Karis giving her new brother a big SQUEEZE.
5.17.2007
What's in a name
Naming is not easy. It's a hard thing to name another human being. Lesley and I put in a lot of consideration into both Thomas' and Karis' names.
For those who don't know, 'Karis' is Greek for grace and her middle name, 'Sophia', is Greek for wisdom. Two virtues that we wish upon her.
'Thomas Zane' was decided upon after much deliberation. In fact, Lesley and I employ 'bracketology' to help come up with a name. We had a March Madness tournament of 64 male names.
'Thomas' means twin, so it was not chosen for its meaning, but rather for other great Thomases that have come before (particularly philosopher/theologians):
Thomas Aquinas, Thomas a Kempis, Thomas Reid, etc.
'Zane' was chosen in part for its meaning. It means God's gracious gift. It was also chosen since we like names that start with letters not typically used.
In addition to the merits of each name on its own, we also like the combination both in full names and in the abbreviated 'T.Z.'.
For those who don't know, 'Karis' is Greek for grace and her middle name, 'Sophia', is Greek for wisdom. Two virtues that we wish upon her.
'Thomas Zane' was decided upon after much deliberation. In fact, Lesley and I employ 'bracketology' to help come up with a name. We had a March Madness tournament of 64 male names.
'Thomas' means twin, so it was not chosen for its meaning, but rather for other great Thomases that have come before (particularly philosopher/theologians):
Thomas Aquinas, Thomas a Kempis, Thomas Reid, etc.
'Zane' was chosen in part for its meaning. It means God's gracious gift. It was also chosen since we like names that start with letters not typically used.
In addition to the merits of each name on its own, we also like the combination both in full names and in the abbreviated 'T.Z.'.
Mother's Day Surprise
So here is the quick run down. On Saturday night Lesley started to get contractions after a day of bike riding and gardening. Everything continued through Church on Sunday so we went to the hospital after Church. Things slowly progressed until 11:31 at night when Thomas Zane was finally born. There were no problems with the delivery. He weighed 5 pounds 9 oz. and was 17.25 inches long. Thomas then went to the NICU since there was still some fluid in his lungs. That cleared up yesterday, and his good start to eating meant he could come home today.
Karis is already a big fan of Thomas giving him plenty of hugs and helping him out with his soother when he cries.
Lesley already feels so much better than after her c-section.
Now for the great tube-free pictures:
Karis is already a big fan of Thomas giving him plenty of hugs and helping him out with his soother when he cries.
Lesley already feels so much better than after her c-section.
Now for the great tube-free pictures:
5.08.2007
The Good Life v. The Goods Life
This was the title of a talk I heard recently by psychologist Tim Kasser. Kasser has been studying happiness and materialism. He has a book: The High Price of Materialism.
In his talk, Kasser revealed his findings that those who have higher materialistic values are less happy. They score lower in vitality, general satisfaction, and pleasant emotions while scoring higher in anxiety, depression, headaches, and drug and alcohol use. Socially, they tend to help others less -- treating others as a means rather then as ends in themselves. They also have less concern for the environment -- having higher ecological footprints (the # of acres of land it takes to sustain them).
On this note it was brought to my attention that if the arable land of the Earth was evenly divided among human inhabitants, each individual would have 5 acres of land to support themselves. The average American has an ecological footprint of 30 acres. This means that if everyone lived as a typical American does, we would need 6 Earths to support ourselves.
Scary thought.
In his talk, Kasser revealed his findings that those who have higher materialistic values are less happy. They score lower in vitality, general satisfaction, and pleasant emotions while scoring higher in anxiety, depression, headaches, and drug and alcohol use. Socially, they tend to help others less -- treating others as a means rather then as ends in themselves. They also have less concern for the environment -- having higher ecological footprints (the # of acres of land it takes to sustain them).
On this note it was brought to my attention that if the arable land of the Earth was evenly divided among human inhabitants, each individual would have 5 acres of land to support themselves. The average American has an ecological footprint of 30 acres. This means that if everyone lived as a typical American does, we would need 6 Earths to support ourselves.
Scary thought.
5.05.2007
Reasonable Atheism
Over here, there is a discussion as to how it can be that atheists can be punnished by God if their atheistic belief is the belief that is epistemically justified for them. It does seem that there are atheists who are epistemically justified in their belief of atheism. That is, it seems like for at least some individual's the evidence that they have best supports atheism. This entails that believing theism would be unjustified for those individuals.
Nonetheless, if salvation is based upon belief (I don't think this is quite right, but belief does seem to at least be essential), then individuals who are justified in their atheism are punnished for 'following their evidence'. Something might seem strange about this.
One could, like Kierkegaard seems to place the importance on faith and divorce faith from reason, but I have never found such a move appealing.
I think that the answer here lies in terms of justification. Here, I distinguished between epistemic justification (that one's belief fits with one's evidence) and meaty justification (that one is epistemically justified and also responsible in having gathered evidence). There is room to criticize the atheist since even if her belief in atheism is justified it can be that she has not been responsible in gathering evidence regarding the issue. Not only is this defense possible, I think it gets the situation right. The evidence is out there -- we are without excuse -- though this does not entail that every individual will be epistemically justified.
Pacal's Wager has import here. Though the pragmatic considerations that Pascal brings to bear on the rationality of belief in God do not affect the justification of that proposition, they do bring out the importance of that issue. The importance of the truth of theism makes it critical that one responsibly seek out evidence. Such a pursuit should consume us.
I would claim that the atheist is only justified in her atheism since she has not been responsible enough in pursuing the relevant evidence. If so, then it makes sense that she is punnished for believing what she should on her evidence. After all, it's much easier to see how we can be responsible for our actions (evidence gathering) than it is for our beliefs (since they are no directly voluntary).
Nonetheless, if salvation is based upon belief (I don't think this is quite right, but belief does seem to at least be essential), then individuals who are justified in their atheism are punnished for 'following their evidence'. Something might seem strange about this.
