COLUMN: An Old Absolute Newly Discovered - (A series of 5 articles)

Part 4 - PARADOX AND POST-MODERNISM
The ultimate goal of this Part 4 is to examine briefly and discuss the nature of our contemporary postmodernist movement. But before we take up the topic, it is essential that we consider the rationality/non-rationality paradox. This will serve as a vital prelude to our discussion of postmodernism.

The rationality/non-rationality paradox refers to that phenomenon which confirms to us that rationality is never pure, but exists at all times intermingled with irrationality. To help us understand how this is so, we again consider the utopian drive in rationality. Along this line, let’s imagine for a moment a utopian setting.

Would it not be a peaceful world if in every basic aspect of life everyone agreed on what was true, reasonable, and good? This would be one indication that human beings were experiencing a utopian communal environment. Such a universal agreement would mean that only a single rationality-defined as a reasoned view or rule of life-existed, one that was universally endorsed without the slightest reservation by every human being.

To further complete our imaginary world, we could also envision that, in this context, the subjective or mental life of every individual was absolutely free of any dysfunction whatsoever. Furthermore, we could imagine that this inner freedom was such that, without the slightest inward impediment or struggle, every individual would choose freely and flawlessly to act at all times in harmony with the principles of the single rationality.

This last aspect of our vision that relates to the subjective life of individuals would indicate that human beings were not just communally experiencing utopia, but also individually and subjectively. Under this state of affairs, there would be no sense of guilt felt by anyone over behavior that betrayed the agreed-upon communal rule. Nor would there be experiences of inner struggles with an adverse, subjective non-rationality that manifests itself mentally in such things as fear, prejudice, jealousy, hate, anxiety, shame, depression, despair, impaired thinking, and bewilderment.

Obviously, this utopian world is not the world we know. There is in our world no one universal rationality in human communities. As for individuals, struggle with non-rational tendencies in the inner self often prevent behavior that is consistently rational and constructive. Consequently, human rationality never attains the utopia it ever seeks to experience. Why? Because non-rationality, both within the community and within the subjective or mental nature of individuals, is always present and inextricably mingled with all human rationality.

NON-RATIONALITY IN REASON

Whenever we witness disagreements between individuals in a group, we discover time and time again that group or collective rationality is never pure, but mingled with non-rationality. In such settings, others with whom we disagree on issues will at one point or another reject our reasons as reasonable. We may employ scrupulous logic. We may also act in good faith and sincerity. But these fail to make a difference.

The same thing happens when we find that extremely rational experts do not agree on issues they write about and discuss. Everyone comes to issues under discussion with their own version of what they believe is reasonable and rational. Even learned atheists cannot agree among themselves. What is reasonable for rationalist atheists like Freud or Bertrand Russell is not reasonable or rational for irrationalist atheists like Sartre.

There is, in other words, no pure, universally recognized and authoritative rationality anywhere by which we can objectively measure what is rational or reasonable (Footnote “Fn” 1), or, for that matter, what is truth. Christians look upon Christ as the embodiment of truth. But, obviously, even this standard in not universally recognized as rational or reasonable.

Thus, as we rationally discuss and debate with others as to any issue of contention, giving rise to disagreements that frustrate our desire for agreement, we begin to see the reality of the rationality/non-rationality paradox. In other words, we see how, paradoxically, our rationality can be both rational and non-rational. It is rational with respect to its own inherent logic and order and to the extent others join in complete agreement; but it is non-rational to the extent that it becomes embroiled in conflict with the rationalities of others, each having their own logic and order.

As a consequence of such conflicts, compromise, the rule of the majority, or the law of the state become the only ways for human communities to get along and survive. This is the inescapable consequence of the rationality/non-rationality paradox.

Certainly, to advance learning and maintain meaningful relationships between people, rational discussions over areas of common interest are necessary regardless of potential conflicts. These are good enough reasons why rational dialogue under any circumstance must go on. However, for the point I am trying to make concerning non-rationality, the issue I raise is not whether rational discussions are important or fruitful-they are and can be. Rather, the issue is the unavoidable impact non-rationality has on collective rationality.

At some point or another, the reasoning of my rationality is not rational to you, nor is yours to me. And who is to judge between us if every human being has the same problem? It is in this sense that we can conclude that the non-rationality principle asserts itself even in the process of seeking to attain collective agreements.

As for individual rationality, there is impact here as well. It is common knowledge that every individual struggles subjectively with adverse non-rational forces, emotions, or predispositions. These rise to oppose an individual’s rational judgments or to prevent their development. These impediments often succeed in preventing us from proceeding with integrity and consistency in the path that our rational value judgments, for example, had determined for us. As a result, we see that non-rationality also invades the subjective life of individuals. The rational processes in individuals are thereby impaired and limited by the inner presence and opposition of adverse non-rationality.

Given the above, we can easily conclude that, paradoxically, rationality within any group or individual is never pure and discontinuous from non-rationality. Rather, non-rationality exists always mingled with rationality. It is, in other words, a paradox which, on the one hand, affirms the reality and validity of rationality, yet, on the other, affirms that the presence of non-rationality is never absent from rationality.

Rationality is affirmed to the extent that, as individuals, we are able to think rationally and productively. It is also affirmed to the extent that individuals as a group come to agreement on common ground. On the other hand, non-rationality is affirmed to the extent that destructive or non-productive tendencies impact our subjective inner life and to the extent that disagreement and disputes exist between individuals within a community.

In the face of this, we see that we are hopelessly locked in an existence where non-rationality exerts a dominion that even rationality cannot escape. As such, the pure and independent reason of rationalism is a myth. Rationalist atheists, such as Freud was, are therefore living in illusion. Closer to reality are the irrationalist philosophers. The search for a one and objective universal reason that empirically determines all that is universally true and believable is therefore futile and doomed. Non-rationality, the dominant universal absolute inevitably prevents it.

It is therefore said of God and the wise rationalist pundits of the world, “He catches the wise in their craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are swept away. Darkness comes upon them in the daytime; at noon they grope as in the night” (Job 5:13-14).

Rationality gives rise to human craftiness-i.e., rationalistic philosophies and ideologies in their many forms. But God has caught and set limits on rationality-the source of human craftiness-by setting around it a wall of subjectivity, and, in its midst, the presence of non-rationality. For this reason, rationalist philosophies and ideologies have ever been in a state of change. Ever seeking for final reality, rationality never gets there. It merely wanders aimlessly through time, groping as in the dark. For a time, one or more idea is dominant in cultural history only to be replaced by others as time moves on. And who can tell where everything is headed or where it will end?

POSTMODERNISM

Having considered the rationality/non-rationality paradox, we are ready to focus on postmodernism. I doing so, we will see the important way in which this paradox applies here.

In our time, the old Enlightenment rationalism championed by Freud and others has largely given way to the relativism of what today is being called postmodernism (Fn-2). Postmodernism is best understood as a reactionary ideological movement. Its origins can be traced to rationalism and, as such, it moves and defines itself in reaction and opposition to what rationalism has stood for.

In passing, we may note here some interesting points in this ideological evolution from Christianity, to rationalism, to postmodernism. Rationalism repudiated the Christian faith it came from. But it retained as reasonable Christianity’s concept of absolute authority, though it substituted reason and science for God and Scripture.

In the same way, rationalism retained as reasonable Christianity’s traditional moral order, though it substituted human beings for God as the sustainers and regulators of that order. Reaching the end of the evolution, postmodernism repudiated both vestiges of Christianity that it found in rationalism-i.e., belief in absolute authority and in traditional morality.

BACKGROUNDS OF POSTMODERNISM

Historically, rationalism, with its child, empirical science, has acted with enormous optimism concerning objective knowledge of the world and the universe around us. It has moved under the assumption that absolutely true and objective knowledge of surrounding reality is possible. Furthermore, and based on this assumption, rationalism has presumed that, in time, with the help of empirical science, we would finally have a true and objective explanation of all that could actually be considered reality and truth.

But after it dawned on certain philosophers within rationalism that all knowledge of external reality is inescapably subjective, and that this makes true objective knowledge impossible, the grand optimism of rationalism and of rationalistic science-as we find in Freud-eventually came to be repudiated and discarded.

It is not a matter of saying that knowledge of surrounding reality is impossible in any sense. After all, our senses do tell us that there is something outside of ourselves that we call the environment. Rather, it is simply to say that in the postmodern movement there has been a radical significance placed on the fact that this knowledge of the environment is indirect-that is, it comes to our consciousness indirectly through the senses (e.g., sight, touch, taste, smell).

Hence, the only direct and certain knowledge we have of anything is limited to what is in our subjective consciousness. But, here, individual differences come into play in terms of varying amounts, kinds, and interpretations of sensory data. Involved here are variances in mental states such as emotional dispositions, prejudices, or quality of each individual’s intellect. These factors determine knowledge differently for each person and in ways that can only be relative to the state of each person’s subjective consciousness.

Thus, for the postmodern philosophers who moved away from rationalism’s pure or objective reason, the only alternative to this seemed to be relativism. For postmodernists, relativism means that since direct and objective knowledge of reality cannot be attained, absolute and objective truth about this reality cannot be known. For this reason, every individual can only SUBJECTIVELY make up and determine truth for themselves. Truth or reality is therefore not absolute, but relative-relative, that is, to each individual’s subjective perception and interpretation.

PROBLEMS IN POSTMODERNISM

Postmodern philosophy is correct insofar as its judgment of rationalism is concerned. It is true that a pure rationality or reason does not exist. It is also true that our limited consciousness prevents us from attaining a true, direct knowledge of external reality. But it does not necessarily follow that because of this there is no way we can know an absolute truth, one that applies to all.

