Bambi Francisco

This is my virtual playground. It's my test lab of sorts.

Subscribe to this blog's feed
Add me to your TypePad People list

Categories

  • Digital video
  • faith
  • Internet culture
  • Internet trends
  • Mobile services
  • My media (user-generated) trends
  • My media trends
  • Retailing
  • search
  • Social services (Sharing)
  • Sports_
  • Startup interviews
  • Startup videos
  • Television
  • Vator.TV videos

Recent Posts

  • Why we need God to be good
  • In defense of wealth accumulation in the wealth gap debate
  • Venture Shift NY - November 17, 2011
  • Even Cookie Monster needs water
  • Vator Splash seeks 10 hot startups to present onstage in May
  • Vator Splash seeks 10 hot startups to present onstage in February
  • Vino E Veritas
  • Playing around with Wize's new widget
  • My son Will and niece Amanda
  • Oct 31, 2008 8:21:04 PM

Archives

  • February 2013
  • December 2011
  • October 2011
  • August 2010
  • March 2010
  • November 2009
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008

Bambi's bookmarks

  • Bubblegen
  • Economist.com
  • Pew Internet & American Life Project
  • Online Publishers Association
  • IAB online ad reports
  • Yahoo Maps
  • Answers.com
My Photo

About

Powered by TypePad

Why we need God to be good

Weover.me recently held an Oxford-styled debate on whether God needs to be a prerequisite for good. This is not to say that a person needs to believe in God to be good. Rather does good find its origins in God?

For lack of a better team title, I was on the God team. Below, I've written out my four-minute verbal argument.

There's two schools of thought being debated:

1) Good - People-driven. It's contextual, subjective, intuitive. It's relative to time and place, culture and social norms.

2) Good - God-driven. It requires a standard bearer, a categorical imperative, an absolute authority.

I stand for the latter.

To start, let me take you back to middle school. My 12-year-old son attends a Charter school which prides itself on democracy, meaning the kids have equal say as the teachers, particularly in adjudicating over other kids' transgressions. The students embrace their independence and the idea of controlling their own agenda. Ironically, they're having trouble controlling themselves. At a recent school meeting, some kids raised concerns that many other students weren't respectful to other students or school property. After trying to understand why and how to improve school spirit, one solution was posed - get a school mascot. Essentially, identify something other than the students to look up to. Identify something "other than" so students could rally around it and in effect, be good to each other.

It's a simple illustration/analogy of how society is inclined toward controlling their lives, and determining what's right and wrong, good and bad for themselves. But then the realization hits: it's quite hard to get everyone on the same page, and what's left is disrespect and disregard for each other's rights. What's needed is something "other" to guide us and keep us on the straight and narrow.

The God-less team, or those who support the former argument, would say that the kids and society in general is made up of a sophisticated species, with advanced and adapted neurons. We know how to collaborate and cooperate. 

Indeed, animals - from mice to primates - have a basic sense of good. Babies, as young as three months, have shown an inclination toward self-preservation and protection of their own kind, or the familiar. These are generally good things.

But something else is at work. Some would call it a selfish gene. Others would call it a sinful nature.

So how do we account for altruism?

Socio-biologists and psychologists would say it's in our genes.

The reason we jump on a grenade to save our fellow soldier, or sacrifice our lives for our children, or allign with a former enemy to fight a new common foe, is because we want our genes to propagate. 

The challenge I have with this idea of good being relative to our own self-interest, is that if good is just a meme we construct on our own ant hill to serve our own gene pool, then we better have the biggest, tallest ant hill. Our own self-interest better beat out other self-interests.

We could never hope for an unified and objective self-interest. The god-less team has ruled that out.

What about atrocities like the genocidal acts during the Bosnian War and Rwanda?

Even if those who carried out the genocide were disefranchised, threatened or oppressed, is killing massive numbers of people ever a good thing? Is rape ever a good thing? 

If you feel a sense of injustice or feel that humans rights were violated, then you are basically dismissing someone's cultural biases and subjective view of good. And,  you're, at the least hoping, there is some overarching universal good that trumps that subjective view. 

The question therefore is: Where does this overarching, universal, common standard of good come from?

It was suggested (on the god-less team) that the earth was a good "great other" that we could look to as the universal standard.

I'd agree that the rage and depths of the ocean, or a mountain peak, instill a sense of humility and awe in us. And, humility is a great driver of good. It wipes away pride and arrogance.

Unfortunately, the earth doesn't tell us how to be good. As far we I know, there's no such thing as a Lorax, the fictional Dr. Seuss character that speaks for the trees.

But God has a message. And, even the staunchest of atheists can't deny having heard or been influenced by these stories, such as The Good Samaritan.

Now, God may not always be with us at every second, holding our hand to tell us what is good and bad. He gave us free will. (As my mom always says, we're not robots, after all.)

Animals, however, also have free will. Without a great other, without something beyond ourselves, then good for me, makes me no more better than an animal. 

A famous ethologist, Frans de Waal, said this: "What sets human morality apart is a move towards universal standard... We scientists are good at finding out why things are, or how they work. But to go from there to offering moral guidance is a stretch." 