One could, like Kierkegaard seems to place the importance on faith and divorce faith from reason, but I have never found such a move appealing.
I think that the answer here lies in terms of justification. Here, I distinguished between epistemic justification (that one's belief fits with one's evidence) and meaty justification (that one is epistemically justified and also responsible in having gathered evidence). There is room to criticize the atheist since even if her belief in atheism is justified it can be that she has not been responsible in gathering evidence regarding the issue. Not only is this defense possible, I think it gets the situation right. The evidence is out there -- we are without excuse -- though this does not entail that every individual will be epistemically justified.
Pacal's Wager has import here. Though the pragmatic considerations that Pascal brings to bear on the rationality of belief in God do not affect the justification of that proposition, they do bring out the importance of that issue. The importance of the truth of theism makes it critical that one responsibly seek out evidence. Such a pursuit should consume us.
I would claim that the atheist is only justified in her atheism since she has not been responsible enough in pursuing the relevant evidence. If so, then it makes sense that she is punnished for believing what she should on her evidence. After all, it's much easier to see how we can be responsible for our actions (evidence gathering) than it is for our beliefs (since they are no directly voluntary).
5.01.2007
NFL Draft
End of the semester has led to very sporatic blogging, but summer is quickly approaching.
I just need to vent on a couple of things regarding the NFL draft that I have been hearing over and over.
1. A team's draft cannot be assessed until 1-3 years after the draft.
Why think that? Drafting decisions, like any other decisions ought to be evaluated at the time of the decision, based on the information that the agent had at the time of choice. How things turn out is of some importance, but these considerations do not factor in at the time of choice, and thus it's hard to see how the drafter can be graded by this criteria.
2. Teams get graded according to how good of prospects they drafted.
This seems reasonable at first, but it really isn't. Why not? Because teams do not have equal opportunity to draft players of the same caliber. For instance, the Raiders pick first in every round and the Bears pick second last in every round (ignoring trades for now). As such, it would be a ridiculous feat if the Bears drafted higher caliber players than the Raiders.
Instead, the grades teams receive should be scaled according to that teams draft position. In other words, it should be expected that the Raider's acquired better players than the Bears, but the grades should reflect how well a team did given their drafting position. This fact seems to be ignored in grading drafts.
I just need to vent on a couple of things regarding the NFL draft that I have been hearing over and over.
1. A team's draft cannot be assessed until 1-3 years after the draft.
Why think that? Drafting decisions, like any other decisions ought to be evaluated at the time of the decision, based on the information that the agent had at the time of choice. How things turn out is of some importance, but these considerations do not factor in at the time of choice, and thus it's hard to see how the drafter can be graded by this criteria.
2. Teams get graded according to how good of prospects they drafted.
This seems reasonable at first, but it really isn't. Why not? Because teams do not have equal opportunity to draft players of the same caliber. For instance, the Raiders pick first in every round and the Bears pick second last in every round (ignoring trades for now). As such, it would be a ridiculous feat if the Bears drafted higher caliber players than the Raiders.
Instead, the grades teams receive should be scaled according to that teams draft position. In other words, it should be expected that the Raider's acquired better players than the Bears, but the grades should reflect how well a team did given their drafting position. This fact seems to be ignored in grading drafts.
4.19.2007
4.17.2007
Contemporary Hymns
4.12.2007
Tallest Man the Bravest Man?
I just heard about this story, where the worlds tallest man saves two dolphins by using his extremely long arms to reach into their stomachs and pull out shards of plastic. Why the bravest man? Talk to me about dolphins sometime.
He also just got married (to someone 2/3 his height).
4.09.2007
The Concept of God
Peter van Inwagen in his recent book The Problem of Evil, claims that the concept of God is equivalent to the concept of the greatest (metaphysically) possible being. There is thus a flexibility in what attributes one ascribes to God depending upon what one thinks is metaphysically possible and what one thinks is a great-making feature.
This understanding of the concept of God seems to be too weak for several reasons.
First, suppose that very few things are in fact metaphysically possible. For instance, suppose that it is impossible to know any truths that are not necessary truths. It is at least epistemically possible that such things are metaphysically impossible. If that were the case, could God exist? On van Inwagen's account there could still be a greatest possible being, and thus God would be that being. However, if the best the greatest possible being could do knowledge wise was to know necessary truths, then I have a hard time seeing that that being is God. It seems to me that if there are significant limitations to what is metaphysically possible, then God could not exist. (whether there are such limitations is another story)
Second, suppose that an individual, Joe, has a diminished understanding of what is in fact metaphysically possible. So, though it is possible to know non-necessary truths, Joe does not believe that it is. Joe still believes that there is a greatest possible being, he just does not believe that that being knows contingent truths since he doesn't think that can be done. Does Joe have the right concept of God and just the wrong concept of what is possible? I don't think so. It seems that he also has the wrong concept of God.
To sum up, it seems like there is a 'ground floor' of what must be metaphysically possible, or thought to be metaphysically possible, if God is to exist, or be thought to exist. Anything below that 'ground floor' leaves too diminished a concept of the greatest possible being for it to be the concept of God. Thus, the concept of God does not just equal the concept of the greatest possible being simpliciter, more must be said about what is possible.
This understanding of the concept of God seems to be too weak for several reasons.
First, suppose that very few things are in fact metaphysically possible. For instance, suppose that it is impossible to know any truths that are not necessary truths. It is at least epistemically possible that such things are metaphysically impossible. If that were the case, could God exist? On van Inwagen's account there could still be a greatest possible being, and thus God would be that being. However, if the best the greatest possible being could do knowledge wise was to know necessary truths, then I have a hard time seeing that that being is God. It seems to me that if there are significant limitations to what is metaphysically possible, then God could not exist. (whether there are such limitations is another story)
Second, suppose that an individual, Joe, has a diminished understanding of what is in fact metaphysically possible. So, though it is possible to know non-necessary truths, Joe does not believe that it is. Joe still believes that there is a greatest possible being, he just does not believe that that being knows contingent truths since he doesn't think that can be done. Does Joe have the right concept of God and just the wrong concept of what is possible? I don't think so. It seems that he also has the wrong concept of God.
