All right, so God exists. Most people believe in God anyway. So what’s the point of going through all of that in the previous posts?
The point is exactly this: there are reliable, rational reasons to believe in God—not just a religious-feeling heavenly idea of God, but an objectively real and relevant God with real and relevant rules. And if we do not include God in our attempts at self government, we will fail.
Human beings do not naturally lean toward God’s instructions; this is why nearly all people who have ever lived have spent their lives under the heels of tyrants and murderers. Indeed, we often go so far as to ban from government and public discourse anything that even appears to spring from God. Citing separation of church and state, we actively choose public policies that are the opposite of God’s commandments. We give condoms to children, dismember babies in their mother's wombs, and legalize same sex “marriage.” We have so thoroughly accommodated the imagined rights of the depraved that we have all but destroyed the culture necessary to raise noble, wise, and happy children.
With the exception of slavery and the resulting Civil War—both glaring departures from God’s instruction—the nation flourished for 200 years while following God’s commands in the Bible. In the 1960s, the effort to ban God and His instructions from government began to gain traction. Since then we have seen an explosion in violent crime, our children have come to behave like self-absorbed animals, and our national debt has grown so enormous that it will almost certainly crush us. Beyond those, our social ills are legion; the list is as lengthy and frightening as our list of sins.
The solution to many of these problems is as easy as sending our children to Sunday School. We know that God’s instructions work because there was a time when we more frequently obeyed His rules and did not suffer from these same social malignancies. God has told us how to live, and it works remarkably well. We ignore Him at our imminent peril. He has warned us that He won’t remain silent forever.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Will the Real Reality Please Stand Up?
Postmodern philosophy became popular a few years ago. Postmodernism is basically a denial that objective reality exists or can be known. It teaches that each of us has our own reality, because we cannot know objective reality through our senses. This is merely an excuse for people to behave as they wish, and is foolish in the extreme.
Objective reality really exists. This is why science works. If we each defined our own reality, then we could not find out how things work through experimentation. A given experiment would turn out differently for different people, depending on the “reality” of each. But this isn’t the case. The sun rises and sets for everyone, nuclear bombs really can destroy entire cities, and you really do exist. These things, like the science that has given us our unprecedented technology, are objectively true. I prove objective reality every time I push the play button on my DVD player; it works no matter what the button-pusher happens to believe about the machine.
Here’s the point: Our success or failure depends on how closely our values, decisions, and actions are aligned with reality. If we fail to correctly discern and identify objective reality, we will also fail to reach our goals.
Objective reality really exists. This is why science works. If we each defined our own reality, then we could not find out how things work through experimentation. A given experiment would turn out differently for different people, depending on the “reality” of each. But this isn’t the case. The sun rises and sets for everyone, nuclear bombs really can destroy entire cities, and you really do exist. These things, like the science that has given us our unprecedented technology, are objectively true. I prove objective reality every time I push the play button on my DVD player; it works no matter what the button-pusher happens to believe about the machine.
Here’s the point: Our success or failure depends on how closely our values, decisions, and actions are aligned with reality. If we fail to correctly discern and identify objective reality, we will also fail to reach our goals.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Necessity of God, Part IV
Okay, so we’ve talked a lot about the requirement that Supernature exist for us to be as we believe we are.
But what about God, where does He fit in? In previous posts, we pretty well covered our capacities for uncaused events and self-awareness. These mean that we can access realms and abilities that extend beyond what is possible in a merely physical universe. In these ways we are similar to the traditional concept of God. (Let us create them in our image.) But we cannot be God, for some conditions exist that demand the existence of a Greater Power.
First, who made the universe? I don’t remember doing it. Do you? The intricacy and apparent design of our physical environment shouts of an intellect, skill, and power that are infinitely greater than our own. Besides, I wouldn’t be much of a Supreme Being if I had created the universe and couldn’t even remember it.
Second, who made you and me? I do not remember always having existed. I seem to have had a beginning. Since it is nonsensical to say a thing created itself, there must have been a Beginner, a Creator.
Third, who made the rules? There seem to be objective rules of right and wrong governing our existence, rules like fairness, honesty, and the “Thou Shalt Nots” of the Ten Commandments. These are universal—or nearly so—throughout the human race. They transcend our physical laws. I still believe in these rules even when I don’t obey them, even when my initial impulse is to do their opposite. They do not appear to be an extension of myself, so where do they come from? It is rational to expect that, if there was a Creator, any non-physical laws—any morality—would extend from intrinsic characteristics or values of that Creator.
