On Identity

A while ago, I was thinking about identity and how it applies to my belief systems. In a nutshell, I was trying to define to myself the identity of God. Then, I got to wondering: if identities are derived from constants, how can anyone define something that is infinite? God has been around since before there was past tense. He's seen every change everywhere. So, if my way of thinking about identity is right, the only thing that could define God is God himself. Then I remembered reading about a dialogue between Moses and God that takes place in Exodus 3. 

So, Moses is a little freaked because this bush that's on fire is telling him that God has heard the anguish of the slave nation of Israel, and it's time for the Israelites to go to some sort of utopia occupied by a bunch of crazy barbarian types. 

Then, God says, "Go. I am sending you to Pharaoh to bring my people the Israelites out of Egypt." Moses flips. He basically says, "Are you serious, God? I'm pretty lame at parties and things and I don't have any cool talents." (that's a paraphrase, guys) God replies, "Don't sweat it. I''ll be with you. And, I'm freaking awesome." (also a paraphrase) So, Moses knows he has to do what this bush-burning God says. He still has questions, though. Says Moses, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?" 

Then God says something really monumental. I had never really paid attention or understood the significance before. He says, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." which means "I am that I am" or, if you prefer, "I shall be that I shall be."

Do you see how perfect that answer is? He defines His existence using only His existence. Saying just three words, God is implying a whole bunch of things.

1. God is eternal. To most Christians, this seems like a no-brainer, but I bet there are many who require proof. Here's your proof, doubters. If God wasn't eternal, he would have defined His existence in reference to something else.
2. God's viewpoint is the only one that matters here. He wasn't given a name by others because He's existed since there were no others.
   
3. God never changes. See Malachi 3:6 for confirmation.
   

It seems then, that this eternal God is the ultimate point of reference. All things can be defined by subsequently higher powers, but the ultimate definition is based on the relationship with God. The New Testament makes it very clear that the only thing that really matters, when everything is said and done, is a person's relationship with God. That's pretty obvious. But, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh." seems to imply that there was a form of Christianity before Jesus.

It makes sense. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all had very close relationships with The Almighty. "I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."(Matt. 8:11) So did Elija. "Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind." (2Kings 2:11) So, it seems like God was the same before and after Jesus came. To get to heaven before Jesus, a person had to do a bunch of draining rituals and, most importantly have a good relationship with God. After Jesus, it gets easier, but the relationship is still the important thing.

I've chosen to define myself by my loving relationship with Ehyeh. If my beliefs are right, this is the best possible choice. If they're wrong, it doesn't matter anyway. If you're reading this and you haven't chosen yet, I encourage you to do so very soon.

What is it like to be a bat? I know it's a strange question, but I assure you it's relevant. So, what is it like? Can you imagine it? I doubt it. I can't even imagine it. I've tried and failed each time.

When I try to imagine what it would be like to be a bat, I think about being in the body of a bat. Rather, I imagine I'm blind and I have excellent hearing and can fly and like mosquitoes more than pizza. But, I'm limited in that I can only imagine what it would be like for Curtis the human to be a bat. I've never been Curtis the bat. And, I have no frame of reference from which to draw any sort of inference about what it's like to be a bat.

The problem is consciousness. It is obvious that organisms have physical properties and observable behaviors. Properties and behaviors can be described with a universal sort of clarity we refer to as objectivity. But, consciousness is not such an objective property. In fact, I believe consciousness to be an entirely subjective character of experience. I can describe in depth what a bat does. I can describe in depth what physical properties a bat has. But, I am at a total loss of words to describe what it is like to be a bat to that bat.

Consciousnesses are entirely subjective and unique reference frames through which the world is experienced. I think that consciousness and the mind are linked. Maybe consciousness is the mind...

