The Logic of Logic

There is only one kind of truth, Intrinsic Truth. As opposed to Rational Truth, Intrinsic Truth is true because it is true. Any chain of logic, reasoning, rhetoric or data used to prove the truth of the matter asserted is Rational Truth, not Intrinsic Truth, and therefore fails to qualify as truth. This is because the truthfulness of the proposition relies on speculative extrinsic factors and is ultimately based on tentative underlying assumptions which may or may not be correct.

Failure of any of the links in the chain of reasoning will undermine, impede or destroy the credibility or "Truthiness" [sic] of Rational Truth. Rational Truth may very well aspire to become Justified True Belief, which some consider knowledge of truth.

However, it is fallacious to give accreditation to Justified True Belief because it is merely a fiat of one's beliefs. Justified True Belief works as follows:

1. A is true (an unproven underlying assumption established by fiat)

2. B believes A is true.

3. B is justified in believing A is true.

We here note that “justified in believing A is true” is incredibly vague. No threshold relating to the to the validity, soundness or coherence of the belief is required. We also again note that 1. has nothing to support its truth other than fiat. The real problem is Justified True Belief is applied:

4. B is justified in believing A is true.

5. B believes A is true.

6. A is true.

Or A=(B+J)-(J+B)=A

The beautiful symmetry of Justified True Belief is a result of its inherently circular logic.

1. A=(B+J)-(J+B)=A

2. A=(B+J)-(J+B)=A

3. (B+J)-(J+B)

It may seem painfully obvious, but in order to know something you have to know it is true. We see that Justified True Belief fails to count as knowledge for the exact reason that it never addresses the truth of the proposition. All we have left are beliefs and justifications; hence:

4. (B+J)-(J+B)=0

The real problem is that if you have justification (at least in your own mind) for believing a proposition and if you believe it you might think you have gained a knowledge of the truthfulness of the proposition. Having justification for a belief you believe is actually true is faith, not knowledge.

Faith is a trust or belief in something not based on truth. Scripture defines faith as "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." The paradox of faith is that it allows you to know things without "knowing" them.

While many look down on faith as backward or anti-intellectual, the truth , which no one wants to admit, is that even logic, science and reason are built on a foundation of faith (in relying on science, reason etc.) Faith can never be effectively forced or even fully communicated to another. It is an internal and personal matter.

While we all can advocate for our beliefs we do not have the moral or reasonable authority to badger others because our arguments are "proven" by some objective standard because it isn't. ultimately every position is based on faith in one thing or the other. Some accept this and some don't.

Who is more foolish? The fool who knows he knows nothing or the fool who thinks he does?

Applying logic to logic negates itself. Logically we should recognize the drawbacks and blind spots of logic and not totally rely on it alone:

L-L (Logic applied to Logic) cancels itself out:

L-L=0

If we combine faith with logic and apply logic the results are more promising:

F+L-L=F

In the end faith is all we have.

Thus we see that the sum total of all human wisdom is nothing. This may come as a disturbing shock. It is not likely to find many supporters. But as Moses said, "Now I know man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed." When the Oracle at Delphi proclaimed Socrates as the wisest man in Athens he was troubled since he always insisted he did not know anything. He came to realize that he was the wisest man in Athens because he had reached the crowning pinnacle of all human wisdom-that we truly know nothing.

Syrian Rising

The pro-democratic Arab Spring has made a lot of gains in the Middle East, leading to regime change in Egypt and Libya and significant reform in other countries. However, in Syria the embattled government of President Bashar al-Assad has brutally repressed dissidents. It is hard to get an exact picture of what is happening because journalists are allowed to report from inside Syria. What we do know is that the Government is using the its' armed forces and armored vehicles in an attempt to isolate and crush opposition members, supporters and sympathizers.

Out of the chaos comes the sad tale of the Alhusni family. Several years ago Mr. Alhusni died leaving a wife and four small children in a country with conditions not favorable to a single mother. When the anti-Government protests broke out in March young Mohammed Alhusni became one of the local leaders of the protests. In response the Government began targeting his family. Last month his 18 year old sister, Zainab, disappeared while buying groceries.