And that Creator we call “God.”
But what about God, where does He fit in? In previous posts, we pretty well covered our capacities for uncaused events and self-awareness. These mean that we can access realms and abilities that extend beyond what is possible in a merely physical universe. In these ways we are similar to the traditional concept of God. (Let us create them in our image.) But we cannot be God, for some conditions exist that demand the existence of a Greater Power.
First, who made the universe? I don’t remember doing it. Do you? The intricacy and apparent design of our physical environment shouts of an intellect, skill, and power that are infinitely greater than our own. Besides, I wouldn’t be much of a Supreme Being if I had created the universe and couldn’t even remember it.
Second, who made you and me? I do not remember always having existed. I seem to have had a beginning. Since it is nonsensical to say a thing created itself, there must have been a Beginner, a Creator.
Third, who made the rules? There seem to be objective rules of right and wrong governing our existence, rules like fairness, honesty, and the “Thou Shalt Nots” of the Ten Commandments. These are universal—or nearly so—throughout the human race. They transcend our physical laws. I still believe in these rules even when I don’t obey them, even when my initial impulse is to do their opposite. They do not appear to be an extension of myself, so where do they come from? It is rational to expect that, if there was a Creator, any non-physical laws—any morality—would extend from intrinsic characteristics or values of that Creator.
And that Creator we call “God.”
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Necessity of God, Part III
Do you exist? How do you know? Is it because you experience tactile sensations? Because you can move? Because you can process information inside your head? I submit that you would still be certain of your own existence if you were completely paralyzed, in a sensory deprivation tank, or even if you weren’t thinking in the traditional sense of the word. You know that you exist because you have self awareness.
Computers are interesting in this regard. A computer can be programmed to simulate self awareness. All you need do is tell the machine that it exists, and it will answer in the affirmative every time. But how will it respond if we tell it that it doesn’t exist?
Suppose we build a computer with a body of flesh and bone and program it to perfectly simulate the behavior of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Would the computer then have self awareness? Despite what science fiction would have you believe, the answer is still “No.” No matter how complex its nervous system may be, it has no actual self to become aware of. In its essence, the machine is still a machine: a swirl of electrical/chemical/mechanical activity. Any statement the machine makes about itself will always be determined by the arrangement of those electrical/chemical/mechanical parts. It can report on the condition of its internals, but it can never know that it knows something. We can change its report simply by changing the condition of its parts. In other words, it can store and report data, but it can never know anything. This is because its every response will always be caused by its own arrangement and any stimulus it receives. As C.S. Lewis put it, any statement from such a machine will contain no more knowledge than the statement “I itch.”
But you and I are not like a machine. You would still know you that exist, even if told otherwise by people you respect. There is a “ghost in the machines” of you and me. This is why a belief in evolution can never replace the necessity of God: because self awareness can never spring up in an entirely caused universe, no matter how complex the organism or how long the time. This is because self-awareness is at least partly an uncaused event, the first uncaused event that humans perform. It is the first act of a new mind: conscious self awareness, the realization of the certainty that I am.
Descartes had it wrong. It is not “I think, therefore I am,” for an argument can be made that computers think. It is rather, “I know that I am, therefore I am.” In other words, I have self awareness. There is a “me” inside here; I have a mind to be aware of; I exist. This is not something we can be told, for what if we were told the opposite? We cannot learn it through our senses, for our senses could lie. This knowledge of oneself cannot be achieved by any physical cause or it is not really known, but only a statement of the condition of the electrons in one’s cortex.
I am.
Interesting that God, in the Old Testament when Moses asked His name, replied, “I am that I am.” God, representing Himself in his simplest form, meets completely the first requirement of all conscious beings.
Computers are interesting in this regard. A computer can be programmed to simulate self awareness. All you need do is tell the machine that it exists, and it will answer in the affirmative every time. But how will it respond if we tell it that it doesn’t exist?
