Skip to content

Monthly Archives for March 2009

I forgot the Kyrie! Lutheran Liturgy pt. 3

I realized the other day that in my haste to get to the Gloria in Excelsis, I skipped right over the Kyrie!    In the 1958 SB&H, they kept the old titles, and I find it interesting that they are a mixture of Latin and Greek.  One of these days I’m going to pull out my copy of St. John Chrysostom’s Divine Liturgy and see how closely they align.

Kyrie is a Greek word meaning, “O Lord,” from the phrase “Kýrie, eléison,” or “O Lord, have mercy.” You might recall the phrase from the 1985 Mr. Mister song.  Here’s the 1958 Lutheran version (congregation’s response in italics), which is generally sung:

In peace let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy.

For the peace that is from above, and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy.

For the peace of the whole worlds, for the well-being of the churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy.

For this holy house, and for them that in faith, piety and fear of God offer here their worship and praise, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy.

Help, save, pity and defend us, O God, by thy grace.

Amen.

I should mention that the music for the liturgy was adapted by Regina Fryxell from various sources, including older Lutheran liturgies and 10th Century plainsongs.  In my opinion, it has much more character than any of the recent Lutheran liturgies I have heard, which in my opinion are really quite horrible.  This past Sunday I attended a Lutheran church who sung the 5th setting from the new, 2006 hymnal.   It was actually unnatural to sing; for example, they used a familiar tune to “Create in Me,” but changed the phrasing so that it actually interrupted the natural rhythm of the lyrics.  Strange.  I don’t think I’ll go back any time soon.

Written on 30 March 2009 by admin under Church, The Liturgy with No Comments
Tagged with , , , , ,

The Limitations of Reason

As I’ve reported once before, Jeff Carter at Sophie’s Ladder has recently published a series of posts summarizing the history of philosophy as it relates to the limitations of reason. As he states in the opening of his “summation” post,

This series has demonstrated the limitations – and therefore the inadequacy and failure – of reason not only in dealing with metaphysical / spiritual matters, but also in securing a foundation for reason itself. Every attempt to justify reason as a power superior to or even adequate for comprehending the metaphysical / spiritual has failed.

Now, I freely admit that I am not an expert, having bailed on my philosophy major fairly early on in my education.  However, I think a lot, so that counts for something.  One thing I did excel in was logic.  As I’ve spent the last twenty-something years analyzing and countering arguments, I do a pretty good job at it.  However, I have always been intrigued by the knowledge that not only are there limitations to reason, there are other logical systems. As Russell Shorto quotes Jonathan Ree in Descartes Bones – A Skeletal History of the Conflict Between Faith and Reason:

“… the theory of knowledge and the theory of human nature which with it; the concepts of an idea, of mathematical laws of nature … are so fundamental to modern consciousness that it is hard no to regard them as part of the natural property of the human mind. But, in fact, they are a product of the seventeenth century, and above all in the work of Descartes.”

I am also aware that built into modernism – our current Western worldview that resulted from the Cartesian revolution – is the concept of progress, so we asume that our system of logic is necessarily better than anyone else’s; in fact, we cannot conceive of any other system of logic as having any merit whatsoever.

What the series at Sophie’s Ladder does is demonstrate that all attempts to prove the superiority of reason have failed; we believe our concept of reason has to be true, but we really have to accept it on faith.  As Jeff commented on my earlier post, this series is foundational to a response he is writing of John Loftus’ approach to atheism.  Recently John has been touting his “Outsider Test of Faith” (OTF), where he challenges Christians to give up their presuppositions in order to view Christianity as an outsider would.  However, his whole system is nothing more than a house built on sand, as he does not apply the same test to his own presuppositions, which he calls “control beliefs.”  I pointed this out to John, and one of his followers thought it ridiculous that I suggest such a thing.

Of course, his OTF is really just selective application of Godel’s Theorem, which in essence is that no logical (mathematical) system can prove itself – you have to prove it from outside the system.  I am really looking forward to Jeff’s response to Loftus (actually, I’m more interested in Loftus’ response to Jeff).