--Question originally posed by Thomas Nagel in Philosophical Review--

Along the same subject, think about Mary the brilliant neuroscientist. Mary has spent the entirety of her past life in a black and white library. In this library, everything is black and white. Everything Mary has learned about neuroscience has, up to this point, been supplied by a black and white TV and the myriad of books in the library. Mary has recently become absolutely fascinated with tomatoes. She knows that a ripe tomato is round, shiny and red. She knows everything there is to know about the physical characteristics of tomatoes and how to make them grow. Though she has never seen red, has never even seen a color that is not black or white or gray, Mary knows the exact frequency that light must vibrate with in order to produce red. 

Today, 5 minutes ago actually, someone unlocked the door to the outside, took Mary by the hand, and brought her to a garden. It was there that, for the first time, Mary saw a ripe tomato.

Did Mary learn anything new?

--Question originally posed by Frank Jackson in The Journal of Philosophy LXXXIII--

If there is something about the experience of seeing red (namely, what it's like) that Mary learns, then the experience is not completely explained by the physical facts alone. I believe that the "what it's like" is the essence of the mind. I know of no better way to convey my impressions about the mind than to point to experience.

Maybe you're wondering, "This is all great, but why should Christians care?" Scripture can answer that.

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." -Matt. 22:36-37

It seems pretty hard to love God with your mind if you don't have an understanding of what the mind is. Though I believe the Bible is the most complete resource for insight about truth, I'd never heard a satisfactory explanation of the nature of the mind until I expanded my search for truth into other philosophical texts. This may be alarming to those Christians who feel like the Bible is the only credible source of truth. But, it's not. If God is the God of truth. Then, all truth everywhere is ours. 

Paul was well aware of this. When he was ministering to the Athenians he said, "For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.' "-Acts 17:28 For Paul to have known what the poets of the day said, he must have read them. That's kind of like a Christian today gleaning truth from something by Eminem. I know the idea's a little weird, but that's the kind of God I serve. All truth is His. Justin Martyr, a Christian philosopher said, "What anybody has said about the truth belongs to us, the Christians." The fact is, if there is any truth anywhere in the universe that does not fit into the philosophy and lifestyle outlined in the Bible, then Jesus was not the Christ.

I believe that Jesus was and is the Christ. I believe that all truth everywhere is mine. And, I believe that Frank Jackson was onto something. It makes sense that the nature of the mind is the experience, the "what it's like". It fits with the Scriptures.

Based on my Biblical research, I think the "heart" that the authors refer to could also be called "beliefs and desires". I think that the "soul" could be called "ability to choose" or "morality". If what I think is right, then Matt. 22:36-37 could be read something like this:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your beliefs and desires by being as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Love the Lord by choosing to refrain from what is wrong and to strive for what is righteous. Love the Lord by keeping a high standard of morality. And, love the Lord by actually doing what is good. Then, you'll be able to tell others what it's like"

11/4/08

Well, it's happened. The Democratic Party has finally achieved a tri-fecta: Presidency, Senate, House of Representatives. It's been a very long campaign, and Americans have spoken. Their king has come (He's not my king.).

My sincere hope is that the change will truly be for the good. Based on my own observations and on my conversations both with like and unlike-minded individuals, I don't foresee a greater good coming. I see legalized abortion, kindergarden sexual education classes, and further advancement of the homosexual agenda to be recognized as a minority class and thereby gain civil rights. I see incremental tax raises and a general movement towards moral uncertainty and ambiguity. I see change coming.

Our new president seems to me to believe in the power of knowledge and the right of a person to choose what he/she wants regardless of the moral implications of that knowledge. Unfortunately, Obama's pro-choice stance is based in the incredibly limited reality of "right until proven wrong". But, how can an upstanding American citizen disagree with his views? Are they unpatriotic? On the contrary, they resonate with "innocent until proven guilty". What ideal could be more patriotic? They are absolutely patriotic. But, I won't say they're right. 

There is an incredible amount of evidence supporting the idea that life begins with fertilization. I hold this view myself. However, I do not believe that awareness begins with fertilization. Does a zygote know it exists? I don't think so. But, as cells multiply and take on the shape of a human, it becomes increasingly harder to tell just when cognizance comes into effect. Tragically, there's a medical double standard in regards to threatening one's life-potential. 