To sum up, it seems like there is a 'ground floor' of what must be metaphysically possible, or thought to be metaphysically possible, if God is to exist, or be thought to exist. Anything below that 'ground floor' leaves too diminished a concept of the greatest possible being for it to be the concept of God. Thus, the concept of God does not just equal the concept of the greatest possible being simpliciter, more must be said about what is possible.
4.08.2007
Easter Rejoicing
From St. John Chrysostom:
Let all pious men and lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast. Let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord. Let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward.
Let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him who comes at the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first.
Yes, He has pity on the last and He serves the first. He rewards the one and is generous to the other. He repays the deeds and praises the effort.
Come you all: enter into the joy of your Lord! You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward. You rich and you poor, dance together! You sober and you the weak, celebrate the day! You who have kept the fast and you who have not, rejoice today!
The table is richly loaded; enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fattened one; let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith. All of you receive the riches of His goodness. Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave!
Let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it! He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom. He has vexed it by allowing it to taste of His flesh. When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: "O Hades, you have been vexed by encountering Him in the nether world!"
Hades is vexed, because it is frustrated!
It is vexed, because it is now captive!
It seized a body, and lo! It discovered God!
It seized earth, and behold! It encountered Heaven! It seized the visible and was overcome by the invisible!
Oh death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?
Christ is risen, and you are abolished!
Christ is risen, and the demons are cast down!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life is freed!
Christ is risen, and the tomb is emptied of the dead!
For Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the Leader and the Reviver of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power, for ever and ever! Amen.
Let all pious men and lovers of God rejoice in the splendor of this feast. Let the wise servants blissfully enter into the joy of their Lord. Let those who have borne the burden of Lent now receive their pay, and those who have toiled since the first hour, let them now receive their due reward.
Let any who came after the third hour be grateful to join the feast, and those who may have come after the sixth, let them not be afraid of being late, for the Lord is gracious and He receives the last even as the first. He gives rest to him who comes at the eleventh hour as well as to him who has toiled since the first.
Yes, He has pity on the last and He serves the first. He rewards the one and is generous to the other. He repays the deeds and praises the effort.
Come you all: enter into the joy of your Lord! You the first and you the last, receive alike your reward. You rich and you poor, dance together! You sober and you the weak, celebrate the day! You who have kept the fast and you who have not, rejoice today!
The table is richly loaded; enjoy its royal banquet. The calf is a fattened one; let no one go away hungry. All of you enjoy the banquet of faith. All of you receive the riches of His goodness. Let no one grieve over his poverty, for the universal kingdom has been revealed. Let no one weep over his sins, for pardon has shone from the grave!
Let no one fear death, for the death of our Savior has set us free. He has destroyed it by enduring it! He has despoiled Hades by going down into its kingdom. He has vexed it by allowing it to taste of His flesh. When Isaiah foresaw all this, he cried out: "O Hades, you have been vexed by encountering Him in the nether world!"
Hades is vexed, because it is frustrated!
It is vexed, because it is now captive!
It seized a body, and lo! It discovered God!
It seized earth, and behold! It encountered Heaven! It seized the visible and was overcome by the invisible!
Oh death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?
Christ is risen, and you are abolished!
Christ is risen, and the demons are cast down!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life is freed!
Christ is risen, and the tomb is emptied of the dead!
For Christ, being risen from the dead, has become the Leader and the Reviver of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and power, for ever and ever! Amen.
4.05.2007
Holy Wednesday
An Eastern Catholic friend passed this excerpt from a hymn along to me that was sung yesterday. It presents a nice juxtaposition between Judas and Mary of Bethany in their reactions to Jesus:
As the sinful woman was bringing her offering of myrrh, the disciple [Judas] was scheming with lawless men. She rejoiced in pouring out her precious gift; he lost no time in selling off the Precious One. She recognized the Master; from the same Master he separated himself. She was set free, but Judas was enslaved to the enemy. How dreadful was his rashness! How great was her repentance! Savior, You suffered for our sakes: grant us also repentance, and save us!
O, the wretchedness of Judas! He watched as the harlot was kissing your feet, all the while with guile thinking about the kiss of betrayal! As she untied her tresses, he was being tied up in anger, bringing rancid wickedness instead of fragrant ointment, for envy knows not how to prefer its advantage. O, the wickedness of Judas! From this deliver our souls, O God! The harlot spread out her hair to You, O Master. Judas spread out his hand to lawless men--she in order to receive forgiveness, he in order to receive some silver. And so we cry out to You, for You were sold for us and yet set us free. O Lord, glory to You!
Though I have transgressed more than the harlot, Good One, I have not offered You a flood of tears, but praying in silence I fall down before You. With love, I embrace Your most pure feet. As Master, grant me remission of sins, when I cry to You, O Savior: Deliver me from the filth of my evil deeds!
Lord, O Lord, when the woman who had fallen into many sins perceived Your Divinity, she assumed the role of a myrrh-bearing woman, and lamenting, brought ointments to anoint You before Your burial. 'Woe is me,' she cried, 'for I live in the night of licentiousness, shrouded in the dark and moonless love affair with sin. Accept the fountain of my tears, as You gathered the waters of the sea into clouds. Bow down Your ear to the sighing of my heart, as You bowed the heavens in Your ineffable condescension. I shall cover Your unstained feet with kisses, and wipe them dry again with the locks of my hair, those feet whose steps' sound echoed in Eve's ears at twilight in Paradise, whereupon she hid herself in fear! Who can measure the multitude of my sins, or the depths of Your judgments, O Savior of my soul? Do not despise Your servant in your immeasurable mercy!
The harlot mingled her costly ointment with her tears, and she poured it out on your immaculate feet and kissed them profusely. Immediately You justified her. You suffered for our sakes; forgive us also, and save us!