A few weeks ago Mohammed was wounded and captured during a protest. When they went to claim his body he showed signs of torture. Then his family was told there was another body in the freezer. It was Zainab.

"When the family received the body, her head and arms had been chopped off. Chunks of her flesh were charred, appearing in places to have been melted or burned down to the bone."
Zainab was brutally tortured and murdered to make a point: Families of dissidents will now be targeted. Against this kind of evil and repression it is imperative the people of Syria succeed in rebellion Against this kind of evil and repression they might not be able to succeed. But there is always prayer

Women in the House of Saud

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia announced this week that women would have the right to nominate candidates for municipal office in this weeks' elections. While he did not use the term "vote" nominating candidates is as close as they get in Saudi Arabia, a country known for it's restrictions on women. The upcoming election is also of note because it is only the second Saudi election in the last 50 years.

The announcement was met with enthusiasm by women's rights activists who see this as a sign of more reform. In commenting on the announcement one activist said:

"Women's voices will be heard finally," she said. "Now it's time to remove other barriers like not allowing women to drive cars and not being able to function and live a normal life without a male guardian."

The announcement comes after a growing freedom movement in the Middle East known as the Arab Spring that has toppled the Mubarak regime in Egypt, lead to a successful revolution in Libya and led to escalating violence in Yemen and Syria. The decision may well be an attempt to lessen pro-democracy backlash in Saudi Arabia.

Lucifer the Fire-Bringer

Prometheus was a sort of folk hero in Greek Myth, the patron of man. He is known for trying to thwart the all powerful Zeus on behalf of mankind. There are of course, more than one version of the story and many ways to interpret those stories. My intent is not a discourse on Greek Classics, but rather a far more important theme: Fire.

While Prometheus did several things to aid man to the detriment of Zeus, it is his theft of fire for which he is best known. However, the theft came at the tail end of a series of events wherein Prometheus tried to usurp Zeus as the God of man.

It was Prometheus who first gave man fire, which could be summed up by a Greek as gnosis, sophia, and techne, when he saw that they lacked "good" qualities like claws, fur, wings etc.

When Zeus instituted a sacrificial meal, to be a settling of accounts between mortals and immortals, Prometheus attempted to undermine Zeus.

Knowing that whatever happened at this, the first settlement, would set president for all future settlements, Prometheus tried to trick Zeus into accepting a worthless sacrifice so that man would have an easy time. Zeus was not fooled by Prometheus's deception, having already decided that man could keep and eat the meat, and he went along with it. However, Prometheus's attempted usurpation greatly angered Zeus and he hid fire from man.

Prometheus then stole fire from the sun and gave it to mankind, imbuing them with knowledge. It was in response to this act that caused Zeus to banish Prometheus and "punish" man by sending Pandora, the first woman. With her came a box, containing all the evils in the world, that was bound to be opened sooner or later. When it was opened they came out, hunger, sickness, war, sorrow etc., leaving only one thing trapped inside by the time it was closed. Later, when Pandora opened it a second time Hope came into the world.

Arguably, Prometheus's rebellion was totally unnecessary because he simply played into Zeus's hand. Zeus was not opposed to giving man fire, indeed, if he took it once he could have taken it twice. The most valuable gift mankind received was not the fire the Prometheus stole, but the hope that came to man through a woman. If Prometheus had his way, man would have been alone in a warm but hopeless world.

With the story of Prometheus in mind, we see the sad tale of Lucifer, Son of the Morning, a bit more clearly. Here we have a lesser being, Lucifer, trying first to replace God the Father, then undermine him and finally replace him as the God of Man.

When God revealed his plan to send his spirit children to earth to test and progress them on their path to godhood, it was revealed that not all would make it. Lucifer, a Son of the Morning, boldly declared that he had a much better plan. If he were in charge he could guarantee 100% success, all would ascend and be perfected. He came up with a "better" plan, and felt he was entitled to take the place of God because clearly he was superior to God.