Hypothetical Horace, age 7, has just fallen into a comatose state and has likely suffered brain damage enough to make him mentally challenged. Horace's life-potential has taken a sharp turn. Though his life may still be enjoyable for him and others, it is certain that his care-taker just inherited a good deal of day-to-day difficulty. There are now two options:

1. Difficult - Raise and love Horace.
2. Easy - Kill Horace while he's unaware.

I grant that the second, easy option might not be so easy if Horace's care-takers have fond memories of life before the impediment. Luckily, this difficulty can be eliminated by reducing Horace's age until memories and relational connection based on experience are no longer part of the equation. For this example, we'll say the necessary age is now 3 seconds old. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a 3 second old person is unaware he is a person at all. Maybe he physically feels things, but it is reasonable to assume he doesn't comprehend these feelings. So, were he to be killed, the only result would be elimination of Horace's life potential...

Do you see the problem? If it's morally wrong to kill a 7 year old, why should it be any less wrong to kill a 6 year old, a 2 year old, a newborn, an infant being birthed, an infant still in gestation? It is just as wrong, it just doesn't hurt others as much. After killing an unborn baby, there's really no relational reminiscing to do. You don't remember that time you took him to the lake to watch the ducks because, you didn't take him. In fact, you eliminated his potential to ever see those ducks. You didn't even ask what he wanted. Granted, he couldn't communicate even if he had wanted a chance to live and see ducks. But, coma patients can't communnicate. Does that make it okay to stick tongs into their brains and wiggle 'em around untill the steady beeps become one long, flat tone?

No human has the authority to decide if another should live or die. That's why murder is wrong. Hypothetical Dale claims he has the authority to choose whether Horace lives or dies. From where is this authority obtained? If Dale is merely human, then, by Dale's logic, any other human should have the authority to choose whether Dale lives or dies. 

People either have a right to live or they have the right to kill and be killed. If people have a right to live, then killing is wrong because it removes the victim's potential to fulfill that right. The two rights are incompatible. One must be, the other must not. I believe people have a right to live. I believe people have souls and minds and are capable of loving and having opinions. I believe that our God-instilled-morality gives us this right to life.

Our new president seems to me to believe in the power of knowledge and the right of a person to choose what he/she wants regardless of the moral implications of that knowledge. He believes that people have the right to live and the right to kill. His election to president is historically relevent in large part because he is part of a minority. And, minorities care that they are minorities because they fear their collective voice won't be heard. 

Unborn people are of a different minority. They are incapable of communication. It is assured that their collective voice will not be heard because they have no voices in the first place. How is it that one man, who is now in a position to make the African-American minority voice heard, can give authority to kill another unvoiced minority? Firstly, had another done this while he was once part of that infant minority, he never would have been president. Secondly, the authority to kill is not Obama's to give.

Unfortunately, I can not scientifically prove the presence nor absence of the supernatural entity we call the mind in an unborn child. I doubt there will ever be definitive proof. And, as long as there is not proof, the idea that any progressive stage of a zygote is alive will be left to interpretation. A person could still say that eliminating this progressed zygote's life-potential is "right until proven wrong." And, that person would never be called unpatriotic.

Abortion is just one of the many concerning topics surrounding this coming presidential term. I haven't even started with homosexual "marriage" or economic policies. Needless to say, I am deeply concerned about the state of our national future. I disagree with many of the Democratic Party's views, and the party's primary cause for liberty before morality is not encouraging.

Obama will be the president for at least 4 years (probably only 4 years if he seriously tries to enact change). I currently don't agree with his views. But, I will respect him as he has been entrusted with a great amount of authority. My prayer is that my current concerns are shown to be foolish. I would like nothing more than to be able to look back and say, "I shouldn't have been so upset. It's all worked out for the good." Until that day when my fears are abated though, I will be watching scrutinously and praying steadfastly.

May God help America.