As the sinful woman was bringing her offering of myrrh, the disciple [Judas] was scheming with lawless men. She rejoiced in pouring out her precious gift; he lost no time in selling off the Precious One. She recognized the Master; from the same Master he separated himself. She was set free, but Judas was enslaved to the enemy. How dreadful was his rashness! How great was her repentance! Savior, You suffered for our sakes: grant us also repentance, and save us!
O, the wretchedness of Judas! He watched as the harlot was kissing your feet, all the while with guile thinking about the kiss of betrayal! As she untied her tresses, he was being tied up in anger, bringing rancid wickedness instead of fragrant ointment, for envy knows not how to prefer its advantage. O, the wickedness of Judas! From this deliver our souls, O God! The harlot spread out her hair to You, O Master. Judas spread out his hand to lawless men--she in order to receive forgiveness, he in order to receive some silver. And so we cry out to You, for You were sold for us and yet set us free. O Lord, glory to You!
Though I have transgressed more than the harlot, Good One, I have not offered You a flood of tears, but praying in silence I fall down before You. With love, I embrace Your most pure feet. As Master, grant me remission of sins, when I cry to You, O Savior: Deliver me from the filth of my evil deeds!
Lord, O Lord, when the woman who had fallen into many sins perceived Your Divinity, she assumed the role of a myrrh-bearing woman, and lamenting, brought ointments to anoint You before Your burial. 'Woe is me,' she cried, 'for I live in the night of licentiousness, shrouded in the dark and moonless love affair with sin. Accept the fountain of my tears, as You gathered the waters of the sea into clouds. Bow down Your ear to the sighing of my heart, as You bowed the heavens in Your ineffable condescension. I shall cover Your unstained feet with kisses, and wipe them dry again with the locks of my hair, those feet whose steps' sound echoed in Eve's ears at twilight in Paradise, whereupon she hid herself in fear! Who can measure the multitude of my sins, or the depths of Your judgments, O Savior of my soul? Do not despise Your servant in your immeasurable mercy!
The harlot mingled her costly ointment with her tears, and she poured it out on your immaculate feet and kissed them profusely. Immediately You justified her. You suffered for our sakes; forgive us also, and save us!
3.29.2007
Funny or Insensitive?
So I was picking up a test today from the Academic Assistant Center, where people go to take tests with added accommodations. On the receptionists desk was a bowl of candy . . .
full of Dum Dums.
No joke.
full of Dum Dums.
No joke.
3.24.2007
Evidence and Defeat
Here is a plausible principle that I think ought to be denied:
Necessarily, if one has some evidence for p and no evidence against p, then one's total body of evidence supports p.
I think that this principle should be denied since there is both 'direct' and 'indirect' evidence:
p is direct evidence for q (for S) iff p evidentially supports q all by itself.
p is indirect evidence for q (for S) iff (i)p is not direct evidence for q,(ii) p is direct evidence for not-r, (iii) r is direct evidence for q.
Undercutting defeaters are examples of indirect evidence. I take there to be two kinds of defeaters:
Necessarily, (ignoring the individual) for all propositions x, y and z, x is an undercutting defeater of y regarding z iff y is evidence for z, x is not evidence for or against z, and (y&x) is not evidence for z.
Necessarily, (ignoring the individual) for all propositions x, y and z, x is a rebutting defeater of y regarding z iff y is evidence for z, x is evidence for not-z, and (x&y) is evidence for not-z.
So long as there are undercutting defeaters, then the above principle is false. This is because one can have evidence against what supports p without having evidence against p. As such, one's total body of evidence can fail to support p (though not support not-p) while there being some evidence for p and no evidence against p itself.
This all comes from a discussion I'm involved in here.
Necessarily, if one has some evidence for p and no evidence against p, then one's total body of evidence supports p.
I think that this principle should be denied since there is both 'direct' and 'indirect' evidence:
p is direct evidence for q (for S) iff p evidentially supports q all by itself.
p is indirect evidence for q (for S) iff (i)p is not direct evidence for q,(ii) p is direct evidence for not-r, (iii) r is direct evidence for q.
Undercutting defeaters are examples of indirect evidence. I take there to be two kinds of defeaters:
Necessarily, (ignoring the individual) for all propositions x, y and z, x is an undercutting defeater of y regarding z iff y is evidence for z, x is not evidence for or against z, and (y&x) is not evidence for z.
Necessarily, (ignoring the individual) for all propositions x, y and z, x is a rebutting defeater of y regarding z iff y is evidence for z, x is evidence for not-z, and (x&y) is evidence for not-z.
So long as there are undercutting defeaters, then the above principle is false. This is because one can have evidence against what supports p without having evidence against p. As such, one's total body of evidence can fail to support p (though not support not-p) while there being some evidence for p and no evidence against p itself.
This all comes from a discussion I'm involved in here.
3.20.2007
Praising Ants and Condemning Rich Fools
I have been thinking about savings and retirement funds and what not recently (part of this relates to the post on philosophy and charity). I was thinking about how the ant is praised for storing up food for the winter and how there might be some evidence there regarding what we should do.
However, I just got the monthly newsletter from Desiring God Ministries on this very issue. It is worth the short read. The author reminds us that the ant is praised for it diligence not its accumulation, and that Jesus warns against such storage in Luke 12: "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also."
However, I just got the monthly newsletter from Desiring God Ministries on this very issue. It is worth the short read. The author reminds us that the ant is praised for it diligence not its accumulation, and that Jesus warns against such storage in Luke 12: "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where you treasure is, there will your heart be also."
3.17.2007
The Madness
Round 1 . . . not so good for me. As evidenced by my very red bracket.
Only one person on CNNSI got the whole first round correct. That's only 12 more right than me.
Only one person on CNNSI got the whole first round correct. That's only 12 more right than me.