A flawed understanding of the kinds of knowledge human beings possess leads postmodernists erroneously to assume that because direct, objective knowledge of the external environment is unattainable, direct and universal knowledge of anything is impossible. This overlooks the fact that while no external, OBJECTIVE knowledge exists, there is such a thing as a certain and direct SUBJECTIVE knowledge.

The subjective awareness, consciousness, or knowledge everyone has of their mental states does not depend on data received indirectly by way of the senses. It is true that much of what occupies our consciousness developed originally from the external realm through the senses. But it is also true that once the resultant mental states are there, developed as they are each moment, knowledge or awareness of such states is direct. There is no intermediate faculty between the consciousness we have of our mental states and the mental states themselves.

It is true that interpretations of our mental states have to be made and these may not be necessarily correct. Yet such incorrect interpretations would constitute non-rationality. And this is precisely the point; we would then have an instance of direct knowledge of an absolute. In other words, though we cannot attain direct, objective knowledge of the non-rationality absolute in the external environment, we do have a direct, subjective knowledge of its existence in consciousness.

So I would say that the fundamental problem of postmodernism is an issue of misplaced focus or attention. This has to do with the postmodern failure to consider and recognize non-rationality as an absolute, internal reality. So let’s consider the center of the postmodern failure: the failure to recognize non-rationality as a self-determining and self-imposing absolute in human consciousness.

ABSOLUTE NON-RATIONALITY

As an absolute, non-rationality is not a product of human rationality. It exists of itself, independent of human beings. People are born and they die. But from the beginning of the universe, non-rationality has always been there. Once the human mind and rational thinking came to be, this non-rationality absolute came to exist within the mind and continues to exist in each living person and within human groups. It will also remain as such as long as there is a human mind and the universe as we know it. Indeed, non-rationality permeates and stretches out to the whole of the universe. In a real sense, it IS the universe because, as we have seen in Part 2, our world or universe is non-rational to the core. From a biblical perspective, we can further say that above, behind and within this Universal Reality that we call the non-rational is the Eternal God, the Supreme Absolute: “He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17).

By contrast, neither the relativism of postmodernists nor the mythical pure reason of rationalism or rationalist atheism can ever be absolute since they are strictly subjective products of human rationality. In other words, they are both products of something that has subjective limitations (i.e., the human intellect). As such, they are not unbounded or limitless absolutes such as is non-rationality. They are instead mere intellectual abstractions and cultural phenomena that come and go as the history of ideas progress from one era to another.

Moreover, one’s subjective knowledge of the non-rationality absolute is not relative since at all times in every individual consciousness non-rationality simply is and remains uniformly what it is-non-rationality in every individual without exception.

In passing, it is relevant to note at this point that while postmodernists reject rationalism’s false notion of objective pure reason, they seem ignorant of the fact that they themselves still hang on to the same idea, though in a subjective sense. In other words, postmodernists reject the idea of OBJECTIVE pure reason but unwittingly operate under an equally erroneous presumption-that of SUBJECTIVE pure reason, which we have shown here that this is just as much a fallacy because of the ineradicable non-rationality that is subjectively present in all human consciousness. To prove this point with respect to the human consciousness of postmodernists, all we need to point out is that, paradoxically (i.e., non-rationally), postmodernists believe they have come to know the actual truth of existence: that no actual truth is knowable.

Thus we can definitively say that even subjectively, there is no pure reason since, as has been shown, reason (or rationality) is always, everywhere, and at all times, mingled with non-rationality: the inescapable absolute. As a result, any ideology that relies merely on rationalistic arguments to establish itself is, for this very reason, doomed to futility under the principle of non-rationality in consciousness.

The fact of the matter is that postmodernism supports itself conceptually, not so much on logic and reason, as may be supposed, but on faith that what postmodern logic and reason says is true, is actually the truth. In any case, taking at face value the postmodern dictum that no actual truth is knowable betrays a lack of awareness or concern that non-rationality is an absolute reality and truth known directly by every human consciousness.

Non-rationality as an absolute has both an actual subjective and an actual objective presence. We have direct and certain knowledge of non-rationality’s subjective presence in consciousness, but only indirect and imperfect knowledge of its objective, external presence.

Furthermore, these two aspects of the non-rationality absolute do not represent two discontinuous non-rationalities any more than total Universal Reality is discontinuous and compartmentalized. By being in direct mental contact with the subjective aspect of the non-rationality absolute we are in this subjective manner in direct and certain contact with this absolute in its total universal continuity. At the same time, our senses lead us to be assured that this same non-rationality absolute, whose subjective aspect we grasp directly through our mental states, stretches out into the infinite reaches of the universe in its objective aspect.

For these reasons stated, essentially that we know directly the non-rational absolute in its subjective aspect, the postmodernist argument that absolutes cannot be known because there is no objective knowledge is irrelevant.

NON-RATIONALITY OF POSTMODERNISM

We can now consider how postmodernism has failed to improve on rationalism and how it has rather increased the adverse problem of non-rationality. This will become clear as we note that, in reaction to rationalism’s exaltation of reason, postmodernism has unwittingly embraced non-rationality with a vengeance. So much is this the case that postmodernism has left no place for any meaningful affirmation of the rational or reasonable.

Consider this: postmodernist philosophers appear to have some perception that truth (or reality) can manifest itself in paradoxical (i.e., non-rational) ways (Fn-3). This is precisely what we have been arguing here. Yet, to an extreme degree, postmodernists have become so fixated on such paradox they act as if paradox is something that has to be deliberately created when none is obvious. So strong is this fixation that postmodernists feel driven to create deliberately artificial paradox-in terms of conflict, confusion, or contradiction-where none is apparent or where circumstances do not practically or normally call for it (Fn-4). I will explain this.

We have noted that for postmodernism all individual knowledge is relative. So on this basis, it is asserted that no one has a right or authority to tell others that they are wrong for having different views of what truth is. It is here where the problem enters in.

Postmodernism is not content with simply acknowledging that among human beings disagreement exists. The postmodernist takes the point further. He or she will insist that everyone passively accept under one tent a diversity of views and lifestyles. In other words, the degree of tolerance for diversity that is called for is such that active and competitive advocacy in behalf of one’s views is stifled. The result is that a world built in the image of postmodernism is a world where every view and lifestyle is placed on such equal footing no one is allowed to promote their particular view as better or superior.

Here is the hypocrisy of postmodern philosophy. While others are castigated for trying to promote their point of view as superior, postmoderns think nothing of it when they seek to do this with their own philosophy. The movement as such does not appear to be one intended to achieve or promote fairness for diverse points of view. Rather, it is one that gives every indication of seeking arbitrarily to suppress, marginalize, and undermine the settled or traditional and arbitrarily to exalt their opposite:

“Contemporary [i.e., postmodernist] scholars seek to dismantle the paradigms of the past and “to bring the marginal to the center”…Scholars attack received [i.e., traditional] ideas with withering skepticism, while constructing new models as alternatives. Those who celebrate the achievements of Western civilization are accused of a narrow-minded “Euro-centrism”; this view is challenged by “Afro-centrism,” which exalts Africa as the pinnacle of civilization. Male-dominant thought is replaced by feminist models. “Patriarchal religions” such as Judaism and Christianity are challenged and replaced by with matriarchal religions; the influence of the Bible is countered by the influence of “goddess-worship.” Homosexuality must no longer be considered a psychological problem; rather, homophobia is (Fn-5).”

Hence, postmodernists cannot stand to see things in a rational, settled, or orderly state because such stable states tend to bring the veracity of relativism, as they see this, into question. For postmodernists, this is obviously unacceptable. This would tend to deny the conflict and disjointedness that is inherent in their idea of relativism and diversity. Consequently, postmodernists will seek to “deconstruct” any stable state or condition. This is what Gene Edward Veith has called the “studied rootlessness and rejection of permanence (Fn-6).”

In terms of confusion and contradiction, consider the postmodernist rejection of the Enlightenment legacy. This legacy was rejected because of its extreme view of reason and reason’s science as final authority concerning what is true, reasonable, and good. But, in their rejection of rationalism’s mythical pure reason, postmodernists have deliberately embraced a contradictory extreme-the absolute of relativism, clearly a non-rational oxymoron. Naturally existing non-rationality is difficult enough to deal with without human beings going out of their way to artificially concoct and add their own versions. Yet, this is precisely what postmodernists do.

Put in a different way, we can say that postmodernists have overthrown the reason of rationalists from the throne of absolute authority because they believe knowledge of absolutes is impossible. But in a non-rational act of contradiction, postmodernists have placed relativism as a new absolute of authority on reason’s vacated throne. Other examples of such artificially created non-rationality can be shown.

Postmodernists came to see rationalists as dogmatists for promoting reason as an absolute. But in the place of rationalism’s dogmatism, postmodernists have installed a dogmatism just as intense and unyielding–if not more so. For rationalism, everything is acceptable as long as it does not contradict or disturb the authority of empirical reason. But, for postmodernism, everything is acceptable as long as it does not contradict or disturb the new authority of relativism. So woe to those who assert a belief in absolutes. The wrath of the postmodernist god, relativism, be upon them!

If absolutes cannot be known, then this must include relativism. If relativism is being made an exception to the rule, then by what or whose authority is this established if in the view of postmodernists no one-not even postmodernists-is able to know, and, thereby, establish an absolute?

On the other hand, if relativism is not an absolute, then why press it on a whole culture as if it was? Again, these contradictions are deliberately created by postmodernists. They believe this is what their philosophy requires and that their philosophy represents reality.