On the other hand, I believe that it is possible to disprove a system from within the system, in this case, using reason and logic to show the limitations of reason and logic.  The only reason that the New Atheists (I’ll include Loftus in that group, although he distinguishes himself) can continue is that they don’t understand the philosophical mess they are in; or else they do, but are in denial.

While I cannot prove this, at least yet, I am back to thinking that the real issue with most of the atheist apologists is not philosophy or lack of evidence or logic; rather, it is a moral issue, and a faith issue.  In other words, they have chosen to believe what they believe, so that they do not have to believe something else.

Again, I highly recommend the series at Sophie’s Ladder.  It’s very well-done, and concise enough to really provide a big-picture view of the issues related to faith and reason.

Written on 26 March 2009 by me under Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 3 Comments
Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

The Lutheran Liturgy, Pt 2

Glory be to God on high!

So continues Setting Two of the Lutheran Liturgy from the 1958 Service Book and Hymnal. This is my favorite section of the liturgy, I think, and what most often has been playing in the background of my mind these past couple of weeks. This is the Gloria in Excelsis, adapted by Regina Fryxell:

Glory be to God on high!

And on earth peace, goodwill toward men.
We praise thee, we bless thee, we worship thee,
We glorify thee, we give thanks to thee for thy great glory,
O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty.
O Lord, the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ;
O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
That takest away the sin of the world, have mercy upon us.
Thou that takest away the sin of the world, receive our prayer.
Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.
For thou only art holy;
Thou only art the Lord;
Thou only, O Christ, with the Holy Ghost,
Art most high… in the glory of God the Father. Amen

The Lord be with you.

And with thy spirit.

This is followed by the Collect for the day and the Old Testament and Epistle readings, after which is sung the Alleluia (“Alleluia” sung 3 times). During Lent, instead of the Alleluia we would sing

Christ hath humbled himself,
and become obedient unto death,
even the death of the Cross.

Then, the Gospel lesson is read, prefaced by singing “Glory be to thee, O Lord,” and followed by “Praise be to thee, O Christ.”

At this point either the Apostles’ or Nicene Creed is recited, followed by the sermon.  After the sermon, the Pastor closes with,

The peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Amen.

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find many contemporary worship sets that could match the truth contained in the Liturgy. And the good news is, there’s even more! We’ll discuss that, soon.

Written on 23 March 2009 by me under Church, The Liturgy with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , ,

The Lutheran Liturgy

Growing up Lutheran (LCA), I was raised using what is fondly called the Red Hymnal (The Service Book & Hymnal, published in 1958).  That hymnal contained two liturgies, the First Setting and the Second Setting, each having its own options at certain points.  Our church used the First Setting most of the time, but used the Second for communion Sundays and throughout Lent. The Second Setting was by far my favorite, and I always looked forward to those Sundays when it was in use.

Occasionally I will use one of the liturgies as a basis for prayer and mediation (not often… I don’t want to give the wrong impression I am too spiritual); I can read music enough to hear some of the melodies in my head as I read.  Recently I obtained a very poor, but usable, recording of the Second Setting, which helped to recall it as I heard it 35 years ago.

What I find interesting is that this has apparently recalled my own memories of the liturgy (I have only listened to the recording 3 or 4 times), and I have found that it is often going through my head.  It’s there when I wake up, and often throughout the day I will realize that even as I think about something else, the liturgy is playing in the background (or perhaps playing in my soul… I don’t pretend to understand the mind-brain-soul relationship).  And, it’s not just music; in fact, the music is not predominant.  It is the words that carry the tune (where there is a tune).

So, I thought I would reprint some of what’s been going through my head of late:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Beloved in the Lord! Let us draw near with a true heart, and confess our sins unto God our Father, beseeching Him, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to grant us forgiveness.

Our help is in the Name of the Lord. Who made heaven and earth.
I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord. And thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.

Almighty God, our Maker and Redeemer, we poor sinners confess unto thee, that we are by nature sinful and unclean, and that we have sinned against thee by thought, word and deed. Wherefore we flee for refuge to thine infinite mercy, seeking and imploring thy grace, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ.