3.14.2007
Jesus' Tomb
Perhaps you have heard of the stories claiming that the bones of Jesus have been discovered. These links were passed along to me, so I thought I would pass them along. They are responses to the alledged discovery:
Toronto Star
Time
Ben Witherington's blog also has a lot of good stuff.
Toronto Star
Time
Ben Witherington's blog also has a lot of good stuff.
3.13.2007
3.11.2007
New Look
The blog has now been reformatted. I hope you like the new look. It now includes a picture I took of some frozen branches in our backyard [top right of page]. Here are some other recent pictures of an even better subject.
Here are some shots of Karis enjoying some of our 80+ inches of snow this winter.
Here are some shots of Karis enjoying some of our 80+ inches of snow this winter.
Karis enjoying the phone and a taco. Two of her favorite things.
3.09.2007
Even Harder . . .
Try this, where you have to place states on an unmarked map and then it calculates the average number of miles that you are off. My average was 32 miles, though I know someone who got a 3 mile average!
3.06.2007
Church/State Issues
I am T.A.-ing for a Social and Political Philosophy course which has exposed me to several issues in philosophy I have never thought much about. We are currently studying the modern philosophers Hobbes and Locke -- mostly on the relation of church and state.
Locke is clear in a division of church and state. The state promotes civil liberties (life, liberty, health, possessions, etc.) and the church promotes mutual edification and worship of God. He is also clear that force (taking away possessions, liberties, life) is an instrument only of the state. The instrument of the church is persuasion and reason. The church being a voluntary society, the worst it can do is to cast someone out of its membership.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke states, "If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefre art thou to punish him in the things of this Life, because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come."
This made me think of the complaints people have of the 'religious right' attempting to 'legislate their morality'. Since this is a form of democracy things are a little bit complicated, but it seems that whatever law is legislated ought to be for the promotion of the civil liberties of the citizens. Religion cannot be compelled. We would not think that attending church should be legislated nor praying the sinners prayer nor taking communion. These are spritual activities that need to be undergone by choice, not force. If this is all right, then it seems that the only basis on can have for 'legislating one's morality' is that such standards promote the civil liberties of the citizens. I am not saying that this cannot be done, however, when you think of the arguments that are often advanced, the reasons put forward tend to have to do with such actions being immoral according to a certain (often spiritual) guidelines. If such things should be legislated against, it seems that they should be on the basis of civil liberties instead.
Locke is clear in a division of church and state. The state promotes civil liberties (life, liberty, health, possessions, etc.) and the church promotes mutual edification and worship of God. He is also clear that force (taking away possessions, liberties, life) is an instrument only of the state. The instrument of the church is persuasion and reason. The church being a voluntary society, the worst it can do is to cast someone out of its membership.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke states, "If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefre art thou to punish him in the things of this Life, because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come."
This made me think of the complaints people have of the 'religious right' attempting to 'legislate their morality'. Since this is a form of democracy things are a little bit complicated, but it seems that whatever law is legislated ought to be for the promotion of the civil liberties of the citizens. Religion cannot be compelled. We would not think that attending church should be legislated nor praying the sinners prayer nor taking communion. These are spritual activities that need to be undergone by choice, not force. If this is all right, then it seems that the only basis on can have for 'legislating one's morality' is that such standards promote the civil liberties of the citizens. I am not saying that this cannot be done, however, when you think of the arguments that are often advanced, the reasons put forward tend to have to do with such actions being immoral according to a certain (often spiritual) guidelines. If such things should be legislated against, it seems that they should be on the basis of civil liberties instead.
Philosophy and Charity
I have recently encountered two arguments related to charity that I thought that I would share and then get your thoughts.
I. Peter Singer on our Obligations
The argument here comes more in the form of a story. We are asked to imagine a person who has a very valuable car (perhaps there are no others like it). This car brings this individual a great deal of pleasure (perhaps even pleasure he could not otherwise attain). Unfortunately, this individual parks his car on some railroad tracks. Sure enough, a train is coming. Worse yet, though the tracks fork and he could redirect the train before it hit his car, there is a young innocent girl stuck on those tracks. He must choose his car or the girl's life. What should he do? Well, hopefully the answer is pretty obvious. He should let his car be destroyed.
What's the big deal? Singer claims that each of us is in the very same situation as the man with the car. Pick any of your favorite possessions, costly habits, savings, etc. that bring you pleasure. It is the case that you having those is coming at the cost of other individuals in the world dying by starvation or some other means. If you think the man ought to give up his car to save the girl, Singer thinks you ought to do the same. Further, the problem is recursive, so once you give one thing up, the claim still applies until you are living at the same level with least of the world.
II. Dan Moller on letting people starve -- for now.
Moller gives the following argument:
1. Future lives count just as much as present lives (we have an equal obligation to them as we do to present lives).
2. There will continue to be at-risk people in the forseeable future.
3. The cost of saving lives will decrease over time.
4. There are ways to increase your wealth over time.
5. It would often benefit you to delay providing aid (your life would be more enjoyable).
6. Therefore, we should let people starve -- for now, since we can do more with our resources for future generations.
I. Peter Singer on our Obligations
The argument here comes more in the form of a story. We are asked to imagine a person who has a very valuable car (perhaps there are no others like it). This car brings this individual a great deal of pleasure (perhaps even pleasure he could not otherwise attain). Unfortunately, this individual parks his car on some railroad tracks. Sure enough, a train is coming. Worse yet, though the tracks fork and he could redirect the train before it hit his car, there is a young innocent girl stuck on those tracks. He must choose his car or the girl's life. What should he do? Well, hopefully the answer is pretty obvious. He should let his car be destroyed.
What's the big deal? Singer claims that each of us is in the very same situation as the man with the car. Pick any of your favorite possessions, costly habits, savings, etc. that bring you pleasure. It is the case that you having those is coming at the cost of other individuals in the world dying by starvation or some other means. If you think the man ought to give up his car to save the girl, Singer thinks you ought to do the same. Further, the problem is recursive, so once you give one thing up, the claim still applies until you are living at the same level with least of the world.