The fact is that relativism is not an absolute and the proper significance of relative knowledge is not the postmodernist idea of relativism. To understand the significance of relative knowledge we need to see it in relation to each individual’s understanding of non-rationality.

Stated in different words, we can say that the proper significance to be associated with relative knowledge is not so much the difference that exists between each individual’s knowledge of reality. Rather, it is how close or how far in their relative knowledge each individual is from understanding the significance of the non-rational as an absolute. Consequently, to think of relative knowledge strictly in relation to differences in views between individuals is to miss its proper meaning entirely. The absolute oneness of non-rational reality must be the center.

Another postmodernist contradiction involves the oft-repeated phrase, “There is no right or wrong, only opinions.” If there is no right or wrong, then this statement is itself neither right nor wrong, only an opinion. As such, the statement should not be taken as an absolute. Yet, postmodernists act on this statement as if it were an absolute: not a mere opinion, but an absolute truth to be accepted seriously, universally, and without question.

The bewildering irony to all this is that such obvious non-rationality is held and asserted by many who are otherwise quite rational and intelligent. This, incidentally, is further attestation to the absolute rule of non-rationality. Postmodernists, who make it their special business to repudiate all absolutes, find themselves captured and enveloped in the absolute of non-rationality. In this case, it is that aspect of non-rationality that arises in their subjective consciousness and takes over and subverts their thinking processes.

In view of all the above, we see that in the past hundred years at least, culture has been bounced between the myth of rationalism’s pure reason and the futile, non-rational concepts of postmodernism. In our time, postmodernism has become in itself an eloquent and ironic confirmation of the absoluteness of non-rationality. There is just no place to hide from it. Just when human beings think they have outsmarted and dismissed it, non-rationality pops up in their midst. In the case of postmodernism, it seems to have totally overrun it-of course, with the unwitting help of postmodernists themselves.

CONCLUSION

The postmodernist movement reflects a current phase of civilization as it engages in its never-ending quest for a settled understanding of existence. As is true of other phases in the past, the postmodernist phase will also predictably end in futility and another will take its place in a cycle of birth and demise. Hence, Paul speaks of those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7 NASB).

Merely on the strength of their rational powers, human beings will never find a final settled order. The universal presence of non-rationality will always prevent it. As Paul has correctly observed, “For it is written, ‘I [that is, God] will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise [person]? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish [through the inescapable intrusion of non-rationality] the wisdom of the world?” (1 Co. 1:19-20).

Clearly then, the existential dilemma for all people everywhere is the universal absolute we call non-rationality. So the goal of true wisdom is finding an effective way to peacefully deal with this dilemma. Paul’s statement above gives us to understand that more than mere “worldly (i.e., rational) wisdom” is needed to accomplish this. In the next and final part of this series on rationalist atheism, we will examine why faith served by reason, is the answer.

References
1/See Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David
Basinger, Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to
the Philosophy of Religion (New York: Oxford University Press,
1991), 117-122.

2/Rationalism is synonymous with “modernism.” “Postmodernism,”
as the term implies, is therefore that which follows the
“modernism” of rationalism. For an excellent discussion
of postmodernism, see Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Postmodern
Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1994); see also David S.
Dockery, ed., The Challenge of Postmodernism: An Evangelical
Engagement (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1995).

3/Veith, Postmodern Times, 60.

4/Ibid., 59-60, 86.

5/Ibid., 57.

6/Ibid., 86.

Technorati Tags: author John Garrison, Irrelevance of Rational Atheism, eNewsChannels articles

At some point in your pet’s life, you may receive a call from your veterinarian advising you that your pet’s liver function is less than perfect. It is not uncommon for one or more liver values to be out of the normal range on a routine blood panel. This is more likely to occur in older pets but can occur even in young puppies and kittens.

The pet may or may not display symptoms so this is why it is important to get these routine laboratory tests done on a regular basis. This article will provide an overview of the importance of a healthy liver function and offer some treatment options to increase your pet’s longevity and vitality.

The liver is the main filtering system for the body since all blood supply travels through it to be detoxified. The liver performs many critical functions including:

* metabolism of fats, protein and carbohydrates

* filtering harmful substances from the blood (e.g. toxins and/or medications)

* storage of vitamins and minerals

* production of bile which aids in digestion and absorption of nutrients

* glycogen storage (involved in blood sugar regulation)

* synthesis of important proteins such as albumin and clotting factors

* red blood cell maintenance, in conjunction with the spleen

A pet may have NO outward symptoms that the liver is overburdened. It may only be discovered in a laboratory test and/or a physical exam by your veterinarian. During the physical examination, your veterinarian will look for signs of liver disease such as a distended abdomen due to enlargement of the liver, bruising under the skin, fever (due to secondary infection or inflammation), pain when pressure is applied to the abdomen or yellowish discoloration of the ears, gums and hairless areas of the skin. Anemia might be observed by checking the mucous membranes for a normal pink color.

The veterinarian will also look for symptoms such as:
1) Loss of energy
2) Digestive problems, diarrhea and/or constipation
3) Light tan or gray stools
4) Darker urine color (can be orange)
5) Changes in behavior such as pacing, circling or even seizures
6) Excess water drinking and urination

Since pets may have no symptoms however, diagnostic laboratory tests will provide the most valuable source of information. For example, a young pet may have a congenital condition such as microvascular dysplasia or a liver shunt and the symptoms may not be apparent until the pet is one or years old. A blood test may be the only way to know. There are certain blood values, for example, that if abnormal, may signify liver disease. These can include:

* Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) - An enzyme that becomes elevated with liver disease.

* Alkaline Phosphatase (ALKP) - An enzyme produced by the biliary tract (liver) can be elevated in liver and non-liver related diseases. High levels can indicate bone disease, liver disease or bile flow blockage.

* Gamma Glutamyltransferase (GGT) An enzyme produced in many tissues as well as the liver. Like alkaline phosphatase, it may be elevated in the serum of patients with bile duct diseases. Elevations in GGT, especially along with elevations in alkaline phosphatase, can indicate impaired bile flow

* Total Billirubin (TBIL) - A component of bile, bilirubin is secreted by the liver into the intestinal tract. Bilirubin is a byproduct of the breakdown of hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is found within red blood cells and carries oxygen to the tissues. When red blood cells die, hemoglobin is broken down by the liver as bilirubin. Elevated bilirubin levels can be caused by excessive numbers of red blood cells breaking down or when the liver is diseased and unable to clear the bilirubin from the blood. Also if there is an obstruction in the bile duct, the flow of bilirubin into the intestine is impaired and this can also cause elevation of bilribuin in the blood.

* Albumin (ALB) - Produced by the liver, albumin is a plasma protein that helps control osmotic pressure in the tissues. When albumin is low, fluids can leak resulting in a swollen abdomen. Low levels of albumin can indicate chronic liver or kidney disease, or parasitic infections such as hookworm. High levels indicate dehydration and loss of protein.

A urine analysis and XRAYS can provide valuable information as well. If signs and symptoms appear that a pet’s liver is not functioning optimally, additional tests are warranted to determine the underlying cause. A bile acid test, ultrasound and/or liver biopsy may be needed to determine the reasons behind your pet’s poor liver function. Your veterinarian will recommend medications, diet changes and potential surgical procedures upon determining the cause of your pet’s liver disease.

Holistic Treatment Alternatives For Liver Disease in Pets
In many ways, your pet’s liver is analogous to the oil filter in a car. You need to keep it clean or the “blood” (e.g., oil in the car) gets dirty. When the liver’s job becomes overextended, the body cannot filter out as much as it should and toxins are released into the bloodstream. These toxins can cause harm to other tissues which in holistic medicine, is thought to be the root of disease. Since the liver is an integral component of so many critical bodily functions, it is easy to see a domino effect that can occur when the liver becomes overloaded. For instance, when a person drinks too much alcohol, the liver can’t keep up with the necessary “cleaning action” to process out the toxins, and people often develop other health conditions, such as increased levels of fat in the blood (triglycerides). Similarly, if the liver becomes overloaded following years of poor diet, medications and exposure to toxins, your pet’s liver can become overburdened as well.

It is a good idea to help your pet’s liver function optimally using holistic pet care BEFORE liver disease sets in. For example, if your pet is taking pain medications such as Rimadyl or Deramaxx, these medications can negatively impact your pet’s liver. However, if you use high quality liver detoxification supplements, you can minimize the potential impact of these medications. The liver is one of the few organs in the body that can regenerate new healthy tissue so it is not uncommon to see patients with compromised liver functions show significant improvements with our holistic protocols.

Certain foods can help to naturally detoxify the liver. Green vegetables contain not only valuable vitamins and minerals but they also contain natural cleansers and antioxidants that help to purify the blood and the liver. Giving your pet green vegetables such as green beans, squash or asparagus, along with some carrots can provide fresh enzymes and extra nutrition. Omega 3 fatty acids can be very helpful too. In general, pets with liver conditions need a diet low in animal fat, high in Omega 3s, reduced protein and high in fiber. Prepared prescription diets are available but a homemade, balanced diet specifically for liver conditions is best. The homemade diet would need to take into account your pet’s overall health status and blood test results or it could result in additional problems. For example, cooked fish is often helpful for pets with liver disease but not if the kidney values are elevated as well. Telephone consultations are available through AskAriel and other pet nutrition services if you would like to develop a custom homemade diet for your pet. A homemade diet should be balanced and supervised by a veterinary professional.