O most merciful God, who has given thine only-begotten Son to die for us, have mercy upon us and for his sake grant us remission of all our sins: and by thy Holy Spirit increase in us true knowledge of thee and of thy will, and true obedience to they Word, that by thy grace we may come to everlasting life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, hath had mercy upon us, and hath given his only Son to die for us, and for his sake forgiveth us all our sins. To them that believe on his Name, he giveth power to become the sons of God, and bestoweth upon them his Holy Spirit. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. Grant this, O Lord, unto us all.

Amen.

Now the organ kicks in (the Gloria Patri):

Glory be to the Father,
and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost;
as it was in the beginning,
is now and ever shall be,
world without end. Amen

At this point, we’re just ramping up.  In the first 5 minutes of the service, we’ve heard and recited the Gospel, confessed our sins and heard the message of forgiveness.  Many contemporary churches never get to this point.  The basis for church for Lutherans is that church is a gathering of sinners, commonly united by the Gospel message of forgiveness; and this is the only basis for church.

Next, the Kyrie and the Gloria in Excelsis.

Written on 19 March 2009 by me under Church, The Liturgy with 5 Comments
Tagged with , , , , ,

Bertrand Russell and the limitations of reason

If there is one thing that sets the so-called “New Atheists” apart from the old atheists, it is perhaps the general ignorance of philosophy, and specifically of the philosophical foundations for their own stated positions.  I will hear Hume quoted (for his atheism and specifically for his arguments against the Design Inference), while ignoring the fact that Hume’s arguments also challenge the concept of causality; for Hume, science and reason cannot ever be predictive.  I have also heard Bertrand Russell quoted, as perhaps the most well-known atheist of recent years, having authored Why I Am Not A Christian.    Russell, however, presents even more problems for the New Atheism.

I thought that I had mentioned the great series of posts, “The Limitations of Reason,” that have been appearing over at Sophie’s Ladder, but perhaps I haven’t. In any even, if you have any interest whatsoever in philosophy and epistemology, this series (now at 10 posts) provides a nice overview.  Number 10 in the series deals with Mr. Russell and his inability to refute Hume.

The New Atheists all tend to lean towards science and specifically evolutionary theories as the “answer” to Christianity and faith in general.  Daniel Dennett stands out somewhat as he is primarily a philosopher, an empiricist who focused on the phlosphy of the mind. I don’t know how he defends his epistemology, if he does. (Perhaps Sophie will address this at some point.)  Russell, however, would not have fit in at all with this group, though he may have wanted to.

Russell’s conclusions include, as quoted by Sophie:

“Although our postulates can … be fitted into a framework which has what may be called an empiricist ‘flavor,’ it remains undeniable that our knowledge of them, in so far as we do know them, cannot be based upon experience…In this sense, it must be admitted empirism as a theory of knowledge has proved inadequate….”

Thus, science is “at war with itself:  when it most means to be objective, it finds itself plunged into subjectivity against its will.  Naive realism leads to physics, and physics, if true, shows that naive realism is false.  Therefore naive realism, if true, is false; therefore it is false.”

and

“If we are to hold that we know anything of the external world, we must accept the canons of scientific knowledge.  Whether… an individual decides to accept or reject these canons, is a purely personal affair, not suscpectible to argument.”

Atheists tend to get upset when I point out that the validity of the scientific method cannot be substantiated by it’s own rules, and that their belief systems are based on choice.  Scientism, which places scientific knowledge above all else, and rationalism are therefore nothing more than other faith or belief systems.  John Loftus at least admits his thinking is based on  a set of foundational assumptions, though he doesn’t seem willing to discuss the validity of those assumptions.