II. Dan Moller on letting people starve -- for now.
Moller gives the following argument:
1. Future lives count just as much as present lives (we have an equal obligation to them as we do to present lives).
2. There will continue to be at-risk people in the forseeable future.
3. The cost of saving lives will decrease over time.
4. There are ways to increase your wealth over time.
5. It would often benefit you to delay providing aid (your life would be more enjoyable).
6. Therefore, we should let people starve -- for now, since we can do more with our resources for future generations.
2.23.2007
He Hate Me
What should our attitude be towards the Devil? Lesley noticed that a song on one of Karis' CD's speaks of learning to hate the Devil and this made us wonder. I'm not sure what to think yet, but I lean towards no.
Here are some thoughts either way:
1. We ought to hate the Devil. (thanks to Jason for a lot of these)
a. Gen. 3:15 God says to the serpent, "... and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers." This seems to say that God puts hatred between us and the Devil. (Thanks to Jason for this one)
b. Jn. 8:44 says there is *no* truth in him, but rather he is all lies, and we should hate lies and love the truth.
c. The Devil is *strongly* associated with sin (1 Jn. 3:8). He is the one who attempts to take us away from God, or to love other things above God Himself and is beyond reconcilliation.
d. We are at least depicted as at war with him elsewhere (Ephesians 6:11).
e. We are to resist (Jas 4:7) the Devil.
2. We ought not to hate the Devil.
a. It is hard to see God commanding us to hate any person.
b. We can hate evil, but we are called to love individuals -- even enemies and those that persecute (Mt. 5:44). This fits the Devil particularly well.
c. The Devil is not essentially evil. He was not always evil and he is not the opposite of God.
d. God is a God of love.
So, I would be interested to hear what others think. Also, how do you think Jesus' reactions to being tempted by the Devil fit in? Did he show hatred to the Devil?
Here are some thoughts either way:
1. We ought to hate the Devil. (thanks to Jason for a lot of these)
a. Gen. 3:15 God says to the serpent, "... and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers." This seems to say that God puts hatred between us and the Devil. (Thanks to Jason for this one)
b. Jn. 8:44 says there is *no* truth in him, but rather he is all lies, and we should hate lies and love the truth.
c. The Devil is *strongly* associated with sin (1 Jn. 3:8). He is the one who attempts to take us away from God, or to love other things above God Himself and is beyond reconcilliation.
d. We are at least depicted as at war with him elsewhere (Ephesians 6:11).
e. We are to resist (Jas 4:7) the Devil.
2. We ought not to hate the Devil.
a. It is hard to see God commanding us to hate any person.
b. We can hate evil, but we are called to love individuals -- even enemies and those that persecute (Mt. 5:44). This fits the Devil particularly well.
c. The Devil is not essentially evil. He was not always evil and he is not the opposite of God.
d. God is a God of love.
So, I would be interested to hear what others think. Also, how do you think Jesus' reactions to being tempted by the Devil fit in? Did he show hatred to the Devil?
10.03.2006
Fantasy Fun
Well week 4 tightened everything up.
Larson finally started a full roster and got a win as a result.
Armes put up the most points to date and coupled with me benching too many points gave me a loss, and Trina scored close to 100points in the Monday Night game alone to overtake Christy.
I have made weekly trophies for the highest point totals for each week. They are hard to notice though. You have to either go to your teams trophy case or to the leagues trophy case.
I also want to float another idea out here. What do you guys thinking about turning this league into a dynasty league? That means that it would continue from year to year with the same players. The draft order would be like the NFL where the teams that did worse would draft first. There seems to be a fair amount of parity in our league so what do you think? Another option would be to play this year out and start a dynasty league next year.
Larson finally started a full roster and got a win as a result.
Armes put up the most points to date and coupled with me benching too many points gave me a loss, and Trina scored close to 100points in the Monday Night game alone to overtake Christy.
I have made weekly trophies for the highest point totals for each week. They are hard to notice though. You have to either go to your teams trophy case or to the leagues trophy case.
I also want to float another idea out here. What do you guys thinking about turning this league into a dynasty league? That means that it would continue from year to year with the same players. The draft order would be like the NFL where the teams that did worse would draft first. There seems to be a fair amount of parity in our league so what do you think? Another option would be to play this year out and start a dynasty league next year.
9.26.2006
Tuesday Morning Smack Board
Another week, another win.
Christy and I are now the lone undefeateds. Dave is now the lone winless.
Chaz mustered the highest total in beating Trina who put up the most points in a loss yet this season. He did so by riding Favre and Green nonetheless. Too bad the Packers only play the Lions one more time this year.
The autodraft haters are also coming out of their closets, though their voices could not be heard when the idea of a live draft was being floated around. Again, everyone is in the same boat, so there is no room for complaining. If you cannot figure out how to change your roster that is your own fault. The worst that can happen is that you get overloaded at one position (like me at WR). The easy solution is to seek a trade, so anyone who wants a quality WR for a quality RB give me a ring.
Christy and I are now the lone undefeateds. Dave is now the lone winless.
Chaz mustered the highest total in beating Trina who put up the most points in a loss yet this season. He did so by riding Favre and Green nonetheless. Too bad the Packers only play the Lions one more time this year.
The autodraft haters are also coming out of their closets, though their voices could not be heard when the idea of a live draft was being floated around. Again, everyone is in the same boat, so there is no room for complaining. If you cannot figure out how to change your roster that is your own fault. The worst that can happen is that you get overloaded at one position (like me at WR). The easy solution is to seek a trade, so anyone who wants a quality WR for a quality RB give me a ring.
9.19.2006
Tuesday Morning Smack-Board
Well another week on top for me.
I feel like the Bears with all my dominating performances.
I think that I am going to change the scoring for the Defensive Player to get an average game to yeild somewhere around 10-15 points. It just look rediculous when such a player earns a team 0.2 points. If you have any objections let me know.
