Sunday, February 14, 2010

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Pascal's Wager

Since this coming Wed is the 1st day of Lent, I just signed on to see if I could order a good book or 2 to read during this time. Like I've mentioned before, it seems like I waste so much time doing worthless things like staring at the television or my computer screen. Sometimes I sign on to check my e-mail and then before I know it, an hour has gone by, and I really have accomplished nothing! I want to devote a lot of the next several weeks to really trying to use my time more wisely! So I want to make sure I have some books laying around. There is a book by Peter Kreeft that I've been wanting to get called "Fundamentals of the Faith." I went to his website to look for it and saw that he had written something on Pascal's Wager, which I had read online some months ago. Blaise Pascal was a French Philosopher back in the 1600's. His "Wager" is an argument that is for the atheist, and is based on the truth that a choice has to be made before death either for God or against Him... It's like placing a wager for some, because reason has not yet carried them over to faith. Ultimately it comes down to stepping out in faith because the risk is too great to stay where you are. It is the only logical choice for happiness here and in eternity. Pascal said, "Let us assess the two cases: if you win, you win everything: if you lose, you lose nothing. Do not hesitate then: wager that he does exist." I really enjoyed reading what I have read so far of him, so I clicked to see what Peter Kreeft had to say about this, and it was REALLY good! If anyone wants to read this please click here. Peter Kreeft is a professor of Philosophy at Boston College, and is really brilliant. I want to get some more of his books in the future. Anyway, I thought it was funny that out of over 50 books on his site, this writing that I was drawn to on Pascal's Wager was taken from the exact book, "Fundamentals of the Faith," that I was looking to buy! I didn't know until I got to the end, and I saw the excerpt was taken from that very book. I think I will buy this book. HA HA!

Wednesday, February 10, 2010


I know everyone is probably tired of seeing pictures of my dog, but here are just a couple more to remind you how golden he really is!

Tuesday, February 9, 2010


HA HA! I love the guys who did this!

Monday, February 8, 2010

New Discovery

Tahoe has discovered gophers. This is his new fun thing. This is my view every 50 feet or so on our walks. The craters are pretty enormous, if I let him pursue it for any length of time!

That's it?

Now I know that the organization NOW is not only crazy but entirely insane. Now I know that these groups are not merely PRO-CHOICE, but they really are PRO-ABORTION...It's not a good thing to them that Tim Tebow is alive, you know? In their eyes, he should have been killed in the womb.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

On Faith and the Founding

"Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin
Chapter 3:

"REASON CANNOT, BY ITSELF, explain why there is reason. Science cannot, by itself, explain why there is science. Man's discovery and application of science are products of reason.

"Reason and science can explain the existence of matter, but they cannot explain why there is matter. They can explain the existence of the universe, but they cannot explain why there is a universe. They can explain the existence of nature and the law of physics, but they cannot explain why there is nature and the law of physics. They can explain the existence of life, but they cannot explain why there is life. They can explain the existence of consciousness, but they cannot explain why there is consciousness.

"Science is a critical aspect of human existence, but it cannot address the spiritual nature of man. In this respect, science is a dead end around which the Athiest refuses to reason. Reason itself informs man of its own limitations and, in doing so, directs him to the discovery of a force greater than himself- a supernatural force responsible for the origins of not only human existence but all existence, and which itself has always existed and will always exist..."

"Man is more than a physical creature. As Edmund Burke argued, each individual is created as a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience and is bound to a transcendent moral order established by Divine Providence and uncovered through observation and experience over the ages. 'There is but one law for all, namely, that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity- the law of nature and of nations'. This is the Natural Law that penetrates man's being and which the Founding Fathers adopted as the principle around which civilized American society would be organized.

"The Declaration of Independence appeals to 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.' It provides further, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

"The Founders were enlightened men, but not men purely of the Age of Enlightenment. They were highly educated, well-informed men who excelled at reason and subscribed to science but worshipped neither. They comprehended them- their strengths as well as weaknesses. The Declaration's signers were congregationalist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Unitarian, and Roman Catholic. At least two Founders, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, are widely believed to have been Diests. They were men of varying denominations but united and emphatic in the belief that the Creator was the origin of their existence and the source of their reason.

"Is it possible that there is no Natural Law and man can know moral order and unalienable rights from his own reasoning, unaided by the supernatural or God? There are, of course, those who argue this case- including the Atheist and others who attempt to distinguish Natural Law from Divine Providence. It is not the view adopted by the Founders. This position would, it seems, lead man to arbitrarily create his own morality and rights, or create his own arbitrary morality and rights- right and wrong, just and unjust, good and bad, would be relative concepts susceptible to circumstantial applications. Moreover, by what justification would 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' be 'unalienable Rights' if there is no Natural Law, since reason alone cannot make them inviolable? What then is Natural Law if its origin is unknown or rejected? It is nothing more than a human construct."

I wanted to practice my typing skills with some good reading! I liked how he incorporated some good old fashioned apologetics into the politics! He goes on to say that even if a person rejects this belief in Divine Providence, he still benefits from the Law that society has set up in this way... In the same way, even if a person rejects the idea of a Natural Law altogether, he can still benefit from it if it is practiced around him because it STILL exists! But civililized society cannot be set up and organized without believing in a Natural Law that was given to us from a Divine Being because inevitably it would lead to anarchy and tyranny. Either a Survival of the Fittest, or a take charge, " I will do what I think is best for you" type of mentality.

Monday, February 1, 2010

Liberty and Tyranny

This movie was awesome, if anyone is looking for an awesome movie to rent! It's the sure thing! It won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 2007. Yes, it's subtitled, but if your eyes aren't perfect anymore, (like mine) the subtitles are big enough to actually read without straining! I also started reading a new book this morning that coincides with the theme of this movie. It's called, "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. I stole this from the back cover...
"We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names- liberty and tyranny."