It is never too late to give your pet increased vitality and energy by adding high quality liver support supplements and reducing overall protein and fat in the diet by making the appropriate dietary changes. For example, reducing animal fats (e.g. never give pets poultry skin or fat off meat for example), increasing Omega 3 fatty acids found in fish and flax seed oil and extra vegetables can all help to support your pet’s liver and longevity. Many pet owners notice their pets have extra energy after just a few days.

Technorati Tags: Susan Blake Davis, holistic pet care, petcare column, animal health articles, liver disease in dogs

In order to prepare for the new future of peace, harmony and unity, that may be beyond our current understanding, we must act with intention and use information already available to us, as well as commit to listening to and learning from the Earth, her creatures and other aspects, the universal energies, visible and invisible, and to encouraging peak performance through connectedness, choice and discovery, abandoning models of perfection and judgment.

A synopsis of the ideas presented during: “Let’s Talk. A Public Forum Series on the Subject of Education,” Aspen, Colorado. Fall/Spring 1993/4. Speakers: Alden Naranjo, Wallace Black Elk, Dr. Emily Bornstein, Dr. Harold Whitcomb, Tom Crum, Jon Seigle, Connie Baxter Marlow. Drafted by CBM 5/94

The dominant Western cultures currently base actions and decisions on a model of economics which has the bottom line as its principal determining factor. This is the profit-based model of a growth-oriented economy in a world of “scarce” resources using supply and demand as the “invisible hand” to regulate and control the outcome, determining “profit”, “success” and survival in the short term. This Keynesian Model might be called “Bottom-line Economics”. Proposed below is a model called “Top-Line Economics”. This model takes the highest aspirations of humanity, integrates the principles alluded to above and below, and places them as the dominant features in the interactions between individuals who are in the process of flourishing in a world of abundance.

Top-Line Economics
When the principles of trust, generosity, respect, inspiration, love, cooperation and gratitude are actually the dominant factors of human interaction in the workplace, at home and in schools the resulting abundance will allow all aspects of the world to flourish in a manner heretofore unimaginable.
Taken from an open forum entitled: Pan-Indigenousness and its Relevance for the Future: Envisioning a New World led by Connie Baxter Marlow and Arnie Neptune. University of Maine, Orono. Drafted by CBM 11/01

The above can be accomplished once we commit to treating each member of the human family with the following understanding:

The Expanded Family
Global/National/Workplace/Schools/Home/Self
A unit of independent, autonomous individuals, all seeking their unique destinies within the context of caring, consideration and respect for others achieved through conversation, listening, patience, kindness, empathy, compassion, playfulness and truthfulness, allowing the Universal Laws of perfect balance, abundance, harmony and win/win to manifest through letting go of fear, separation and doubt, moving into total trust of a universe driven by unconditional love. Drafted by CBM 2/98.

A New Energy
All of this is possible because there is a new energy available on Earth which supports the manifestation of the infinite balance, abundance and unconditional love that are at the foundation of Universal Law. Individuals are beginning to experience this in their lives which, step-by step will influence them to make new choices on how they will live day-by-day:

Spontaneously
Trust will replace fear.
Ease will replace struggle.
Serenity will replace tension.
Generosity will replace hoarding.
Abundance will replace scarcity.
Unity will replace separation.
New Systems will develop.
New Relationships will replace out-moded ways of being.
An understanding of the
interconnectedness and sacredness of all things will begin to emerge.

It is in this way that true peace and profound freedom will come to prevail on Earth.
Taken from “How Peace will Come to Prevail on Earth” Drafted by CBM for “The Reverent Journey for Peace and Healing in the Americas.” 2/95

“No problem was ever solved in the same consciousness in which it was created.” Albert Einstein

“We must become the change we wish to see in the world.” Gandhi

“Perhaps we have built a house of cards on a false foundation.
Examining our assumptions is key.” CBM 8/02

Technorati Tags: Connie Baxter Marlow, Uplifting Evolutionary Ideas, Journey for Peace and Healing in the Americas

Your lively dog who once jumped on the bed at the first site of food is now slowing down and barely making it up the stairs to get to your bedroom. It is hard to watch our pet’s discomfort and we often feel helpless thinking that there is nothing we can do. In fact, there is a great deal you can do to help your pet, but you first must determine exactly what is wrong.

The following signs are an indication that it is time to go to your veterinarian for an office visit:

* Difficulty or hesitation to sit down or get up
* Difficulty jumping up or reluctance to climb stairs
* Lameness in one or more limb
* Stiffness in the morning that improves as the day progresses
* Subtle signs that the dog may not want to put weight on the limb
* Sensitivity when touched in certain areas

When you bring your dog for an office visit, your veterinarian will want to do a comprehensive examination and assess your pet’s neurological responses, joint mobility, areas of pain and sensitivity. Your veterinarian may manipulate the limbs to assess your dog’s response and observe the extent to which your pet is able to put weight on the affected limb. Generally an XRAY is taken and additional testing (ultrasound, bloodwork) may be required. It is important that a veterinarian check for all of the pet’s symptoms as there may a variety of conditions contributing to your pet’s discomfort.

The following conditions are just a few of the many causes of joint or muscle pain and lameness:

* Arthritis
* Injury
* Genetic conditions (e.g. hip dysplasia, osteochondritis)
* Immune mediated (e.g. cancer)
* Infection
* Ligament tear (especially in the knee)
* Deferred pain from an organ (e.g. kidneys)

As you can see, there may be a lot more than just “old age” contributing to your dog’s pain and it is important to understand the causes so that proper treatment can be determined. Also, many young dogs may show signs of limping or discomfort which could be due to any of the above factors-in other words, a dog does not have to be “old” to suffer from joint or muscle pain.

Depending upon the test results, your veterinarian will advise you on the best course of action. Sometimes surgical repair is the best option. For older pets, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications such as Rimadyl, Metacam or Previcox will help the pet feel more comfortable and increase mobility. These medications should be used judiciously however, as over time, they may impact liver function.

Another healthy option to increase your dog’s mobility, reduce pain and enhance immune function is acupuncture. Many holistic veterinarians are now offering acupuncture and chiropractic care for their patients. Acupuncture is the practice of stimulating certain locations on the body by inserting needles into specific points influencing the physiological functioning of an area or the whole body. The needles stimulate the sensory afferent nerves which send impulses to the spinal cord and then to different parts of the brain. When these nerves are stimulated, they release different biochemicals and neurotransmitters throughout the body. At VCA Arroyo, we use various acupuncture and acupuncture-related techniques including acupuncture, acupressure and aquapuncture.

Acupuncture can be helpful for any condition to increase blood flow to the area and enhance the pet’s overall immune function. Traditionally, acupuncture has been used to relieve pain and inflammation associated with musculoskeletal problems involving arthritis or vertebral disc issues, but many pets have benefited from acupuncture with other conditions as well. Animals will experience some sensation and occasionally may experience some temporary discomfort, although the procedure may be virtually painless for others. Most animals become very relaxed and may even become sleepy.

In addition to acupuncture, there are many other holistic, natural steps you can take to help relieve your pet’s pain and discomfort.

Weight Management
Many times pets with joint and muscle pain are overweight. The excess weight will hasten the development of arthritis by increasing the pressure on the joints. It is important that you work with your veterinarian or nutritionist to give your pet a diet that helps your pet maintain an optimal weight. For some, switching to a raw food diet can be helpful in weight reduction although this may not be the appropriate diet for all dogs. If you have had difficulty getting your dog to lose weight, you may want to schedule a consultation with us as we have had lots of success stories with even the toughest cases!

Daily Exercise
A short 15 minute walk with your dog each day can do a world of good. For your dog, it is a chance to increase circulation, burn some calories and smell the world around him or her. Walking can reduce pain by stretching muscles and reducing stiffness. For you, it is a wonderful bonding experience and can be a social time too. Try to plan your day so that you both can benefit!

Diet
Dogs with joint pain can greatly benefit from Omega 3 fatty acids. These nutrients are called “essential fatty acids” because they must be obtained from the diet and cannot be manufactured in the body. If your dog is experiencing joint pain, please be sure to add omega 3 fish oil and flax seed oil to their diet. Omegas can make quite a difference not only in supporting joint health but giving dogs a beautiful, lustrous coat.

Nutritional Supplements
There are many wonderful nutritional supplements available for dogs that can really help. Be sure to look for a combination formula that contains not only Glucosamine, Chondroitin and MSM, but also key nutrients such as green lipped mussel and herbs such as Boswellia and Turmeric. Arthrosoothe, Inflammatone and SAMe (available on www.askariel.com) can give dogs a great deal of pain relief. If the pain is deferred from an organ, such as the kidneys or liver, supporting these organs with nutritional supplements can be especially helpful as well.

You can bring the sprint back into your dog’s step by taking action and using these recommendations to help your dog.

Technorati Tags: holistic pet care expert, Susan Davis, Ask Ariel, animal nutrition, help your pet, eNewsChannels articles

Never mind that in the currently ongoing election primaries, Congressman Ron Paul is barely showing in the polls, or that his chances of getting nominated, let alone winning the presidential election, look less than dim. Never mind as well that many, including myself, do not agree with everything Paul advocates.

Win or lose I nonetheless happen to be one who believes that, at the very least, an important part of Paul’s value at this point is that of confirming to us what he knows as an insider about the income tax corruption in Congress. This is a corruption I have written about extensively and which for many years a majority of Americans have known existed. In this respect alone, Paul’s insider knowledge about income tax corruption in Congress is most valuable.

So apart from how Paul performs in the primaries, it is important that he has at least participated in the process so as to catch sufficient media attention to tell us what he knows as a Congressional insider. His showing, however slight, has also served the valuable result of establishing a highly motivated following that will carry on the revolution he started regardless of whether he gets nominated and regardless of what the November election results will be. Because the “status quo” in any society is always dominant prior to change, every revolution necessarily starts from a minority position which is followed by extended struggle before final victory is reached.

