de facto rejection. We do not live in this world and so Mr. Z actually expects you to follow up several times if you really want the job.

So in a more perfect world there are more exacting standards of right and wrong. I do believe that society (or humanity) can progress to higher level, where the higher standards would apply. I also believe that we can regress, and have been doing allot more of that lately.

So I believe there is an absolute right and wrong relative to the exact parameters of the situation. If there were no absolutes, it would be an amoral world. If there were absolutes irregardless of the parameters, legalism would determine right and wrong. This is one reason why Christianity is the only major world religion that is plausibly right. In Christianity there are absolutes but there is not legalism. This is because Christianity is a relationship, Christians are to seek council from God on issues, rather than citing case law.

*I know Uniquanatismis not a word. I also know that it does not mean anything. The point is that there are absolutes and every situation is absolutely unique.

The Golden Compass by, C.S. Lewis

J W Kraft — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:24:25 +0000

I went to see the Golden Compass yesterday, as I said I would. I thought it was a good movie overall and I expect that the book is much better. It did suffer from what I call Lord of the Rings syndrome,or LOTRS for short. LOTRS occurs when a production team attempts to fit a long and complex story into a movie. The LOTR all told, was at least nine hours long and an incredible movie but it did not do the story justice at all. It was like a condensed children’s version of the story but, to do it right they would have had to at least double the length. No one wants to sit through that so, they did the best they could. I suspect the Golden Compassis the same way, though I still have not read it. They had to tell the story, introduce the audience to a foreign universe, introduce new characters, and get the audience emotionally invested in the characters’ individual plights all in less than two hours. Still it is more than worth the price of a movie ticket. The polar bear fight is worth the price of a movie ticket.

So what is my fundamentalist Christian take on the movie? Well, one of the primary reasons I wanted to see the movie was to see if they could make a entertaining good v. evil story, without it being an allegory for Christ. They could not. I think this is telling. It was (and is, it is a trilogy so the story is not over) a beautiful messiah narrative. The Christian undertones where at least as strong as the Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. Lewis would have been proud to call it his own.

I find it interesting that the Magisterium, the organization that represents the church or religion and evil looks more like a secular anti-religious organization than a church. The truththat the Magisterium is attempting to stamp out is a world filled with the supernatural and the mystical. The most poignant example of this is the daemons. In Pullman’s universe, the souls of humans walk beside them at all times in the form of animals, known as daemons. They are like the person’s spirit. They are part of what makes a person who they are. The Magisterium preforms experiments to deprive children of their daemons, that is their souls. So, the Magisterium is working to rid the world of the spiritual. That does not sound like any religion that I know of.

The heroes of the story are attempting to preserve the truth and the villains are persecuting them, in an attempt to smother the truth. This is exactly the story of the early church and persecution by the Roman Empire and others. It is the story of the protestant revolution and persecution by the Vatican. It is a Christian story.

I still await the day when some one will have the creativity to make a good and evil story with out paralleling reality.

See also my previous post on the Golden Compass, The Compass and the Cross

Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church

J W Kraft — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:11:36 +0000

First I would like to say that Mormons deservedly have the reputation of being highly moral people. It is true that Mormonism shares a common ethic with Christianity. However that does not make them Christians and they are not. My goal in writing this is not to offend but rather to inform. I think it is important to understand what twelve million people believe. This is perhaps more true today than ever before, with a Mormon running for president. Please interpret what you read below as written with the humblest intentions in mind and check the facts for yourself.Mormonism or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS) was founded by Joseph Smith. Mormons will claim that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and merely restored by Smith. Smith claimed to be a prophet who received visions starting in 1820. In his first vision God and Jesus appeared to him and told him that all modern churches were an abomination. Subsequent visions were mostly from an angel named Moroni.Moroni directed Smith to a hill with “golden plates” buried in it. On these plates was inscribed an “account of the former inhabitants of this continent and containing “the fullness of the everlasting Gospel” as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants of this land.” The inscription was in a language known as “reformed Egyptian.” Buried with the plates were “seer stones” for aiding in the translation of the plates. Smith spent around three years translating the work. His primary method of translation was to place the stones in his hat and place the hat over his face. Upon doing this, the words would appear to him in the darkness. He would then dictate them to an aid. He did not need to look at the plates in order to translate them and often they were not even in his presence while he was translating. Smith’s translation of the plates became what is known today as “The Book of Mormon” and is considered divinely inspired scripture by the LDS church.