Perhaps we can all send some encouragement the way of Josh, Chaz, and Dave. Just because they are all 0-2 doesn't mean the season is over. Christy probably still even has hope for the Packers.
I feel like the Bears with all my dominating performances.
I think that I am going to change the scoring for the Defensive Player to get an average game to yeild somewhere around 10-15 points. It just look rediculous when such a player earns a team 0.2 points. If you have any objections let me know.
Perhaps we can all send some encouragement the way of Josh, Chaz, and Dave. Just because they are all 0-2 doesn't mean the season is over. Christy probably still even has hope for the Packers.
9.12.2006
Friday's Quotables (NFL edition)
“When we play the way we’re supposed to play, like our defense played the way they played Sunday … I don’t think there’s no team in this league that can beat us,”
-- Roy Williams, after guarenteeing that the Lions will beat the Bears. I agree, every team can beat the Lions.
Corey Dillon was asked about his running style. "I'm downhill," he said. "Like San Francisco."
-- Roy Williams, after guarenteeing that the Lions will beat the Bears. I agree, every team can beat the Lions.
Corey Dillon was asked about his running style. "I'm downhill," he said. "Like San Francisco."
Big Steps
Big things are happening:
1. This is already the 100th post on this blog.
2. I now have a little blurb next to my name on the Nazareth College website.
3. Most impressively, Karis took her first steps [4 to be exact].
As you can see, it was quite a frightening experience. She does not want to grow up.
1. This is already the 100th post on this blog.
2. I now have a little blurb next to my name on the Nazareth College website.
3. Most impressively, Karis took her first steps [4 to be exact].
As you can see, it was quite a frightening experience. She does not want to grow up.
Tuesday Morning Smack Board
The relevant facts:
Winners: Jon, Cliff, Brian, Lesley, Christy
Losers: Trina, Ben, Josh, Dave, Chaz
Battle of the week: Ben (69) vs. Cliff (76)
Team with most players who scored less than 1pt: Ben (4)
Most bench points: Cliff (115) -- [nearly double the points of his starters]
Random comment: I'm not sure why the scores sometime go to the 13th decimal point, but whatever.
Winners: Jon, Cliff, Brian, Lesley, Christy
Losers: Trina, Ben, Josh, Dave, Chaz
Battle of the week: Ben (69) vs. Cliff (76)
Team with most players who scored less than 1pt: Ben (4)
Most bench points: Cliff (115) -- [nearly double the points of his starters]
Random comment: I'm not sure why the scores sometime go to the 13th decimal point, but whatever.
9.11.2006
Knowing How and Knowing That
There is a discussion here about whether knowing how is reducible to knowing that. Knowing when, knowing where, knowing whether, and perhaps a few other forms of knowing do appear to be reducible to knowing that. One might think that knowing how can be reduced to knowing that an action is performed in a certain sequence. The question is whether knowing how can mean merely an ability to perform some action.
Some potential examples:
1) A child who can ski, but at least cannot explain what it is that she is doing seems to know how to ski.
2) Instinctive behavior, such as birds building a nest seems to be knowledge how without any propositional knowledge of what is going on.
So, Questions:
- does it seem right that there is a sense of knowing how that only means having the ability to do such and such independent of knowing any facts about how it is done?
- are the above examples such cases?
Some potential examples:
1) A child who can ski, but at least cannot explain what it is that she is doing seems to know how to ski.
2) Instinctive behavior, such as birds building a nest seems to be knowledge how without any propositional knowledge of what is going on.
So, Questions:
- does it seem right that there is a sense of knowing how that only means having the ability to do such and such independent of knowing any facts about how it is done?
- are the above examples such cases?
9.04.2006
Fantasy Football
This morning felt like Christmas morning. I woke up and ran to the computer to see who it picked for my fantasy football team. I'm pretty happy with my team (though I like Lesley's even more). My weakness will be at running back, so anyone who wants to shop around a good RB, give me a ring.
I also have an added investment in my favorite teams with two Colts and two Bears. That will make those games either really good or really bad.
The best draft obviously goes to Cliff who picked up a starting running back on IR (Domanick Davis) and a WR who has just been cut (Charles Rogers).
Thursday it all begins . . .
. . . watch out 'I heart Ranger Randy'!
I also have an added investment in my favorite teams with two Colts and two Bears. That will make those games either really good or really bad.
The best draft obviously goes to Cliff who picked up a starting running back on IR (Domanick Davis) and a WR who has just been cut (Charles Rogers).
Thursday it all begins . . .
. . . watch out 'I heart Ranger Randy'!
8.31.2006
Friday's Quotables
"You gotta serve somebody" -- Bob Dylan
"Men are not free when they are doing just what they like. The moment you can do just what you like, there is nothing you care about doing" -- D.H. Lawrence
"Safe?...Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe, but he's good. He's the King, I tell you." -- Mr. Beaver in 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe'.
And in honour of going back to school:
"Education is the best provision for old age." -- Aristotle
"Only the educated are free." -- Epictetus
"The very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in good education." -- Plutarch
[additions welcome as always]
"Men are not free when they are doing just what they like. The moment you can do just what you like, there is nothing you care about doing" -- D.H. Lawrence
"Safe?...Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe, but he's good. He's the King, I tell you." -- Mr. Beaver in 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe'.
And in honour of going back to school:
"Education is the best provision for old age." -- Aristotle
"Only the educated are free." -- Epictetus
"The very spring and root of honesty and virtue lie in good education." -- Plutarch
[additions welcome as always]
8.25.2006
Go Buckeyes!
I'm excited about the upcoming college football season, particularly with the high expectations that have been placed on *the* Ohio State University. I was worried a little about the early match-up with Texas, but then I found out that the kid from Malcom in the Middle is Texas' quarterback. Compare as you dare.
On Wisconsin!
Forbes just released a special report on the drunkest city in the United States, and even with Lesley's departure, Milwaukee came out on top. Read it here.
As one individual interviewed puts it, "It's cold here, and we need our brandy."