As a representative to the U.S. Congress, Ron Paul represents the Texas 14th Congressional District. In the currently ongoing political primaries, Paul has quickly become a hero to many Americans who for years have been looking for someone with insider knowledge who, among other things, will tell the truth about the notorious, deep-seated income tax corruption in Congress. Of particular interest here is a constitutional corruption pertaining to the income tax, which from the beginning of the system, many in Congress have known about, while at the same time have continually ignored. Finally! It has taken an insider and someone of the high moral caliber of Congressman Ron Paul to confirm and expose it.

Well, does this mean that I can now stop filing income tax returns because the system is corrupt? Not according to Ron Paul. He warns that, as corrupt as the income tax is, its laws are still in force and still have teeth that can surely cause plenty of damage through IRS enforcement to anyone who refuses to comply with these laws. In view of this, Paul extends a caution to those bold ones who would consider resisting our corrupt income tax: that they should be prepared for the expected consequences of suffering some kind of painful loss as a result. At the very least, this may entail the loss of peace of mind and, at worst, the loss of valuable property confiscated and/or freedom behind bars. For this reason, Paul insists that the safest way to bring about change for the better in the tax system is to do it the lawful way, namely, through political action, by voting for candidates who are willing to fight for a purging of the system.

While Paul does not have a blanket endorsement from me, I nonetheless consider him a person of high integrity, especially as seen in the bold way he has chosen to take on the major media-government complex, the establishment that in truth manipulates and controls this country.

But just what is the constitutional corruption in the income tax that Ron Paul is referring to? In all that I have seen and heard of Ron Paul, he seems to have referred to this corruption only in general terms and suggests that the solution to the problem is to repeal the U.S. Constitution’s 16th Amendment and eliminate the I.R.S. The 16th Amendment is the amendment on which our current income tax is generally assumed to be based.

While Paul has not given us enough precise detail pertaining to the income tax corruption that he refers to, in my book on the subject, I reveal specifically the legal root of income tax corruption that Paul, at least in part, refers to. (See FOOTNOTE 1.) In this article, I can only give an extended summary of what this corruption involves. We begin with the following brief statement of the issue:

Under current income tax law, Congress, through legislative abuse, has in effect stripped American workers of their constitutional right to claim either their labor or their right to work as their “income-producing property.” The effect this has had is that American workers have been deprived of their legal right under income tax law to deduct the costs of their personal labor (the skilled and intelligent human energy and time workers sell to employers in exchange for compensation). These types of deductions for “cost of goods (or products) sold,” which are now allowed only for businesses, would include for workers expenditures for such living necessities as food, shelter and proper health maintenance.

As incredible as this statement may sound to some, it is all based on established American legal precedent that can be found in any public or private law library of sufficient size. Following are the main concepts involved and the legal authorities that support them:

LABOR AND/OR THE RIGHT TO WORK AS FORMS OF PROPERTY
State courts, including State Supreme Courts, have had no problem declaring the obvious, that human labor is property. As early as 1910, we see the Supreme Court of the State of Washington declaring that labor is not only property but even “capital”:

“Can it be said with any degree of sense or justice that the property which a man has in his labor which is the foundation of all property and which is the only capital of so large a majority of the citizens of our country is not property; or, at least, not that character of property which can demand the boon of protection from the government? We think not.”

Jones v. Leslie, 112 P. 81 (1910).

This concept of human labor as legal property is so well-established as a legal principle in American law that people have been sent to prison over the issue. A relatively recent example of this is something that occurred in Chattanooga, Tennessee in 1990.

Between 1987 and 1991, stories were appearing in the “Chattanooga Times” about a municipal scandal in the city of Chattanooga, Tennessee. This was happening as the newspaper sought to keep the public informed concerning an event which was creating a considerable sensation in Chattanooga and its legal community. A city employee at the management level had been brought under criminal indictment. Others involved in the criminal incident were also indicted.

The criminal indictments and prosecution had originally developed as a result of investigations conducted by the newspaper’s own reporters. By the time the upheaval began to settle, a school management employee and his underling had been jailed, a municipal court judge and a former county commissioner had been indicted and another school employee had committed suicide.

The principal defendant on whom the entire criminal prosecution had centered was Alvin H. Brown. Previous to his legal problems, Brown had been employed in the capacity of service director of the operations and maintenance department of the Chattanooga City School System. Brown was convicted of embezzling public property in the form of employee labor that had been purchased by the City through the wages the employees were receiving. Brown had city employees under his command do personal work for him and his girl friend while the employees were being paid by the City. As such, the employee labor that Brown diverted for his own personal use was property owned by the city of Chattanooga. On appeal, and in accord with this concept, the appellate court ruled in 1990 as follows:

“The time and labor provided by the employees of the Chattanooga City School System were purchased with public funds and thus became property, with an easily determined value, which belonged to the city. The appellant converted the proceeds of those public funds to his own use to repay favors and create a more comfortable home for himself and his girl friend. The statute was sufficiently clear to have placed the appellant, or any other public official, on notice that the embezzlement of the labor of employees of the State of Tennessee, or any county or municipality therein, is a criminal act.”

State v. Brown, 791 S.W. 2d 31, 32 (1990).

Given this legal recognition of labor as property, the concept is therefore not a mere theory of economics or an impractical academic philosophy. Nor is it an issue of semantics, or even a mere “tax protester theme.” It is a fact of law. Since the 1800s-for over a century-state courts throughout this country have applied the principle in their decisions.

With this as a backdrop, we will now briefly consider the development of the concept of labor in economic and judicial history up to the present.

HISTORY AND THE PROPERTY CONCEPT OF LABOR
Various authorities from antiquity to modern times have affirmed the property rights of labor. John Locke (1632-1704), the English philosopher upon whose theories of government this country was founded, wrote of human labor:

“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”

John Locke, “Second Treatise: Of Civil Government,” Of Property, ch. V, “Two Treatises of Government” (1690), 27.

This concept of property as something embodied in a person stands in sharp contrast with physical objects such as buildings, lands, equipment, and with other inanimate objects which, in conventional economics, is generally referred to as property or capital assets.

Citing Adam Smith (1723-1790), the renowned Scottish economist who wrote the classic work on capitalism, “Wealth Of Nations” (1776), U.S. Supreme Court Justice Field, expressed the following relative to human labor in a concurring opinion:

“It has been well said that, ‘The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands…’”

Butchers’ Union v. Crescent City Livestock, 111 U.S. 746, at 757 (1884).

Ten years earlier, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Swayne expressed the same concept of human labor as property in a dissenting opinion:

“Property is everything which has an exchangeable value, and the right of property includes the power to dispose of it according to the will of the owner. LABOR IS PROPERTY, and as such merits protection. The right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty. It lies to a large extent at the foundation of most other forms of property, and of all solid individual and national prosperity.”

Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, at 127 (1873), emphasis added.

Up to our modern times, other authorities and court jurisdictions have expressed themselves in the same manner as Justice Field and Justice Swayne with respect to labor as property. Consider the following from the legal publication “Corpus Juris Secundum”:

“Under some authorities a man’s labor or right to labor is property…The property which one has in his own labor includes what is produced by way of wages and salary, that is, anything acquired as a gain or profit from labor.”

73 Corpus Juris Secundum, 1983 ed., s.v. “Property,” §12. See also, Vol. 34A of the legal publication “Words and Phrases,” s.v., “Property (Labor)”

Based on how the concept of “property” is legally defined, it stands to reason that labor should be considered property. This is true in view of the fact that labor meets all the criteria of how property is defined under American law. The standard legal definition of property includes everything which can be owned, “corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangeable value” (see, Black’s Law Dictionary, 1979 ed., s.v. “Property”). An employee’s labor belongs to or “is owned” by the employee. It is, as such, the capital property of the employee. In addition, that such labor has “exchangeable value” is obvious from the fact that employers pay salaries or wages in exchange for it.

Not only is human labor property, but under American law, the mere “right to work” is also property of the employee, and this, in a constitutional sense. See, for example, the ruling in 1959 in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Greene v. McElroy:

“[T]he right to hold specific private employment and to follow a chosen profession free from unreasonable governmental interference comes within the ‘liberty’ and ‘property’ concepts of the Fifth Amendment.”

Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 424, 492 (1959)

SO WHERE’S THE INCOME TAX PROBLEM?
We could raise constitutional issues to show where income tax corruption is to be found. I do this in my book. But here, all that is needed is to show what the practical result of the corruption is to know the ugly nature of the corruption and how damaging are its monetary impacts on American workers. We begin by looking at what Section 212 of the United States Internal Revenue Code has to say that is pertinent to the issue. Following is the language of this Federal statute:

“EXPENSES FOR PRODUCTION OF INCOME. In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year-
(1) for the production or collection of income;
(2) for the management, conservation, or maintenance of PROPERTY HELD FOR THE PRODUCTION OF INCOME [emphasis added]; or
(3) in connection with the determination, collection, or refund of any tax.”

The income tax problem (or the corruption in the system) emerges and becomes horribly clear when an employee attempts to claim that his or her labor and/or the exercise of his or her right to work is “income producing property” or “property held for the production of income” under the meaning of Section 212 of the United States Internal Revenue Code. The I.R.S. rejects such a claim and our corrupt Congress and corrupt federal courts back the I.R.S. interpretation. Of course, they have to….They need the money…The constitutional rights of the citizens of this country are expendable…Aren’t they? Congress and the whole U.S. government come first and the workers are last… Aren’t they? At least, so our government believes and the masses of submissive ones among us accept this. Our government counts and vitally depends on such passive (if not fatalistic) acceptance for the system to survive.