At this point I am going to leave Greek myth and deal with the Devil. I think it is important to ponder on what Lucifer was thinking. It is clear, from his final demand "give me thine honor" that he was a lesser being than God. For if they were equals then why did he need the "honor" of a god to proceed? Surely then he knew that a coup was risky.

What then is the "honor" of Godhood? Scripture tells us that the glory of God is intelligence. It would seem then that the Honor of God is the secrets of the universe, that enable one to be all powerful and all knowing. It was this that Lucifer most desired, the ultimate power. He knew that there was risk in God's plan because souls would be placed on Earth to be truly tested and not all would be found worthy. To assure his ascension, he took the populist rout and tried to dethrone God by making wild promises to the assembly of angels. This use of force to acquire power when patience and worthiness was required, but lacking, is very reminiscent of the fellow-craftsmen who killed Hiram Abiff in trying to obtain the Master's Word.

Then there came the voice of another, saying, "Father, thy will be done and the glory be thine forever." The two paths were very, very different, one required only the dissemination of knowledge, the other demanded a high degree of spiritual development and personal sacrifice. Where the difference is most pronounced though is between the role of the "Savior" of each plan. For Lucifer, he would get great personal gain with almost no work. For Jesus, it would exact an unimaginable toll at Golgotha.

This sparked the war in heaven, with a full third of the spirits putting their trust in Lucifer to exalt them. However, the expulsion of Lucifer and his followers was the beginning, not the end, of the war. When Adam and Eve were sent to earth they forgot all that they knew in the old world, becoming innocent. In this state they walked and talked with God on a regular basis. Seeing that fire had been taken from man by God, Lucifer saw a second chance to usurp and become ruler of man by breaking their connection with God and assuming the role of their teacher and savior.

We see this clearly from the manner in which Lucifer convinced the Serpent, previously a guardian for Eve, to convince Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. The Lie, the Great, but appealing, Lie is that knowledge and power make one a god and it is through the acquisition of power, not faith through obedience that exalts.

It was only as a result of the necessary fall of Adam and Eve that Christ and the Atonement could come into the world. Prior to the Fall Adam and Eve could not have children, the central element of God's Plan of Salvation. In their innocent state in the Garden of Eden they would have remained forever, indeed, we have no idea how long they were in the garden before the fall, it could have been a day, it could have been 10,000,000 years, we don't know.

What we do know is that it was after and in consequence of the fall that the law of sacrifice was given as a reminder that the "seed of the woman" (Christ) would eventually crush the head of the serpent Lucifer.

The final question: Is what Lucifer did, in bringing about the Fall wrong, given that the work of God was enabled to go forth because of it? Yes, because of why he did it. It was done to frustrate the work of God, bringing about the eternal life and immortality of man, by breaking their connection with God and damning their souls to enhance his own power and standing. Just because God salvaged things doesn't make it ok.

In the final analysis then, the fault of Satan is that he is blinded by his own mad grab for power, seeking it to the detriment of all others and everything else in the universe, it is his single minded, all consuming quest for Fire.

Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 2

In Part 1 we went over some of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and practices of blood sacrifice. If we understand the symbolic nature of blood, we will understand the nature of blood sacrifice. If we understand the nature of blood sacrifice, we will understand the repentance and atonement with God and our path to the East will be better illuminated thereby.

Blood is the perfect symbol for our mortal, corruptible state. Leviticus 17:11 reads, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul." Note that it says "the life of flesh" because before we existed here, on this earth, in our frail, mortal forms, we existed. What we lacked was bodies, what we lacked was mortality and a temporary separation from God; all of which are necessary prerequisites to atonement.

Blood is peculiar to the condition of mortality and a symbol of corruptibility. When a body is embalmed, it is drained of blood, which is replaced with a preservative. In a similar vein, (sorry, couldn't resist) Brother Joseph Smith recorded from his vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ that they had bodies of flesh and bones (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22) and that in their veins was a clear substance he called "spirit". Thus, the embalming process mirrors ascension.

