Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November, 2009

Just a Thought

        During a few sleepless moments last night a nebulous concept began to condense into a question within my mind.  What is the basic unit of a thought?   Or to put it another way, of what is a thought composed?

          In order to communicate the complexity of the question as I am considering it fully awake let me begin by relating an analogy.  As a Biology teacher at present, I teach students many parts or units of structure and function.  One example is the protein.  The protein is the basic unit of function for accomplishing tasks within a cell.  A protein is twisted into a specific shape that enables it to function properly because of an exact sequence of sub-units called amino acids.  Imagine a necklace of differing color and shape of stones all tangled up as it sits in a jewelry box.  But the amino acids have parts called atoms and atoms are made of smaller parts yet (Being an analogy I will leave it to the nuclear physicists to parse quarks and strings, and energy, what ever that is.).  Which part or piece is the basic unit?  Is it the smallest part or is it the association of parts that function as a unit?  Is it the atom that makes up the protein or the protein that functions as a whole, or is it the amino acid of which the protein is composed?

          An example of a ……. an idea might help.  Several days ago my wife and I were taking a pleasant and brisk walk on a cool evening in our small town.  As we approached an intersection near the town square someone passed us.  As I squinted in the evening sun I caught a whiff of cigarette smoke.  Now I have smelled cigarette smoke in many contexts over my nearly 50 years but at this moment I was immediately translated in mind to the pavement, crowds, rides, sounds, and sights of the Tennessee Valley A & I Fair in Knoxville, walking beside my father as a child.  I have heard that odors constitute the most thorough associations and memories and, by the way, I would not have thought any good association would be in my mind from tobacco smoke.  Was the TV A&I Fair-cigarette smoke complex a thought or was the cigarette smoke the thought that drew along in its vapors many rapid fire associations?

          If thought is as simple as a transistor switch on a microchip where one state results in an “on” switch and the other state results in an “off” switch, then the basic unit of thought is the most simple differentiation of this but not that, black not white.  But perhaps thoughts must need to be a functioning unit to exist or be remembered or be used.

          At some point in time a young child discovers the concept of two.  Perhaps his mother was carrying him to the bathtub for his Saturday evening bath.  The procedure included her handing him his yellow rubber ducky.  He gets so excited about the bath that she can hardly hold onto him.  Because this procedure is a time honored tradition in the family, the pair pass his older brother coming out of the bathroom, wrapped in a towel, carrying his yellow rubber ducky.  He squeals and raises his ducky toward his brother’s who reciprocates with a tap of the two toys together.  Having made this discovery, is the thought of “two” (of course devoid of word or Arabic numeral or math at this point) a complex association of bath, brother, mom, ducky, and so forth, or is it a mere recognition of two duckies?  It seems as though “two” generalized to number of siblings or number of dissimilar toys is a future and further association which may amend or truncate or revise “two”.  But is the thought of two from that point in the subconscious mind of this man a reflection on the set of associations surrounding rubber duckies or is it a continually revised concept that is both increasing in complexity by associations and simplified in the basic idea of what “two” is?

          Is the basic unit of thought static or dynamic, a complex association or a singular point?  And despite the consternation of the materialist is the complexity of thinking a suggestion that the whole is more than the sum of its parts?  Is there any suggestion from these musings or deeper study that thought has a deeper Source than chemical reactions, associations, and natural selection?  Just a thought.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

A Canon of Truth

          Many students are deceived by a common perspective in high school and college classrooms of today that attributes the core doctrine of Christ’s divinity and the books accepted as inspired by God to the political scheming of Emperor Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.  Are these two ideas, that Jesus is God and that the canon of the New Testament includes the 27 books that it now contains, the convenient creation of a Roman emperor and his political cronies for political gain?  No, they are not, because the evidence of both predate the Council of Nicea by 150 to 200 years.

          New Testament historian and apologist, Michael Licona states, “Within 300 years of Christ almost 36,000 quotations of the New Testament appear in the writings of the early church fathers. In fact, every verse in the New Testament is quoted but 11.”  Among these church fathers were Justin Martyr whose writings around 150 and 161 AD affirmed the four Gospel accounts and the Revelation by John as teaching from God.  And Irenaeus of Lyons, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, in his writing about 180 AD quoted from 22 out of the 27 books now in the New Testament in defense of their truth.  And Tertullian of Carthage between 200-220 AD affirmed all of the present New Testament books quoting from them, except II Peter, James, II John, and III John.  All of these church fathers and more stated and confirmed what the Council of Nicea merely clarified later.

          On the other hand, a book like the Gospel of Thomas was not affirmed by any of the church fathers and certainly condemned by Origen of Alexandria.  This matters for two reasons.  This book (and others, like the Gospels of Mary, Judas, Matthias, Philip, and Truth and about two dozen others) was a Gnostic writing written at least a century later than the books of the Bible.  Gnosticism was a prevalent religion of the second and third centuries that taught the dualistic view that spirit is good and material is bad.  It twists what the Bible has to say about Jesus.  Secondly, many modern writers, teachers, and some film makers choose to believe these heretical stories, deceiving many to believe lies about Jesus and early Christianity.

          The evidence for which books were considered to be Scripture before Nicea is strong. The evidence against other books grew as their heresy spread and church leaders spoke against them and confirmed the God given books.    But what difference does it make?  It is very important because our salvation depends on what we believe and what we believe is based on what sources we accept and read.  Paul says in II Timothy 3:15-16 that “you [Timothy] have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable to teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness”.  If the Scripture is added to by accepting books that twist who Jesus is and what He did, we will not have the “wisdom that leads to salvation”.  Jesus declared His purpose for coming in Luke 24:45-47 when “He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and He said to them, ’Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”  And Paul the Apostle further confirms what is Scripture when he quotes the words of Jesus (Luke 10:7), and the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 25:4) by  saying, “For the Scripture says” (I Timothy 5:18).  And Peter declares, “our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him wrote to you, as also in all his letters speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.”  And I might add to the destruction of those deceived by them.  The Scripture is internally consistent and clearly attested by external sources so that we can know that the person and work of Christ for salvation is true.

Read Full Post »