Suppose we build a computer with a body of flesh and bone and program it to perfectly simulate the behavior of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Would the computer then have self awareness? Despite what science fiction would have you believe, the answer is still “No.” No matter how complex its nervous system may be, it has no actual self to become aware of. In its essence, the machine is still a machine: a swirl of electrical/chemical/mechanical activity. Any statement the machine makes about itself will always be determined by the arrangement of those electrical/chemical/mechanical parts. It can report on the condition of its internals, but it can never know that it knows something. We can change its report simply by changing the condition of its parts. In other words, it can store and report data, but it can never know anything. This is because its every response will always be caused by its own arrangement and any stimulus it receives. As C.S. Lewis put it, any statement from such a machine will contain no more knowledge than the statement “I itch.”
But you and I are not like a machine. You would still know you that exist, even if told otherwise by people you respect. There is a “ghost in the machines” of you and me. This is why a belief in evolution can never replace the necessity of God: because self awareness can never spring up in an entirely caused universe, no matter how complex the organism or how long the time. This is because self-awareness is at least partly an uncaused event, the first uncaused event that humans perform. It is the first act of a new mind: conscious self awareness, the realization of the certainty that I am.
Descartes had it wrong. It is not “I think, therefore I am,” for an argument can be made that computers think. It is rather, “I know that I am, therefore I am.” In other words, I have self awareness. There is a “me” inside here; I have a mind to be aware of; I exist. This is not something we can be told, for what if we were told the opposite? We cannot learn it through our senses, for our senses could lie. This knowledge of oneself cannot be achieved by any physical cause or it is not really known, but only a statement of the condition of the electrons in one’s cortex.
I am.
Interesting that God, in the Old Testament when Moses asked His name, replied, “I am that I am.” God, representing Himself in his simplest form, meets completely the first requirement of all conscious beings.
Monday, November 16, 2009
The Necessity of God, Part II
Have you ever made a decision? Could you have decided to do something other than read this sentence right now? If all events are 100% caused, then the answer to both questions is “No.” You don’t have a choice. You have been destined to read this sentence at this moment since the dawn of time; there is nothing else you could be doing. Your action is caused, just as my writing of this sentence was caused and there was therefore nothing else I could have done. In a universe with 100% causation, everything is predetermined to occur exactly when and the way it does. All of history is like the ultimate computer program, with all events causing all subsequent events until the end of the world. Run it through again with the same origin of the universe, and all of history will play out exactly the same once again. Your every action is completely devoid of significance because you could choose no other way. You are entirely caused and all of your actions, thoughts, and emotions are caused by previous concrete physical events. In short, apart from uncaused events, there is no you. That central part of yourself that believes you are in control is only an illusion. But, we might ask, who is the illusion fooling? (I once read a review in a major national magazine of a book that claimed this wholly caused universe was a reality. The author was daring in his proclamation that “There is no you.” But this brings an immediate problem: “If no one exists, why did he write the book? Who is he trying to persuade?”)
Free will—the making of a decision which is not entirely caused—requires an event that is at least partially uncaused. Without free will, there is no significance. Significance is the possibility of influencing eternity. Without free will and significance, the TV is on but no one is home; the universe is a sitcom that no one made, no one is starring in, and no one is watching.
It should be noted here that, although uncaused events are required for significance, totally random or spontaneous events won’t get us there, either. A truly random event, if such a thing exists, would have no more significance than a totally caused event, because there is no reason or rationality—and therefore no meaning—behind it. What is needed is an event that is neither caused nor random—a requirement that cannot be met in a purely physical universe.
We live in a universe that appears to be purely mechanical. For us to be as we believe ourselves to be, we need causation that is not a physical cause—an uncause, if you will. We need an event that can either occur or not based on a free will or rational impetus—an impetus unavailable in our physical universe. When you make a decision—when you exercise your free will—you are performing an action that is outside the capacity of a purely natural universe. It is an unnatural event, a supernatural event. In short, you perform what might accurately be called a miracle. We are supernatural, non-physical beings, residents of a realm outside of the physical universe who are injected into physical space cocooned in a physical body—a kind of avatar. This is why we distinguish between body—the impossibly complex but purely physical machine with which we interact with our physical environment—and soul.
What other uncaused events might we be capable of? Tune in next time to find out.
Free will—the making of a decision which is not entirely caused—requires an event that is at least partially uncaused. Without free will, there is no significance. Significance is the possibility of influencing eternity. Without free will and significance, the TV is on but no one is home; the universe is a sitcom that no one made, no one is starring in, and no one is watching.