There are several problems here.

Smith’s highly unorthodox method of translating could be viewed as a problem. Why did he need the plates at all if he could translate them by looking at rocks in a hat?

The continent Smith is speaking about is North America. The former inhabitants were Hebrews who migrated to North America in 600 BC and lived there until 421 AD. They left no trace except the plates and other objects Smith found with them.

The Book of Mormon was supposed to have been written by the North American Hebrews who migrated 600 years before the birth of Christ yet it contains what appear to be direct quotes from the New Testament of Jesus. Not only that, but the quotes are from the King James version which was written in 1611 AD, 1811 years after the migration and 1190 years after the Hebrews were killed off.

Reformed Egyptian is not a language or writing system known to linguists. At one point Smith transcribed some of the “reformed Egyptian” and the transcription was taken to the linguist, Charles Anthon for examination. Anthon has been quoted as saying, ” the paper contained any thing else but ‘Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” It appears to contain characters from Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and a host of other writing systems, including Gregg Shorthand.

Later in life Smith bought four mummies and some papyrus scrolls from a traveling exhibit. He translated two of the scrolls and claimed that Abraham and Joseph (the son of Abraham) wrote them. They even had Abraham’s signature. The scrolls told stories about Abraham’s life including how he was nearly sacrificed to a pagan god and how he taught the Egyptians astronomy. These scrolls as translated by Smith became “The Book of Abraham” and are included in the “Pearl of Great Price.” The “Pearl of Great Price” is part of the cannon of scripture in the LDS church.

In 1968 three Egyptologist made separate but consistent interpretations of some of the scrolls after they were rediscovered. They found that the scrolls were funerary documents. They included such things as instruction on how to wrap a mummy properly. They were also 1500 years too young for Abraham to have written his signature on them.

All in all the Mormons hold four books to be scriptural including the King James Version of the Bible “as rightly translated“, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Because the Bible is said to have been mistranslated and abridged, it is the least authoritative of the four books. The Living Prophet is the Head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and he is considered another source of doctrine.

Mitt Romney has said that the leaders of the LDS church would not inform his presidency, and I am tempted to believe him. However it seems that for him to not listen to the Living Prophet would be to go against the very doctrines which he holds so dear.

According to the official magazine of the Mormon Church until 1970, Improvement Era,

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan-it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy.”

Also note that, according to Ezra Taft Benson (former Living Prophet) the Living Prophet is “more vital to us than the Standard Works.”

There is one Mormon doctrine which I would like to touch on before closing out this post, that of God.

26 And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?
27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
                                                           -Book of Mormon, Alma, chapter 11:26-31So clearly for all their faults Mormons believe in one god, they are monotheists. Here are the words of Living Prophet, Joseph Smith, more vital than the Standard Works. “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”
                                                                    – From Joseph Smith’s “Plurality of Gods Sermon” 1844So they believe in three gods, the three people of the trinity. This is heresy to Catholics and Protestants alike but at least they are not polytheists in the traditional sense. Here is Smith, the Living Prophet again.“and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you“
                                                                       -From Joseph Smith’s “King Follet Sermon” 1844

Do we as Americans really want a president who either does not know how many gods he believes in or believes in a contradiction? Do we want a president who believes that a man in the 19th century translated a sacred book given to him by an angel in a form of writing that does not exist? Do we want a president who believes that a race of ancient Hebrews lived in North America for over a 1,000 years and left no trace? I certainly hope not.

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 ESV, bolding mine.

“But though we, or an Angel from heauen, preach any other Gospel vnto you, then that which wee haue preached vnto you, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8 King James Version 1611, bolding mine.

Honesty is the Key

J W Kraft — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 22:48:57 +0000

I have placed links to an online Bible, Qur’an, and the Standard Works of Mormonism on my sidebar. I’m sure some of you are a bit surprised. Why would a Christian want to place links to these non-Christian scriptures on his blog? Honesty is why. It keeps me honest and it demonstrates that I am being honest. In the future when I quote from whatever scripture and you think I am taking it out of context, misinterpreting it, or making it up completely then, just click on the link and read it for your self.

