There is a video available on YouTube called, "What is Reality?" That I have students watch to acquaint them with current scientific theory on the exact question that all four of our Greek philosophers wrestled with. It's the same question every human who has ever existed wrestles with: "What is the truth about our existence? Why are we here, and what is our purpose? Do we have a purpose? If so, what is it? If not, what does that mean? What implications does answering these questions have for who we are as individuals and who we are as part of a larger picture, the human race?"
It's the same question Eve was asked in the Garden of Eden—"Which do you believe more? Your eyes and what you can figure out for yourself, or what God says?" She saw that the fruit was good to look at (her observations made her conclude that the fruit was actually edible, leading her to conclude that, indeed, it was edible), it was a delight to the eyes (her observations convinced her that it would bring her satisfaction), she took the fruit (it was something concrete she could hold in her hand and not just words), and she acted on her conclusions, eating the fruit and getting Adam to eat, as well.
This is also the exact sequence each of our philosophers took in forming their conclusions. They observed nature, they considered what it might mean, they reached conclusions, then acted on those conclusions and persuaded others to follow what they had concluded. We, too, follow this pattern, and we are faced with the exact same question Eve was faced with: Which do we believe: Scripture, or what we can see, touch, taste, or experience?
It's the question we are asked when we are faced with evolution, where science appears to have drawn a conclusion from observation that does not align with God's Word. Their conclusions are based on uniformitarianism, which denies that an outside force has ever changed how things work, which in effect is to tie the hands of God and deny that He can override the rules of His creation. It's Empiricism, and is based on the conclusions of Democritus.
The other three philosophers believed in some sort of god, concluding there had to be an outside force that assisted in creation. Plato saw matter as a prison, and the spiritual realm as the answer, but also denied that man and man's deeds could be truly evil. Being educated concerning reality and working toward the higher realm was the Answer. Aristotle saw the Prime Mover as impersonal, having only assembled the universe from pre-existing matter and once it was spun into action he moved on and left creation on its own. Plotinus saw the universe as his god's body, if you will, where all the universe was made up of the essence of the One, and the motion Aristotle described was just the ebb and flow, in an eternal cycle of emanation and return of that essence. Dionysius, who translated the ideas of Plotinus and his follower Proclus into Christian terms, used Eastern mysticism to explain how man could work his way toward the Return to rejoin with God in henosis.
All of these men followed their observations, their considered analyses, and their conclusions to find ways to act on those ideas. We do the same thing. If we don't use Scripture—only Scripture—to draw our conclusions and then act on what God's Word tells us, we will fail in the exact same way that Eve failed, or the way that Adam failed. Eve was deceived. Adam was not deceived, but he chose to act against God's commands, anyway.
What will you choose?
Just In Case
Just in case you are wondering how everything on this website fits together, the book iIdeas explains in a little more detail. One of the areas it goes into greater detail is the area of electronic addictions, and how the big tech industry has designed electronics to addict users in order to gain information about their personalities, their interests, their inclinations, their longings, and their weaknesses in order to take advantage of what they learn. Facebook, Google, Twitter, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Instagram, TikTok, and thousands of other apps aren't giving you their app for free just because they're nice. They're giving it to you for a cost—the price of your privacy, the price of who you are laid bare in a way that you are probably unwilling to show anyone else alive, just because you don't realize or don't care that they are collecting this information. They are not philanthropists, they are cut-throat capitalists who are only interested in money and power, and the sooner you realize that, the sooner you can be free of them.
But it's unlikely any of this will even interest you if you don't see it as a problem. The best way to check is what some call an electronic "fast," or an electronic "sabbath." That just means a minimum of 24 hours without the use of your phone, your computer, your tablet, your Kindle or any electronics. Ideally, 3-7 days gives the best indication of a problem, but that isn't always possible with those who work in fields that require their use. In those cases, the suggestion is to cut out any use other than work-related uses.
I'm pretty sure this type of fast will be an eye opener. At minimum, check to see how many hours a day you use your electronic devices and which apps you use the most. This is just an indicator, because as I've had so many student's point out, I only use (insert electronics of choice) 4-5 hours a day, and I've heard that's average. Yes, average it is, but I'm convinced it's neither normal to what humans should be doing, nor is it desirable. Studies have shown using smartphones for more than 5 hours a day is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but having only 4 and 1/2 hours a day does not let you off the hook.
While Millennials and Generation-Z are famous for their addictions to technology, this isn't a generational problem and cannot be seen as such. Take a look at articles by former Facebook executives where they admit what they created is tearing apart the fabric of our society, all in the name of making money (see what Chamath Palihapitiya has to say about feeling "tremendous guilt"). From the beginning Facebook was designed to exploit human vulnerability with constant validation feedback as a matter of programming, according to Sean Parker. It's one giant Skinner box and you are the pigeon. Note to all pigeons out there: Skinner found that Variable Interval Reinforcement, or the seemingly random reward such as a slot machine, is the hardest habitual behavior to break (see Practical Psychology, "Operant Conditioning").
If there is anything you would like to discuss, send please send me an email. I'd be happy to talk further.