It should be noted here that, although uncaused events are required for significance, totally random or spontaneous events won’t get us there, either. A truly random event, if such a thing exists, would have no more significance than a totally caused event, because there is no reason or rationality—and therefore no meaning—behind it. What is needed is an event that is neither caused nor random—a requirement that cannot be met in a purely physical universe.
We live in a universe that appears to be purely mechanical. For us to be as we believe ourselves to be, we need causation that is not a physical cause—an uncause, if you will. We need an event that can either occur or not based on a free will or rational impetus—an impetus unavailable in our physical universe. When you make a decision—when you exercise your free will—you are performing an action that is outside the capacity of a purely natural universe. It is an unnatural event, a supernatural event. In short, you perform what might accurately be called a miracle. We are supernatural, non-physical beings, residents of a realm outside of the physical universe who are injected into physical space cocooned in a physical body—a kind of avatar. This is why we distinguish between body—the impossibly complex but purely physical machine with which we interact with our physical environment—and soul.
What other uncaused events might we be capable of? Tune in next time to find out.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Necessity of God, Part I
I might as well confess from the start that I can’t prove logically that God exists. He seems to have deliberately designed things that way. The best I can do is show that if God doesn't exist, then we are not the beings we believe ourselves to be. Truth, knowledge, right, wrong, good, bad, morality, logic, reason thought, significance, consciousness, motivation, free will, and even our very selves cannot exist without Him. We may each hold a different opinion about God, but we all—even “atheists”—behave as if He exists.
How to start? Imagine that the universe is a closed system inside of which every event is caused by some other physical event, and no events occur that are not caused by another event. Everything inside this universe we can call “Nature” and everything outside of the universe would therefore be “Supernature,” as in “above or beyond Nature.” Now, any entry into the system by forces outside of the system would bring about apparently uncaused events because there would be no way to determine the cause of the event from inside the system. It would appear as magic or, more appropriately, a miracle.
Godless Evolutionists or Atheists claim that nothing exists beyond Nature, that there is no Supernature. The first problem with this proposition is that we clearly observe events happening around us, and those events appear to have causes. In fact, we are so accustomed to this cause and effect sequence that we assume any observable physical occurrence has at least one physical cause. This is why science works, computers can be programmed, and cars can be repaired. Events have causes. And our observations tell us those events are always finite, that is they have a beginning and an end. So, when faced with a universe filled with finite caused events ricocheting off of each other, a thoughtful person might project the whole soup back in time and ask the obvious question: “What was the first event, and what caused it?” But that question makes no sense, for if it had a cause it would not be the first event. What we need is an uncaused event, and we have to leave the universe to find it. (The Big Bang does not adequately serve as the first cause or the first event because the question still arises: “What caused the Big Bang?” Instead of giving us a satisfactory answer, the Big Bang merely obscures the problem behind a veil that atheist cosmologists can declare to be invincibly impermeable, thereby diverting attention from the “permanently unanswerable” question. But the question remains, for it cannot be answered with any cause from within the physical universe.)
Bertrand Russell said that the need for this first cause moved him from being an atheist to a deist. But then someone suggested to him that having God supply the first cause then raised the question, “Who made God?” which moved him back to being an atheist. That’s a stupid question, really. He apparently never considered the possibility—the requirement—that the Creator of the Universe exists outside of and separate from the universe He created, and would therefore not be subject to its laws. After all, He could not be a native of the universe and its Creator, for a thing cannot create itself. And in that realm outside of the universe, in Supernature, uncaused events and eternal beings might be commonplace. And in fact, they seem to be.
“But,” you say, “wouldn’t it be simpler to take Carl Sagan’s route and skip the extra God step, assuming instead that the physical universe is self-existent—that it has always been and will always be here? If God can be self-existent, then why can't the same be true of the universe?” The answer: because the universe is confined to the realm of caused events and God is not.
“But isn’t it a stretch to attribute the universe to a miracle? I mean, we just don’t observe uncaused events taking place around us every day.”
Ah, but we do.
We just don’t recognize them for what they are because uncaused events are so commonplace that we seldom even notice them. We rarely consider them as evidence of Supernature. What are these uncaused events? You’ll have to wait until the next installment to find out.