To aspire to a "good for we" - a good for the collective we, a good that requires us to think abstractly, a good that allows us to rise to become supreme court justices who make wise decisions about complex moral issues - Oh, then we can't do this alone. 

Socrates said: There's more to the sun-lit world of the senses to be good.

I agree. Good for we requires something so much greather than ourselves.

Those on the god-less team are shaking their heads saying, "Don't be naive." "Don't be intellectually dishonest." "Look at the facts."

The facts are that the reality of this world greatly exceeds science's ability to explain it.

Believing we are a product of selfish genes takes as much belief as believing we are a product of an intelligent designer. 

 

 

 

 

 

February 25, 2013 in faith | Permalink

Tags: God, good, morality, religion

The Calvinist/rationalist view

I am an Orthodox Christian in the lineage of Calvinist theology. That is, I believe in original sin, and the corrupt nature of man. I believe in predestination because I believe in an all-knowing, omniscient and omnipotent God who willed and decreed the final outcome of civilization here on earth. It is irreconcilable to me to think that God is omniscient and omnipotent and the great and intelligent designer while being one who does not know how the story ends. Yet, I do believe in free will as well. I believe that God gives us the mind, power and gifts to make decisions that while not ultimately defines our fate, ultimately puts us in circumstances that allow us be used by Him to reach out to others. Our free will enables us to reach people who are not predestined by God to be reached out to by us. Our free will enables us to make choices that lead to who we will reach out to. God's will is that we reach out to people - but perhaps he does not define who those are specifically.

I believe that men who believe in God but not Christ as our savior are not Orthodox Christians, but Christians in the tribal sense. They unite because they are descendants of those who believed that Christ had a role in defining morality in this world. Am I wrong for accepting those who do not ultimately believe that Christ is the way? Am I unequally yoked by accepting one who does not believe that Christ is the way, and not just a way to receiving the gift of salvation? This is a challenge for me because while I think I am to only be with someone with the same understanding of Christianity - original sin and a corrupt nature - I can grasp the good intentions of such forefathers who tried to adjust the strict view in order to save men from ultimate destruction or secularism. Men who are of the lineage of the New England theology have cultivated their views in a culture and environment that bred such liberal views of Christianity. Am I better than them or more holy? No. Am I more Christian than them? I think not. Can I align myself with them, however? Yes and no. Are they not as much a seeker as I am? Do they not raise questions that are valid? Am I to dismiss them? I cannot.

Yes, I am a product of rationalism and strict Calvinism as much as men are products of their culture and upbringing.

But I cannot reconcile this selfish desire in us with the notion that men are also moral agents. If we are moral agents with the ability to do good, why then this selfish nature? What is it that drives us to selfishness and freedom and liberation of having to serve others before ourselves? I cannot reconcile not having a corrupt nature with also having a tendency to be selfish. What is the origin of selfishness if not the corrupt nature of men? Isn't selfishness sin? If we are prone to be selfish, then we're inherently sinful. 

Am I better than others that have not the same view? I am not. Therefore how are we to reconcile differences? That is the question I struggle with.

November 23, 2005 in faith | Permalink | Comments (56)

Thoughts on faith

Here are some links to my reports from school:

Presenting the Gospel in the Internet Culture -- We can look to the Internet culture - a society unbound by time and geography - where silos of mini communities are springing up to form worlds that serve to cultivate and encourage independent thought, and tolerance of those views. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The Internet has encouraged democracy whereby ideas, causes, and people can easily have an impact by gaining high ranks through a collective showing of virtual hands.

Consumers are savvier bargain shoppers as value becomes easily discernable with the myriad of products and services available for sale on the Web. Yet there is a dark underside to such a trend where people are empowered to create better economics for themselves, take control of their world and become populists for sundry causes. We are further along the continuum of a pluralistic and postmodern society. On this journey, absolute truth or an independent body of thought beyond what we say to be true becomes harder to identify. 

The Ethical Wall -- Inherent in any ethical wall are the underlying conflicts that exist between two parties that can, when brought together, nullify the objectivity and integrity both parties must ophold. There is temptation towards aligning one's duty and moral obligation against what is more beneficial to his client and more enriching to himself.

Calvin's Doctrine of Knowledge -- Knowledge or wisdom for Calvin was based on knowledge of self, and knowledge of God. “Without knowledge of self, there is no knowledge of God,” says Calvin. Because Calvin chose the word knowledge in his title, “The Knowledge of God the Creator,” rather than “belief” or “existence” of God, underscores the centrality of God’s revelatory wisdom and man’s awareness of self in both the structure and content of Calvin’s theology. [Pg. 35 Calvin Institutes Vol. XX Book I.i. to III.XIX]

The Ten Commandments -- If anyone is to have a thorough understanding of the 10 commandments, it is instructive to note that there is a prologue – “I Yahweh your God, who has freed you from Egypt, the house of slavery” – to the commandments. In other words, it is only after the liberation from Egypt, or the gospel for Christians, that believers receive the law. These rules of life are for a liberated people. The following report is based on Professor Dr. J. Douma’s book, "The Ten Commandments."

March 30, 2005 in faith | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)