The result of this denial of the applicability of Section 212 to a worker’s labor is that employees are prevented from deducting “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year” for “the management, conservation, or maintenance” of their “property held for the production of income.” These types of deductions for “cost of goods (or products) sold,” which are now allowed only for businesses, would include for workers-as we will soon confirm-expenditures for such living necessities as food, shelter and proper health maintenance.

But why should business alone get the break under Section 212 that is denied to the workers? On the basis of all the legal authorities we have reviewed so far, we have seen repeated declarations come from both state courts and the U.S. Supreme Court telling us in a most clear and unambiguous manner that labor and the right to work is an employee’s property-even constitutionally so-and Section 212 of the United States Internal Revenue Code does not on its face make a distinction as to what forms of property are included and what forms are excluded. It simply says “PROPERTY (held for the production of income).”

Now, since the property that employees use to produce income is their labor and the exercise of their right to work, who can deny that employees have “income producing property”? The answer is no one but the IRS and the courts. How do they do it? We will now see the scandalous and the horrible extent and nature of income tax corruption that we are pointing to.

The way the I.R.S. gets around the applicability of Section 212 to employee labor is simply by quashing such employee claims of applicability whenever employees make these claims in their income tax returns. The I.R.S. simply demands that the filing taxpayer retract such a claim and threatens to impose monetary penalties if the taxpayer fails to make the required retractions. This happened to me. I was fined thousands of dollars for doing exactly this. The I.R.S. preferred to do this rather than prosecute me for criminal fraud. They knew that if they put my case before an impartial jury of ordinary citizens, the horrible truth of income tax corruption I knew-and would tell the jury in my defense-would then blow out into open, public exposure.

If the taxpayer files a complaint in Tax Court, this Court simply tells the taxpayer that his or her labor is not property; it is merely “behavior performed by human beings in exchange for compensation.” But at the same time, this Court will fail to cite legal authority or precedent to justify such a definition or to explain the existence of long-established legal authorities which we have seen here and which unambiguously contradict the definition (see, Reading vs. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 733). I filed several complaints in several federal district courts and took two of the complaints all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with the same result.

You ask, “How could the courts do this if they are the same courts that said labor was property”? First of all, I would answer simply by essentially repeating what I said above: “They have to do this….They need the money…The constitutional rights of the citizens of this country are expendable…Aren’t they? Congress and the whole U.S. government come first and the workers are last… Aren’t they? At least, so our government believes and it counts on the masses of submissive ones among us to accept this.”

But secondly, if you have actually asked this question, it means that you now are beginning to see why I say that even the federal courts are corrupt. When it comes to the income tax, the federal courts find ways to back its corruption, even if it takes turning their backs in outright disregard or suppression of the very evidence they have supplied us through their rulings in the past. This is all part and parcel of the income tax corruption this nation has been saddled with and we the American workers are the saddled mules they ride on and beat on the butt to keep running and slaving our lives away for their perks in self-awarded salary raises, fat pensions and give-away pork barrels to secure their political interests. If you skeptics out there who love the income tax and your precious annual “refunds” question the truth of this, I dare you to read my book and look at the documentation of all that the federal courts did in my cases, including the shamefully exalted U.S. Supreme Court.

COST OF LABOR SOLD DEDUCTIONS
Some have argued that employees have no choice. They have to eat and pay mortgage or rent to produce their labor energy and stay alive whether they sell their labor or not. Some of the energy they produce is spent on their own personal activities. But the Tax Court in the Reading case cited above did not raise this as a problem. In fact, the Court provided logic as to why an employee claim of the applicability of Section 212 to their labor could in itself be considered reasonable. Following is how the Court explained this:

“Of course we recognize the necessity for such items as food, shelter, clothing, and proper health maintenance. They provide both the mental and physical nourishment essential to maintain the body at a level of effectiveness that will permit its labor to be productive.”

Reading, 70 T.C. at 733-734.

So the idea of an employee claiming his or her living expenses as deductible costs of labor sold is not in and of itself unreasonable. The real problem, said the Court, is not an issue of personal expenses. Instead, the real issue is proving that what you sell to produce income is something of the nature of property. In the case of labor sold in exchange for income, we have seen how the Court went on to deny erroneously and corruptly that this is property. This is what the Court expressly referred to as being “the flaw” (Id., at 733).

But now we have seen there is indeed ample legal precedent to show that labor and the right to work are undeniably constitutionally protected forms of property (see U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment). We also have become aware that it is the disregard, illegal evasion and failure to acknowledge these facts by our government which in truth is the real “flaw” and actual root of corruption, not only in the income tax but also in Congress and in the federal courts all the way to the shamefully corrupt U.S. Supreme Court. I say “shameful” at least insofar as what this highly exalted Court has done to (or failed to do for) the laboring workers of this country.

FOOTNOTES:
1 - John C. Garrison, “The New Income Tax Scandal: How Congress Hijacked the Sixteenth Amendment” (Philadelphia: Xlibris Corporation, 2005)

Technorati Tags: income tax corruption, Congressman Ron Paul, US tax reform, author John Garrison, eNewsChannels articles, IRS enforcement

2008 will be about smaller, lighter and — most importantly — more convenience. For the first time in history, we’re not so into power unless we’re using for something specific, like computer games, CAD, photo and video editing, etc. Since the vast majority of people use their computer for email, browsing the Internet, and some occasional word processing, mainstream technology will focus on becoming smaller, lighter and more convenient.

More Convenience Means Form Over Function
Mass appeal is no longer about power, it’s about convenience. Hardware has become powerful enough to run everything the majority of us need: docs, email, web, pics and songs. We’ve now reached the point at the hardware will be as small as it can get, we — the humans — are the limiting factor. Our fingers stay the same size no matter how small the internal nuts and bolts become. For now, the size of our devices is limited by the size of our fingers. For instance, large fingered individuals already have problems with many cell phones.

The Asus EeePC is a good example of a device this is as small as it can get. With its 7-inch widescreen, flash memory and Linux operation system, it is one of the flagships for this trend for small size, fast access (boot time) and convenience. At a convenient retail price of roughly $300, this is technology that will become pervasive quickly. The notebook will no longer be thought of as a tool for the traveling bigshot or the coffee house workforce. It will be everywhere. It will be in schools, in the hands of children, inner city housing projects, even illegal immigrants will become citizens of the ‘net with this new pervasive, inexpensive technology.

The small size of the screens of these devices will be something we are willing to put up with because we will dock with larger screens that we will keep at our homes and offices. The less powerful, energy efficient processors will be something that is transparent to most users, since they won’t care as long as the system has a long battery life, boots quickly and is able to quickly jump on the web.

Although we’ll want some storage, most consumers will be happy keeping their tunes, videos, emails and documents in an online storage location. You can already store large attachments in online locations for free, Google’s Gmail being the most prevalent example. Google’s acquisition of Picasa now allows those Gmail attachment and Picasa photos to be stored in one location. Look for Google to continue to lead the charge into free-of-charge online storage, by adding Google documents, Google reader (ebooks) and video (per Google acquisition of YouTube) to this online storage bin.

By the end of 2008, many homes will have adapted network attached storage (NAS) devices that allow them to store movies, songs and other large media files in a central location at a convenient price. Currently, this is done by purchasing the wireless solution and the hard drive separately. However, in 2008 we’ll commonly see these components merged into a single wirelessly networked hard drive at a convenient price. A 750GB hard drive currently runs $160 and a wireless enclosure about $70. So, for only $240, it’s easy to see that networked, central storage will be a big mover in 2008.

We, as consumers, are demanding that technology mesh itself to their worlds instead of expecting them to mold their lives around the newest tech. This emergence will show itself in two main forms: user interface and all-in-one solutions. The success of Nintendo’s Wii and Apple’s iPhone show the dominance of technologies that use natural, convenient human movement to interface with electronics.

Advances in Gaming Hardware
Gamers will continue to see gaming software demands leap ahead of hardware capability. DirectX 10 allows game developers to create visual effects that will require more and more hardware to keep pace. Intel and Nvidia seem to have a firm hold on this niche and will continue to take first prize in this category throughout 2008.

Vista will become widely adapted with the launch of Microsoft’s first service pack for Vista. Most expert level Microsoft customers, such as corporations and gamers, have held back on adopting Vista simply because it was released with too many drawbacks. Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) is due to be released soon. We can expect to see a high level of Vista adoption this year, which will lead to more game development specifically for DirectX 10 and Vista.

With both Crytek’s Crysis and FunCom’s Age of Conan pushing DirectX 10 graphics, 2008 will continue the trend of games pushing the state of leading edge computer hardware. The major distinguishing factor, this year, will be the dependence on network performance for good game play. Massively multi-player games will continue to grow the number of gamers who routinely play online with other players. As the base of online gamers grows, expect to see more and more choices available. Age of Conan is interesting in that it is intended mainly for a mature audience, including large amounts of gore and adult overtones consistent with the Conan series of novels and movies. Online gaming will acquire a broader definition as more people become comfortable with it. For instance, Webkinz were one of the more popular gifts this year because preteens are comfortable with the Internet and attracted to a toy that allows them to interact with others online. Enhanced network cards made specifically for online gaming will be popular as well as powerful video cards with plenty of dedicated memory demanded by DirectX 10 optimization.

No matter what the trends of the year will be, innovation will be rewarded as consumers become more comfortable with the technology in general. This makes 2008 an exciting year to be working in the computer industry.