How to start? Imagine that the universe is a closed system inside of which every event is caused by some other physical event, and no events occur that are not caused by another event. Everything inside this universe we can call “Nature” and everything outside of the universe would therefore be “Supernature,” as in “above or beyond Nature.” Now, any entry into the system by forces outside of the system would bring about apparently uncaused events because there would be no way to determine the cause of the event from inside the system. It would appear as magic or, more appropriately, a miracle.
Godless Evolutionists or Atheists claim that nothing exists beyond Nature, that there is no Supernature. The first problem with this proposition is that we clearly observe events happening around us, and those events appear to have causes. In fact, we are so accustomed to this cause and effect sequence that we assume any observable physical occurrence has at least one physical cause. This is why science works, computers can be programmed, and cars can be repaired. Events have causes. And our observations tell us those events are always finite, that is they have a beginning and an end. So, when faced with a universe filled with finite caused events ricocheting off of each other, a thoughtful person might project the whole soup back in time and ask the obvious question: “What was the first event, and what caused it?” But that question makes no sense, for if it had a cause it would not be the first event. What we need is an uncaused event, and we have to leave the universe to find it. (The Big Bang does not adequately serve as the first cause or the first event because the question still arises: “What caused the Big Bang?” Instead of giving us a satisfactory answer, the Big Bang merely obscures the problem behind a veil that atheist cosmologists can declare to be invincibly impermeable, thereby diverting attention from the “permanently unanswerable” question. But the question remains, for it cannot be answered with any cause from within the physical universe.)
Bertrand Russell said that the need for this first cause moved him from being an atheist to a deist. But then someone suggested to him that having God supply the first cause then raised the question, “Who made God?” which moved him back to being an atheist. That’s a stupid question, really. He apparently never considered the possibility—the requirement—that the Creator of the Universe exists outside of and separate from the universe He created, and would therefore not be subject to its laws. After all, He could not be a native of the universe and its Creator, for a thing cannot create itself. And in that realm outside of the universe, in Supernature, uncaused events and eternal beings might be commonplace. And in fact, they seem to be.
“But,” you say, “wouldn’t it be simpler to take Carl Sagan’s route and skip the extra God step, assuming instead that the physical universe is self-existent—that it has always been and will always be here? If God can be self-existent, then why can't the same be true of the universe?” The answer: because the universe is confined to the realm of caused events and God is not.
“But isn’t it a stretch to attribute the universe to a miracle? I mean, we just don’t observe uncaused events taking place around us every day.”
Ah, but we do.
We just don’t recognize them for what they are because uncaused events are so commonplace that we seldom even notice them. We rarely consider them as evidence of Supernature. What are these uncaused events? You’ll have to wait until the next installment to find out.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The Most Important Thing
1. If God exists, He is the most important thing in the Universe. He is the Reason for our Existence, the Meaning of Life. To fail to grasp this one most-important fact is to miss life’s purpose. Understanding God’s proper place as the Author of Reality is the difference between a life lived in purpose and goodness, and one utterly wasted in futility and noise.
2. God must exist. More on this later.
2. God must exist. More on this later.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Defining Terms
We have forgotten the definitions of some of our most useful combative words. The result is that we say something different from what we mean, and then wonder why it doesn’t have the intended effect on our adversaries. This is true for the young political zealot all the way up to the radio talk show host (old political zealot).
In this blog, the following definitions shall apply:
Intelligent, Smart — How well one thinks. An evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of one’s powers of thought and observation. It is a statement about the workings of the physical brain, not the amount of knowledge in the brain. Intelligence tends to not change much over time. One who lacks intelligence is an idiot or moron.
The opposite of intelligent and smart are stupid and dumb.
Wisdom — How well one makes choices. Wisdom is skill at making correct decisions and resolving conflict. It is common sense or sensitivity. It is knowing the right thing to do. One need not be smart to become wise, though intelligence helps in the accumulation of wisdom over time. Wisdom can be gained by learning, particularly through personal experience, or by good advice, which is learning through the experiences of others. Wisdom can increase over time if we pay attention and are masochistically honest with ourselves. Wisdom can also decrease, particularly if we attempt to rationalize prejudices or faulty conclusions that are based on incorrect beliefs. Wisdom is the most important word on this page.
The opposite of wise is foolish. These are both words we badly need to put back into our common vocabulary.