We should also take into consideration the traditions about being ritually unclean. According to the Law, contact with blood or dead bodies or menstruating women etc. made one ritually unclean and unable to pray or worship. (Islam takes it a step further, contact with ANY woman makes a man unclean) This can be confusing when we talk about "being washed in the Blood" but I hope to clear things up.

Blood is the simplest, most distilled symbol for the mortal condition. Life is full of stuff-possessions, distractions, vices, hobbies, vocations, ideas etc. that while appealing to our eyes, are trivial and selfish. In order to come unto God we must set aside those things. It's tricky, because living in the world means we can't entirely forsake them either. What we need is a willingness to give up whatsoever is corruptible to gain the incorruptible, to gain atonement with God.

It takes faith, real faith, to sacrifice the things of this world in hope of a better one ruled by a merciful God. It is the faith made manifest unto God and ourselves through obeying the commandments and sacrifice which qualifies us for The Atonement. Jesus said "Not every man who saith unto me "Lord, Lord" shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father." James 2:17-18 says that faith without works (sacrifice?) is dead and that faith is shown by works (sacrifice).

The final point I wish to hit before ending part 2 is the necessity of mortality in the Great Plan to bring souls to atonement with God. Theologians have lamented the Fall of Adam for millennia but I firmly believe that being cast out of the Garden, away from God and into this corrupt state was essential so that we could gain atonement with God. Otherwise there would be no way to show faith, no need to show faith and even no way to have faith. Without the Fall, there would be no need of reliance on Him.

Thank God for Eve.

Salvation by the Shedding of Blood Part 1

How is mankind to be saved? What is the path back to God?-these are questions put forth, and answers returned, in every religion. Ultimately, these are questions that every man and woman must wrestle with for themselves. The idea of blood sacrifice is infused in many ancient cultures and religions. The Chaldeans of Ur sacrificed virgins, Mayan kings blood-let from their phallus and Christians, not to be out done, declare that the blood sacrifice of one man was so powerful as to redeem the world. In my own personal ponderings I have tried to put the pieces together and I wish to share some thoughts with you, in the hope the reader finds something of value in their quest to the East.

The Jews of ancient Israel were famous for two things, strict adherence to the Law of Moses and the sacrifice of lambs. (also Idolatry) The Law of Moses had a couple hundred commandments and as long as you didn't break any of them, you were saved and returned to God. More knowledgeable scholars on Jewish ritual abound but, pretty much, once a year each family sacrificed one unblemished lamb (there were lots of requirements not important at the moment) to make up for that year's transgressions of the Law of that family. Similarly, once a year, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest would bring forth two goats and cast lots. One, representing the Messiah, was killed so the other (representing the Israelites) could be set free.

Now by the time we get around to the New Testament, Judaism is a religion of rules and strict adherence to the rules. In order to makes sure the rules were followed new rules were made to provide a buffer zone around the "real" rules and then another layer was added around those. This is the problem with the Law, or a rule-based theology, one violation and you are toast (in more ways than one). Many look at this kind of system and reject it because they think there is more to God than rules. They are right.

If we really look at the Law of Moses, and how it was first practiced, it is clear there is a lot more going on there than a list of rules. How was the shedding of the blood of an animal making up for disobedience?

When Jesus of Nazareth knelt in the garden at Gethsemane to repent for the sins of the world scripture tells us he sweat great drops of blood. This scene played out again on the Cross, as his life blood was drained away. Part God and part man, he led an innocent life. He alone among all of mankind had no need of repentance, of atonement-for He was a God. Yet somehow, this ultimate act, this supreme blood sacrifice, gave him power over death and the power to wash away the sins of all mankind through His blood.

The point I wish to highlight is that sin, breaking the rules, is made ok by blood sacrifice. Atonement, becoming one with God, is accomplished by the sacrificial shedding of blood. Why?

Idolatry

In the classic sense, Idolatry is praying, sacrificing or worshiping statues. Scripture makes it clear that idolatry is highly offensive. I have been pondering what idolatry really is, what is it about worshiping idols that angers God so much? I have tried to look beyond the act, or outward manifestations to look at what is going on at the core of idolatry. If we can understand the why of the sin of idolatry, we can examine our own lives and actions better. My intent at the end is not to come out with a list of "idolatrous" practices in the modern day, but rather that I might better equip my reader in their own spirituality.