To my knowledge none of the New Atheist discussions get to a foundational level, as Russell’s did. I am assuming this is because 1) they are unwilling to admit they have these assumptions (as science is supposedly totally objective), or 2) if they did, they may have to face Russell’s conclusions. Sophie concludes:

In the end, Russell’s movements through philosophy is an iconic testament to the futility of reason.   His beliefs that the objective world is encountered directly were soon shown to be false.  His attempts to establish mathematical logic were determined to be incomplete.  His attempt to refute Hume and establish inference were admittedly failures.   Yet, for all the crumbling of his towers, “rational” atheists still hold to his basic beliefs, which show that they themselves do not base their beliefs on rationality but cling to them because they desperately want them to be true – the very thing they accuse Christians of doing.

Written on 12 March 2009 by me under Epistemology, Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy with 5 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

What’s wrong with corporate America

Being this is my “avocational” blog, I have never blogged about business issues here.  Until now, that is.  There’s a lot that can be said about the problems with corporate America, and Scott Adams has said most of it well enough.  However, I just read a great article by Ken Shelton, Editor of Leadership Excellence Magazine, entitled “Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Work?” that I just had to pass along. Shelton writes:

Already, our teenage population is perfecting the art of work-avoidance while taking comfort in inflated grades and “don’t worry, be happy” friends like Joe Fifer and Sam Fiddler.

No self-respecting, college-educated American youth is going to do any real work of the organization beyond age thirty. I define real work as the creation and delivery of the primary products and services of the company; the serving of actual customers; selling to potential clients; value-added support and management of those functions; and faithful, fruitful leadership.

If by age thirty, people haven’t mastered the games of delegating up and down, putting on appearances, politicking, and socializing, they deserve the awful fate of having to work for a living.

The real work is done by

  • Third-world nationals who don’t know any better
  • Women and minorities who do it because it’s there
  • Youth (under thirty) who have no power to avoid it
  • Seniors (over fifty) who do it out of duty

The article goes on to what the rest do to avoid work, which from my experience is pretty accurate.  I can’t tell you how much of my time was wasted just so someone up the food chain could pretend to justify their existence by creating useless programs, counting things that didn’t need counting, and so on. If you work in a fairly large corporation, you will know exactly what I mean, and you will be able to check each “work avoidance” technique off on Shelton’s list.

There were times, of course, when I would look at those “pointy-haired” positions and dream of how nice it would be to escape the actual work-force and become pointy-haired myself. Choosing the life of a technician – that is, actually working hard to become good at something to try to make a difference – under the direction of those who had escaped the real work is choosing a life of frustration, as the goals do not align.  In spite of the companys stated goals. And, of course, there’s always the short-term memory syndrome: within weeks, if not days, of leaving the actual workforce, managers will forget what real work is like.  The consequences of this situation is that most of those doing the actual work will eventually leave the work-force, either burning out, jumping ship, or choosing to move up.

The situation that Shelton discusses is alarming, and causes some concern – do I really want my children involved in corporate America?

Written on 11 March 2009 by me under Business with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , ,

10 reasons to [not] attend church

I found this post by Kurt Onken today at the Wittenberg Trail, and thought it was worth referencing.

The socially-palatable, seeker over-sensitive church has no future.  This may appear to some to show that Christianity is losing ground.  However, I disagree. I think Christianity has already lost ground in many churches.  This is why people like the Internet Monk talk about the coming collapse of the evangelical church.

It’s time to take it back.

Written on 11 March 2009 by me under Church, Letter to a Christian Nation, My Own Personal Religion with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , ,

A great discussion on Christianity vs Atheism

If you have any interest in the subject at all, I suggest you read JD Walters’ post Setting the record straight: the psychology of one ‘true believer’ at CADRE Comments.  Not only is the post a great response to the current state of atheist blogging (aside from folks like Brad Monton), but John Loftus responds in the following discussion.  In JD’s conclusion, he says:

But despite all this, when all is said and done I can reflect on my faith with satisfaction at its firmness, not a result of ignorance but precisely its opposite, a deeper understanding of my tradition and the disciplines which Loftus claims lead people away from faith (as Francis Bacon remarked long ago, a little learning inclines people to atheism, but more learning brings them back to theism).

With all of the “New Atheist” hoopla over the past couple of years, I would agree with Walters: the truth remains that atheism has been tried and found wanting.