Knowledge, Education — How much one knows. The learning one has retained. One’s education is not a direct indicator of one’s intelligence, though a higher intelligence will speed up one’s learning. Education/knowledge can help with acquiring wisdom because the principles of wisdom can be learned. But, regrettably, so can the principles of foolishness. And we find a ready supply of willing teachers.
The opposite of knowledge is ignorance.
We have a tendency to write off those who disagree with us by saying something like “He’s an idiot.” This is usually ineffective because our opponents can simply say, “No, he isn’t,” and they win because it is obvious to all that the individual in question is clearly not someone with an abysmal I.Q. Though one cannot be both smart and stupid at the same time, it is quite possible to be a brilliant or educated fool. In fact, the more impressed one is with his own brilliance or education, the more foolish he is likely to be. This is one reason we find many universities littered with scientists and scholars who routinely say and do spectacularly foolish things.
In this blog, the following definitions shall apply:
Intelligent, Smart — How well one thinks. An evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of one’s powers of thought and observation. It is a statement about the workings of the physical brain, not the amount of knowledge in the brain. Intelligence tends to not change much over time. One who lacks intelligence is an idiot or moron.
The opposite of intelligent and smart are stupid and dumb.
Wisdom — How well one makes choices. Wisdom is skill at making correct decisions and resolving conflict. It is common sense or sensitivity. It is knowing the right thing to do. One need not be smart to become wise, though intelligence helps in the accumulation of wisdom over time. Wisdom can be gained by learning, particularly through personal experience, or by good advice, which is learning through the experiences of others. Wisdom can increase over time if we pay attention and are masochistically honest with ourselves. Wisdom can also decrease, particularly if we attempt to rationalize prejudices or faulty conclusions that are based on incorrect beliefs. Wisdom is the most important word on this page.
The opposite of wise is foolish. These are both words we badly need to put back into our common vocabulary.
Knowledge, Education — How much one knows. The learning one has retained. One’s education is not a direct indicator of one’s intelligence, though a higher intelligence will speed up one’s learning. Education/knowledge can help with acquiring wisdom because the principles of wisdom can be learned. But, regrettably, so can the principles of foolishness. And we find a ready supply of willing teachers.
The opposite of knowledge is ignorance.
We have a tendency to write off those who disagree with us by saying something like “He’s an idiot.” This is usually ineffective because our opponents can simply say, “No, he isn’t,” and they win because it is obvious to all that the individual in question is clearly not someone with an abysmal I.Q. Though one cannot be both smart and stupid at the same time, it is quite possible to be a brilliant or educated fool. In fact, the more impressed one is with his own brilliance or education, the more foolish he is likely to be. This is one reason we find many universities littered with scientists and scholars who routinely say and do spectacularly foolish things.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Stuff Underneath
It has been said (by some undoubtedly conceited soul) that “small minds talk about people, medium minds talk about events, and big minds talk about ideas.” There are more than enough blogs commenting on current events. In this blog, I’m after something a bit deeper. This is an effort to get at the stuff underneath; not the who, what, and where, but the why? This is the place for those ideas, or, more precisely, those transcendent principles that structure our existence—whether we notice, acknowledge, and live by them or not.
Steven Covey gave us Seven Habits of Highly Effective People—a proposition that there is such a thing as right living, and that right living pays off with happiness, satisfaction, joy, fulfillment, and ultimately, success. But success on a personal level isn’t the end of the positive effects of principled living. There are also principles of effective cultures, nations, and governments. There are such things as real success and failure on national and even global scales, and they are brought about by adherence to, or defiance of, transcendent principles and beliefs. As has been said, “You cannot break the Law. You can only break yourself upon the Law.” What we believe as a nation does matter, for nearly all of the people on this planet live and die, in freedom or in bondage, at the whim of the politically strong.
Steven Covey gave us Seven Habits of Highly Effective People—a proposition that there is such a thing as right living, and that right living pays off with happiness, satisfaction, joy, fulfillment, and ultimately, success. But success on a personal level isn’t the end of the positive effects of principled living. There are also principles of effective cultures, nations, and governments. There are such things as real success and failure on national and even global scales, and they are brought about by adherence to, or defiance of, transcendent principles and beliefs. As has been said, “You cannot break the Law. You can only break yourself upon the Law.” What we believe as a nation does matter, for nearly all of the people on this planet live and die, in freedom or in bondage, at the whim of the politically strong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)