First, we should look to elements of idolatry, why is it so enticing? Why has this such a major stumbling block? The first thing that comes to mind is peer pressure, everyone else is doing it, what's wrong with us? Creating the excess to create an idol, more especially a good one, was huge. If we take into account that most of their economy was subsistence based and many lived hand to mouth then just making an idol was an enormous sacrifice. Any nation worth it's salt would have one as a symbol of how rich they were that they could waste that much on something useless. Any nation without an idol was considered very poor.

Now another interesting thing about idolatry was the "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" attitude anciently. There was nothing wrong with worshiping one idol when you are at home and another when you are traveling. It is interesting in 2 Kings 17 that after the northern kingdom of Israel is carried and Assyrian settlers are brought in and start having problems they decide to bring back some Jews to teach them how to worship the local god. This mixture of Jews and Assyrian idolatry is the foundation and the Samaritans, who I should really do a blog on.

Now when foreigners, traders, sailors etc came to Israel (it sits on top of some extremely valuable trade routes) wanting to honor the local gods to ensure safe passage home they would have been told that there were no idols and would either thought the Jews were to poor-or would have judged them to be greedy and immoral for not sacrificing some of their wealth to honor the gods. Now when they learned of sacrifice at the Temple they might have wanted to go there but then would have been told that they were excluded from worshiping there. The Jews would have come off and intolerant and racist for not allowing all nations to worship with them and denying others the blessings of their God.

Now the gods of the polytheists are an interesting thing to study. I am unsure how much they were thought of as actual beings verses aspects of nature. Greek spirituality, with which I am most familiar, made the gods to be exactly like themselves. When they worshiped one god on another they were trying to improve an aspect of themselves. Apollo, considered the most Greek of the gods, represented music, medicine and learning, things highly valued by the Greeks. Women, wanting to improve as lovers could meditate on improving themselves while worshiping and vowing to follow Aphrodite; if on becoming a better respected wife, worship Hera.

Next, is moral relativism. The True God is cheapened with a "yeah, everyone worships their own idol, you got yours and I got mine." attitude. When you are dumb enough to worship some hunk of medal, that will do you no good, your belief in the efficacy of God will wane. Every man looks for his own god, according to his own strength and intellect.

Thus, Idolatry is worshiping yourself and the workings of man and the fine things of the world. You are setting aside the councils of God because you think you know better. When I think of Idolatry, as well as most sins, this is the thing I think of most. God has told us what to do to be happy and choosing to do different because we think we know better is a manifestation of a lack of faith. I think it is the galling lack of faith, not the actual praying to a golden calf, that is so offensive to God.

Evil and Wrong Too

In post-9/11/01 America, (as well as post-3/11/04 Spain and post-7/7/05 Britain) there is quite a bit of fear and resentment floating around towards Islam, for some odd reason I can't think of at the moment. In the US there have been those who have tried to bring a little humor and a little reason to the situation. A few years ago a show built around social commentary brought up the effect of attempts to depict Mohammad. After a decent commentary they asked, (dared) their network to allow them freedom of speech in their next episode. The network backed out and censored it.

But we are not here to discuss that issue. We are here to discuss the valiant efforts of Muzzammil Hassan to change negative public perceptions about Muslims. In 2004, they launched Bridges TV in Orchard Park, N.Y., which featured a mix of religious, cultural and news programming from a Muslim perspective, as well as non-Muslim programming. The station, operated by a multi-religious group.

In February 2009 his wife had the gall to file for divorce. He didn't take it well. Not wanting to propagate negative stereotypes of Muslims he did the civilized thing and.....no, wait, actually, he cut her head off in the TV station's office. Turns out that sort of thing is illegal in America and he got convicted. But you know what? Maybe he is the victim in all this......at least he thinks so.........because I don't see how a headless body could be seen as more of a victim than a convicted killer.

Boy, wouldn't it be terrible if Islam was unfairly portrayed as misogynistic?