Best wishes for the new year.

Technorati Tags: Joshua McClure Founder WidowPC, Computer Trends for 2008, Geeks and Gadgets column, Asus EeePC, pervasive inexpensive technology, new gear commentary

The Q&A format is a time-honored way to promote dialog and discourse. But as Scott G points out, certain Questions can lead to Answers that start an argument, a brawl, or even a war.

Almost every man has heard this question: “Does this dress make me look fat?” Answers that immediately come to mind include:

* It’s not the dress.
* Define “fat.”
* Blame the mirror.
* Stand further back.
* We’re late; just pick something and let’s go.

While all of these replies are fine to every guy, for some strange reason none of these answers are acceptable to wives or girlfriends. But this is not the fault of the person who is answering. The problem lies with whoever is starting a dialog that isn’t designed to go anywhere.

Yes, No, or Maybe
It’s a favorite lawyer trick to pose a series of Yes/No questions in order to take someone down a path to the wrong answer (well, the “right” answer for the attorney’s client, but an answer that is somewhat removed from the truth of the matter). Pollsters are also adept at this technique. Here, adapted from an idea in the British “Yes, Prime Minister” TV series, are two examples of how poll results can be easily manipulated.

Series of pollster questions #1:
1) Is rising unemployment bad for the country?
2) Is crime bad for your neighborhood?
3) Should schools be able to prevent students from running wild?
4) Would it be a good thing to give young people some direction in their lives?
5) Do you think bringing back the draft would be helpful for the nation?

Series of pollster questions #2:
1) Does the threat of a world war frighten you?
2) Are you bothered by the increase in global armament?
3) Is it dangerous to give weapons to young people?
4) Do you agree it’s wrong to force people to take up arms?
5) Do you think bringing back the draft would be wrong for the nation?

If you omit the first 4 points in either series and release the answers to the 5th question, you would have two polls with radically different results, yet you could obtain these results from the same group of people.

Assuming Certain Responses
Some questions begin with an answer already in mind: “Will you be paying by cash or credit card for those items you’ve stuffed down your pants?” Or “To avoid our ordering the F-22 Raptors to attack, when will you be withdrawing your troops massed at the border?”

Just the Facts, Ma’am
Factual questions are usually simple and most reasonable people can agree on the answers, as in asking for today’s date or the correct time. But there can be surprises. For example, in reply to the innocuous “What time is it?” you could hear the somewhat ominous: “Later than you think.”

Thinking Required
There are questions that call for interpretation of many factors and pieces of evidence. For these, the reply will gain validity in direct proportion to the knowledge of the facts. For example: “In what ways were the election results erroneous?”

No Thinking Required
“Show of hands, who does not believe in evolution?” Of all the right-wing reactionary wackos running for the Republican ticket, the most affable of the hand-raisers was Mike Huckabee, yet even he knows that his gesture-answer needs some explanation. He has to go to some lengths to justify his not believing in science.

Putting Yourself into the Picture
Many questions reveal quite a bit about the questioner. “Can you list the similarities between Roman gladiatorial games and American football?”

Advice
Whenever some well-meaning person wants my opinion about their weight, my God, the electorate’s psychosis, or the state of today’s music, I often postpone my reply by giving them a piece of advice that will serve them well for the rest of their lives:

If you really don’t want to hear the answer to a question, don’t ask the question.

Technorati Tags: pollsters, public opinion, Q&A, trick question, lawyer, Mike Huckabee, F-22 Raptor, draft, Yes Minister

Scott G smiles at the dire headlines bemoaning the evidence of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones in sports; in fact, he comes out in favor of their use.

I don’t think there are enough members of professional sports using steroids and human growth hormones. All jocks should be “juicing” as far as I’m concerned. It should be mandatory in the contact sports. Those overpaid one-dimensional troglodytes should become even bigger, broader, boxier, and bulkier, I say.

Trust me; it’s going to improve the game. Speed it up and make it larger than life. Literally. Not to mention the glorious carnage that will be on display in the National Football League. As NFL players continue their use of ‘roids and HGH, we will soon be treated to the spectacle of human monsters smashing into each other the way a cue ball busts up a rack in a fast game of billiards. Oh, wait; we have that already.

There is much hand-wringing over drug use in pro sports, but should anyone be surprised? One look at the humanoids on today’s pro teams and you’ve got to admit that pro wrestling is already blending with every other sport. Some people are upset, but it all seems good to me.

Sure, I realize that the precious record books will have to be separated into two categories: “au natural” and “scientifically enhanced,” but that’s a small price to pay for seeing someone throw a 140mph curveball, hit a 700-foot home run, and literally pulverize a running back to death at the twenty yard line.

Besides, where are we going to draw the line on performance enhancement? Should eyeglasses be banned? Or sunglasses with polarizing lenses? Hey, man, Babe Ruth didn’t have no stinking polarizing lenses!

How about lasik surgery to enhance eyesight? Shouldn’t that be banned? If someone can go from 20/50 vision to 20/10 vision, isn’t that an artificial performance enhancement? What would be the appropriate attitude here: “If the guy can’t see straight, that’s his problem, pal; no operations allowed.”

Let’s not overlook the now-routine surgeries on rotator cuffs, elbows, knees, hips, and on and on. No more steel or titanium pins in there, baby. If you get hurt, tough it out or retire to your car dealership business. Perhaps we should also be upset when team doctor shoots some cortisone into a player. (Aside to swimming coaches: look into having webbing surgically added between each team member’s toes.)

Come to think of it, isn’t Gatorade a performance enhancing substance? Let’s see you lobby for restricting Gatorade to the coaches’ post-game victory showers.

Now that we’re going after all artificial performance enhancers, it seems to be time to ban the use of gloves, shoulder pads, helmets, and shoes.

And what about the cheerleaders; do you suppose any enhancements have taken place there? I feel that slow and deliberate visual scrutiny needs to be paired with a hands-on approach. (Note: I am available for inspection duty.)

Technorati Tags: steroids, HGH, human growth hormone, football, baseball, sports, performance enhancement, Gatorade

An Old Absolute Newly Discovered - (A series of 5 articles)

Part 3 - REASON AND THE NON-RATIONALITY OF GOD

By way of introduction to this Part 3, it would be useful to review and emphasize important aspects of the new Christian philosophy of the non-rational. In the previous two parts of this series, I sought to explain the basic concepts of this philosophy. As an introduction to this Part 3, I begin by giving once again the summary of non-rational philosophy that appeared in Part 2:

SUMMARY OF THE NEW PHILOSOPHY OF THE NON-RATIONAL: The Christian philosophy of the non-rational is a philosophy only in a loose, non-technical sense and can perhaps be better viewed simply as a way of understanding (or looking at) human and all of universal existence.

The philosophy of the non-rational simply says that all of life and the events that such life experiences, and all that has being in the entire universe, is in the end or final analysis non-rational at its core. This conceptual non-rational is such a universal and dominating absolute that no type of human rationality (or reason) and no theist or atheist of any class or variety or combination thereof can change it or escape its domination.

On the contrary, it is the absoluteness of the non-rational that dominates over all existence and which in due time changes and humbles all things to itself and sweeps off the face of the earth every human and animal life in the death that is appointed to all. As such, the non-rational is a dilemma that human and beast, rich and poor, wise and foolish, sage and barbarian, theists, atheists and nihilists all face without exception. There is absolutely no discrimination here. In view of this dilemma, the main question to be considered is how each of us copes with both the unavoidability and inevitability that the non-rational, in so many of its forms, brings crushingly into our conscious life.

The atheist has his or her own way of coping with the non-rational. Essentially, all it takes is to defy it, treat it like an enemy and stand tough against all the hard knocks it gives you. It doesn’t take much brain to do this. Any dim-witted, impulsive, “Rambo” type idiot or fool can do it.

The theist, on the other hand, has his or her faith, which takes in the following: do the best that you can with the resources that you have to cope with the non-rational. Beyond this, adhere to, focus on and believe in an abiding (though unseen) goodness of God behind, and notwithstanding, all the non-rational you see and experience. This takes a most profound degree of spiritual and intellectual maturity to accomplish serenely and with success. There is no way that a mere fool or idiot could do it.

So if you want to be or stay a foolish idiot, become an atheist and stay away from the mature faith that only theists can possess. This is why only a minority few become raving atheists. Only fools see in it value enough that is worth seeking. So for the same reason that only a minority are fools, for the same reason only a minority are atheists and just like there will always be fools, there will always be atheists. It is part of the non-rational one has to cope with. Even the sacred and most venerated Bible joins this chorus: “The fool has said in his [or her] heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1 NASB).

THE UNSEEN GOD

Atheists try to make a big issue of the theists’ belief in an unseen God and of their prayers to this God. Because a theists’ prayer is to an unseen God, atheists accuse theists of engaging in “make-believe” (i.e., having an invisible, imaginary friend who has no empirical existence). But such thinking on the part of atheists only serves to betray their abysmal ignorance and stupidity. Apparently, the simpleton atheist mind is incapable of noticing the fact that all human beings, including atheists, are invisible and therefore unseen. I may be able to see the moving, physical (i.e., empirical) body of a human, but I cannot see the non-physical, non-empirical person (or self) occupying that body. So what’s the big issue about an unseen God.

An atheist might respond and say that, with a living human being, at least get to see and hear the physical body moving and talking. But from a Jewish-Christian perspective, while God in the fullness of his deity and power can exist and live in any finite space and time, and has thus appeared at times (as in the body of Christ), in the immensity of his total being, he cannot be restricted to the body of a human. There are different empirical bodies of living creatures, with each body suitable for each corresponding order of being (for example, there is the variety of bodies suitable for animals, fishes and insects and then there’s a body suitable for humans). The infinite immensity of the total being of an infinite God needs a suitable body that is beyond those of finite created beings.