Written on 07 March 2009 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt with 6 Comments
Tagged with , , , ,

Working on the New World Order

I think Harry Collins is a little bit nuts; what do you think?

Collins is a professor of social science at Cardiff University, who is apparently tired of having the social sciences marginalized and is working on the groundrules for a New World Order with his partner, Dr. Robert Evans.  Not happy with either old-fashioned Modernism or Post-modernism, they are advancing what they call “Elective Modernism.”   From a Q&A on the subject:

‘Post-Post-Modernism’ is a bit of a mouthful and the term we prefer is ‘Elective Modernism.’   ‘Elective Modernism’ captures the idea that, as with any kind of scepticism, the ideas of Wave 2 are indefeasible—science is not forced upon us by its efficiency or its revelation-like certainty.  Nevertheless, it is impossible to live by scepticism alone.  Therefore, irrespective of the logic of the sceptical arguments one must still elect to live by principles that recognise the value of experience and expertise.

Elective Modernism does not reinstate Modernism as it was before Post-Modernism.  Instead Elective Modernism describes an age in which we choose to value expertise and experience because we know that while the problem of legitimacy cannot be ignored, neither can the problem of extension and we know that a society in which an expert opinion is given the same weight as any other opinion is not one we would want to live in.  We have all been changed by Wave 2 and by Post-Modernism, but we still have to get on with a life informed by expertise; we must surely elect to live in a society where decisions are made for reasons in addition to power and populist sentiment.

“Wave Two” seems to refer to post-modernism, which among other things has demonstrated the failure of science to assert itself as the guiding force of society. Skepticism is pointless, scientists often speak in areas in which they are not experts, and if left to the public, we’ll end up with decisions made based on politics and religion.

Elective Modernism is his proposed Wave Three, in which society must choose science, but not either Wave One or Wave Two science.  And, this choice is not necessarily rational, but moral:

If Wave Two has shown that arguments that favour scientific values cannot be got from the ideas of truth and efficiency, such values, if they are to inform a society, will simply have to be `chosen’. We can call the basis of a society which chooses such values, `Elective Modernism.’

Elective Modernism is, I want to argue, the most attractive successor to Post-Modernism. I want to suggest that Elective Modernism is a more appealing as a basis for society than force, religion, or populism. But the choice itself would not be `rational’ but more like a moral choice: one would not want to live in a society in which, say, gratuitous torture of the innocent and weak is acceptable even though one could not prove it was a bad society. Those who would demand a `proof’ of the badness of such a society would have missed the point.

Collins is quite critical of the current state of science, says that we “cannot live by skepticism alone,” and rejects essentially any principles for establishing societal values. Except, that is, for choosing to accept the values of science. The problem is, he explains, no current method for determining the values of science has worked.

The society he envisions is not based on the outcomes of science, but by making a moral choice to choose scientific values of experience and expertise; that is, a world run by experts.  I have not yet discovered how this escapes the problems of skepticism or expert opinions skewed by politics or culture, the problems of Wave Two.

I enjoy reading Collins; he certainly has some interesting things to say. However, I couldn’t help thinking of Orwell’s Animal Farm.  I propose a little game, similar to those I keep getting invitations to on FaceBook: Read a few of Collins’ essays, then tell me, which Animal Farm animal would he be?


Written on 06 March 2009 by admin under Faith, Science & Doubt with 1 Comment
Tagged with , , , , ,

Yay! I made it!

Last night I took the plunge and moved this site over to Dreamhost, and upgraded WordPress at the same time. I’m sure I didn’t do it exactly right (for some reason I had to import the database twice), but everything’s apparently here.  I had a few moments of frustration and angst trying to figure out the directions and then do it differently, but with Elliot’s help and some sheer willpower, I completed it about 1 AM.

I still have to mess with some of the plugins and settings, as the backup I had that included the settings was incompatible for some reason.

If you see anything amiss, please let me know in a comment (I also moved my e-mail accounts, and haven’t quite worked all of the bugs out yet).

Written on 05 March 2009 by admin under Random Thoughts with 1 Comment