Furthermore, I am confident that if everyone studied all the various religions honestly then, we would have more people coming to faith in Jesus. I encourage everyone to read the Bible, read the Book of Mormon, read the Qur’an and the Hadith (if you can get through it, it is loooong). They cannot all be true and the truth cannot be stamped out.

A proper post is coming soon and it will be on Mit Romney and Mormonism, so hold on to your hat. For now I have to get some Christmas shopping done. Merry Christmas, y’all.

The Barnyard Dialogues: Explained, Evil is the Problem

J W Kraft — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 16:01:46 +0000

I hope you have enjoyed reading my previous two posts entitled, The Barnyard Dialogues, “Part I, Two Chickens Take on the Problem of Evil” and “Part II, Two Chickens Take another Swipe at the Problem of Evil.” . If you have not then, click the links and enjoy them.

If you have read them then I’m sure you are aware that they are written as satire and not merely for entertainment value. I want to present here a partial explanation of what was meant by the stories. I want to say here, what I meant to say there, only this time without any talking chickens. So here goes.

As the subtitles say, the story is about the problem of evil. For those of you who are not familiar with the problem of evil, I have placed the “Logical Problem of Evil” below. It is taken from Wikipedia.

Logical problem of evil

God exists. (premise)
God is omnipotent and omniscient. (premise — or true by definition of the word “God”)
God is all-benevolent. (premise — or true by definition)
All-benevolent beings are opposed to all evil. (premise — or true by definition)
All-benevolent beings who can eliminate evil will do so immediately when they become aware of it. (premise)
God is opposed to all evil. (conclusion from 3 and 4)
God can eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 2)
1. Whatever the end result of suffering is, God can bring it about by ways that do not include suffering. (conclusion from 2)
2. God has no reason not to eliminate evil. (conclusion from 7.1)
3. God has no reason not to act immediately. (conclusion from 5)
God will eliminate evil completely and immediately. (conclusion from 6, 7.2 and 7.3)
Evil exists, has existed, and probably will always exist. (premise)
Items 8 and 9 are contradictory; therefore, one or more of the premises is false: either God does not exist, evil does not exist, or God is not simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and all-benevolent (i.e. God is omnipotent and omniscient but not all-benevolent, omnipotent and all-benevolent but not omniscient, or omniscient and all-benevolent but not omnipotent).

To be simplistic and brief, the problem of evil says that a good god and evil cannot co-exist, therefore one or the other must not exist. Because most people have experienced evil in some form, it is used to make a case against the existence of god. A solution to the problem of evil is called a “theodicy”. Though many different theodicies exist, what I have tried to demonstrate through the Barnyard Dialogues is a particular theodicy based on semantics. I suspect that others have noticed it before me and, I believe that this should only lend credence to it. I will explain it below.

Evil is not an entity that exists on its own merit. Evil exists as a parasite to good. In the absolute absence of good there could be no evil. The opposite is not true, good does not require evil in order to be good. Something is good when it fulfills the purpose it was meant to serve. Something lacks goodness when it fails to fulfill the purpose it was meant for. Something is evil when it fulfills a purpose contrary to what it was meant for. Therefore, having a good purpose is a prerequisite for being evil.

So in order to call something evil someone, must first give it a purpose for it to pervert. So Evil must be defined in relation to somebody. The vast majority of the time evil is defined in relation to either man or to God.

In the first illustration with the chickens, Clare defines Evil (missing eggs) by chickens (man). She then comes to the conclusion that because evil exists, the farmer (God) must not. She sees this as a mistake when she learns that the farmer is the one taking the eggs for his own good purpose. In the Problem of Evil, it is a mistake to define evil on man’s terms and then apply it to God. God is by definition a greater being than man, just as the farmer in the story, is a greater being than the chickens.

In Part II, Clare defines evil in terms of the farmer (God) but this also is a mistake as it presupposes that the farmer does in fact exist. If evil as defined by God exists then, God must exist. If God does not exist, then neither does evil as defined by God and the whole argument falls apart as, evil must exist in order to be a problem.

It seems to me that the problem of evil is that it cannot be defined in terms that would cast doubt on the existence of God.