Accordingly, it is the Jewish-Christian view that the infinite God is not only transcendent above but also immanent (or dwelling) within the empirical and boundless universe we all know. Fish, humans and animals have their suitable bodies according to their order of being. For the boundless, infinite God, his suitable, empirical body, a body that any human can see, measure and touch is the universe, a vastness that stretches out in all directions, seemingly without end…infinite. The Jewish-Christian Holy Scripture confirms to us this truth: “Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (Jeremiah 23:24 NRSV); “Thus says the LORD, “Heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool. Where then is a house you could build for me? And where is a place that I may rest?” (Isaiah 66:1 NASB). “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28 NRSV); “For what can be known about God is plain…Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made” (Romans 1:19-20 NRSV).

Thus, the empirical, physical universe is to the eternal, invisible God what the empirical, physical body is to finite, invisible humans who live in those bodies. As for God speaking to us, the Bible tells us that God is constantly speaking to us through the language that the entire universe speaks: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handywork. Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night shows knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard” (Psalm 19:1-2 KJV).

Moreover, through the words of his prophets, which are now found in Holy Scripture in language humans can understand, God has spoken to us more than humans can digest in a whole lifetime. As we pray, these written words of God guide us and at the same time they are also a vital part of answers we get in prayer. In addition, through the sacrificial acts of Jesus the Messiah, God has spoken and ever speaks to us, assuring us that he cares for our lives; so the Bible confirms it: “God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in his Son” (Hebrews 1:1-2 NASB).

So when Jewish-Christian theists pray to their biblical God, they pray to that infinite, invisible and eternal Spirit of God who dwells within the living, moving and empirical universe around us and who dwells transcendent over this universe as well. But through the physical and empirical universe that is all around us and which never sleeps, and one also that is very much alive and in constant motion, we know that our prayers are not merely a talking to empty space.

MORE ON THE NON-RATIONAL

I consider it important at this point to emphasize the following three aspects of non-rational philosophy:

1. The relationship between the non-rational and utopian mindedness in rationality: In Part 2, I devoted a significant amount of text seeking to show conclusively how human reason or rationality is innately driven by a quest for utopian existence. So strong and absorbing is the force of this drive in human rationality that, under its influence, rationality becomes indefatigable and relentless in sparing no effort or available resource to achieve as much utopia as it possibly can. Utopia or utopian existence was defined in Part 2 as “a state of being where the living environment is free from anything hurtful, threatening, disappointing, or frustrating.”

It is especially the concept of innateness of the utopian drive in human rationality that I wish to emphasize here. In this regard, perhaps we can safely say that the utopian drive in rationality is comparable or similar to, or perhaps essentially synonymous with “the pleasure principle,” a principle (or law in human nature) thought to be inborn and innate in all human beings.

I have understood that the pleasure principle was a concept that first appeared in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) and was later coined as a psychoanalytic concept by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). According to an article in a standard encyclopedia, John Locke attempted to define “good [or correct] living” as being something that is pleasurable (as opposed to painful). In other words, for Locke, to live correctly was to experience (or result in) pleasurable living. “Pleasure and pain were simple ideas that accompanied nearly all human experiences. Ethical action involved determining which act in a given situation would produce the greatest pleasure–and then performing that act.”

As for Freud’s version of the pleasure principle, it seems that Freud coined the phrase in relation to what he called “the reality principle,” an opposing principle that is always poised to correct the excesses in human behavior that result from unrestrained pleasure seeking. In this respect, Freud’s “reality principle” appears to be a concept at least parallel in meaning or significance to the “non-rational” in non-rational philosophy. The non-rational is ever poised to bring to a halt the utopia mindedness in rationalism.

In any case, for Freud, pleasure seeking was a drive that could be understood as being very much inborn or innate to all human beings. All of us as humans seek “pleasurable” living, which means that we are ever seeking to avoid pain or painful circumstances. So it is with what I have referred to as the utopian drive in all human rationality.

In the concept here advanced, utopia or utopian mindedness is viewed as being so innate, intrinsic and inborn to all human rationality that utopian mindedness is virtually synonymous with human reason or rationality. So much so is this the case that to say “utopian mindedness” is virtually to say “human rationality.” Human rationality relentlessly seeks, and intrinsically so, to forge or establish a state of being where the living environment is free from anything hurtful, threatening, disappointing, or frustrating. This could be a mental or intellectual state of being, one in the outer environment, or both.

2. A more comprehensive definition of the non-rational: In view of the definitions above stated with respect to both the non-rational and utopian mindedness in its equivalence with human rationality, we are now able to define the non-rational in two of its principal aspects: The non-rational can be defined as either (1) that which is not according to human reason or rationality or as (2) that which does not conform to human reason or rationality’s innate quest for utopian existence. Thus, to say that an event, being or phenomenon is “non-rational” is equivalent to saying that such an event, being or phenomenon is either not according to human reason or rationality or it doesn’t support or conform to the quest for utopian existence that is innate to human reason or rationality.

3. Atheism and the Non-rational: Faced with the non-rational, both in religion and the rest of the human environment, rationalistic atheists have reacted simplistically and with the arrogance of quixotic bravado. Acting as if they know everything there is to know and are therefore able to lead humanity to salvation from the non-rational, if humanity would only listen, atheists only reveal their foolishness and stupidity by this action.

The fact is that no atheist who ever lived has saved anyone from the non-rational. On the contrary, even the most famous and intellectual of atheists, both of the rationalist variety, like Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899) and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), or of the irrationalists, like Jean Paul Sartre (1905-1980), have gone down into long forgotten graves (Freud was actually cremated and, last I heard, is now confined in the form of dead ashes to an ancient Greek urn laying quietly in a columbarium somewhere in England), each swept away by the crushing and unconquerable non-rational which they sought so proudly to defy. There they lie, humbled and silenced by the non-rationality of death through its non-rational causes (Ingersoll from congestive heart failure; Freud from cancer of the mouth and assisted suicide by his dear doctor Max Schur; and Sartre from edema of the lungs).

Thus, in one way or another, the non-rational eventually catches up with all of us mortals and humbles each one of us, including proud atheists, to the dust of the ground. The quixotic foolishness, arrogance and stupidity of atheists in the face of the non-rational make their end so much more somberly pathetic…tsk, tsk, tsk. The epitaph written on their tombstones should be “These are the great ones (great losers all) who fought valiantly, albeit foolishly, for the futile and stupid cause of expecting to triumph against the non-rational.”

We are now ready to move on to the main body of Part 3. Up until now, I have sought to show how the non-rational rules as a dominant absolute in existence. But to avoid the appearance that I give no meaningful significance to the role of human reason, I need to qualify my affirmation of the non-rational as a universal absolute. To do so, I begin by briefly stating the following two points concerning human reason and non-rationality:

1. The fact that non-rationality rules universally as the dominant reality in existence does not mean that we are without hope as we face the seemingly hopeless and non-rational circumstances of life.

2. Nor does the dominance of non-rationality in existence mean that human rationality is made irrelevant, impotent, or passive. On the contrary, I expect to show in this Part 3 the ways in which the legitimate functions and powers of human reason are affirmed. Moreover, in Part 5 of this series on rational atheism, I discuss how through faith, a non-rational faculty that all humans have and apply, we can transcend non-rationality in all its manifestations.

THE INEVITABILITY OF FAITH

That all humans have faith and that they all apply it can be clearly seen, for example, from the fact that we all have faith in the veracity of our beliefs. Such a faith is forced on all of us humans seeing that our beliefs, theistic or atheistic as they may be, are all based on how each of us has interpreted empirical reality, interpretations which we know quite well are full of competition as to who is correct. For who can say in all seriousness and sincerity, and with a sound mind, that they know everything in the universe that there is to know and that therefore they consider themselves correct in whatever they believe? Because no serious or sane individual can say this, faith in the partial information we all have is inevitable for all.

For Christians, the partial information they have is that they believe Christ-Jesus was an empirical figure in history; that his message is found in the biblical New Testament; that his life overall did not give clear indication that he could have been a liar, a fraud, a deceiver, mentally ill, or deficient in spiritual or divine knowledge; and because of this, that what he claimed of himself and his message to the world was the truth. This is a Christian’s faith.

Furthermore, as a Christian, I personally believe that Jesus was the greatest Jew who ever lived, greater than Moses and greater than any other Hebrew sage in all of Jewish history. But it has taken gentiles such as I to recognize this because, as Jesus truthfully observed, a prophet has no honor in his own nation (John 4:44).

In like manner as that of Jesus’ rejection by his own people, so other Jewish prophets in the history of Israel were rejected, stoned to death and made to suffer by their own people for telling the truth (see II Chronicles 24:20-21; 36: 15-16). Even now, Jesus, the greatest of all the prophets of Israel, is being made to wait, rejected and disowned, outside the camp of his own people, while as the Jew descendant of David that he is, gentiles have made him their king, yet so that the Hebrew prophecy may be fulfilled: “I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6 NIV; Acts 13:47).

But with respect to faith and partial information, the atheist simplistically believes (or has faith) that the empirically here and now is all that exists. Atheists will maintain this faith even though empirical science has not yet exhausted its search to discover what the universe is really about and even though there is no hopeful sign that empirical science ever will exhaust this search. On the contrary, the more empirical science searches, the more profound, rationally inexhaustible and non-rational empirical reality is discovered to be. Hence, even for “kn