As one individual interviewed puts it, "It's cold here, and we need our brandy."
8.23.2006
Help the Dalit People
The Dalit Freedom Network is a worthy organization that works with arguably the most oppressed people in the world. They have programs of child sponsorship, social justice, economic development, and healthcare. These latter three ministries are in desperate need of more finances. Consider a donation, or at least get a clay cup for $1 to help keep the Dalit in your thoughts and prayers.
8.22.2006
8.14.2006
Friday's Quotables (late again)
"Love, to be real, must cost. It must hurt. It must empty us of self." -- Mother Teresa
"Should it (Pluto), for historical reasons, be considered a planet like the rest?" -- Owen Gingerich, professor of Astronomy and History of Science emeritus a the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics on the current debate regarding Pluto's status. More here. A tough question.
"How many people here think that bear hibernate?" -- Ranger Randy to his group on the Bear Cave Tour. They don't, but only if you are being uber-technical, which was Ranger Randy's specialty.
"Should it (Pluto), for historical reasons, be considered a planet like the rest?" -- Owen Gingerich, professor of Astronomy and History of Science emeritus a the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics on the current debate regarding Pluto's status. More here. A tough question.
"How many people here think that bear hibernate?" -- Ranger Randy to his group on the Bear Cave Tour. They don't, but only if you are being uber-technical, which was Ranger Randy's specialty.
8.07.2006
Now an Omnivore
Fresh off turning 10 months old Karis has taken to chicken, beef, cheese, and juice.
I also think she said 'Hezbollah' the other day, but I could have been mistaken.
8.05.2006
8.04.2006
Friday's Quotables
"I am very humbled to be in the presence of so many world-class wieners" - The Mexican Chorizo [the new contestant in the Milwaukee Brewers sausage race.]
"I asked for strength that I might achieve;
I was made weak that I might learn to humbly obey.
I asked for health that I might do greater things;
I was given infirmity that I might do better things.
I asked for riches that I might be happy;
I was given poverty that I might be wise.
I asked for power that I might have the praise of men;
I was given weakness that I might feel the need of God.
I asked for all things that I might enjoy life;
I was given life that I might enjoy all things.
I got nothing that I asked for,
But everything that I hoped for.
Almost despite myself my unspoken prayers were answered;
I am, among all men, most richly blessed." - Unknown Confederate Soldier
"What are all of them?" - Congressman Wesmoreland when asked on the Colbert Report to name the 10 Commandments. He co-sponsored a bill requiring the display of the 10 Commandments in the House and the Senate. Watch the *hilarious* interview here. He got three.
"I enjoy cocaine because it is a fun thing to do." - Congressman Wexler on the Colbert Report. See the interview here.
"I asked for strength that I might achieve;
I was made weak that I might learn to humbly obey.
I asked for health that I might do greater things;
I was given infirmity that I might do better things.
I asked for riches that I might be happy;
I was given poverty that I might be wise.
I asked for power that I might have the praise of men;
I was given weakness that I might feel the need of God.
I asked for all things that I might enjoy life;
I was given life that I might enjoy all things.
I got nothing that I asked for,
But everything that I hoped for.
Almost despite myself my unspoken prayers were answered;
I am, among all men, most richly blessed." - Unknown Confederate Soldier
"What are all of them?" - Congressman Wesmoreland when asked on the Colbert Report to name the 10 Commandments. He co-sponsored a bill requiring the display of the 10 Commandments in the House and the Senate. Watch the *hilarious* interview here. He got three.
"I enjoy cocaine because it is a fun thing to do." - Congressman Wexler on the Colbert Report. See the interview here.
7.31.2006
Artistic License vs. Heresy
Take the following excerpts from popular praise songs I have encountered recently [this list is by no means exhaustive]:
(1) "I'm coming back to the heart of worship, and it's all about you. It's all about you, Jesus."
- The Heart of Worship
(2) "You took the fall, and thought of me above all."
- Above All
First, what is wrong with such lyrics. With regard to (1), it completely ignores two members of the Trinity elevating Jesus above them, since as it claims it is all about Jesus. Jesus doesn't even believe that it is all about Jesus. That said, one can hope that this was not the intent of the author. This mistake seems to come from the mistaken thinking that 'Jesus' is simply a pseudonym for 'God'. [UPDATE: Dale Tuggy over at Trinities sees such indiscretion in using the term 'Jesus' as a sign of modalism.] With regard to (2) I think it is incorrect since I subscribe to the Piper/Edwards line of thought where God, at the risk of idolatry, must always be uppermost in God's mind. Therefore, if Jesus thought of me above all, he would be committing idolatry. I'm not even sure if one can provide a positive spin that can explain such a falsehood. The best I can think of is that his love for me was one of the reasons for his sacrifice, but this is much different than the lyric.
What ought we to make of such lyrics, and thus, such praise songs? There is no doubt that Christian contemporary praise songs are theologically anemic when compared to hymns, but this is a different issue. Are such songs simply theologically lazy and given that they are in the genre of poetry their mistakes can be excused when in the heart of worship (pun intended) or are they simply heresy, if not blasphemy, and to be avoided?
I go back and forth with this one. In favor of such songs, (i) many people seem to succeed in worshiping God in singing them, (ii) some 'artistic license' seems to be inevitable for the sake of rhyming if nothing else (though at least 'divinity' rhymes with 'trinity'), and (iii) perhaps we can say that though the lyrics are literally false they implicate something that is true (this would be what I was trying to get at in giving my spin above). On the other hand, (i) such songs can lead to confusion for those who don't know how to give them a proper interpretation [if that's what I was doing], (ii) if such lyrics really are heresy or blasphemy how could one really worship God by uttering them?, and (iii) it is doubtful that all such inaccuracies implicate truths. Implicatures ought to be easily discernible which the above examples do not seem to be (at least for the majority).
[note: it may be responded that this is the fault of the pastors and congregations for not being theologically sophisticated to discern the lyrics cannot be literally true and that something else must be meant.]
Thoughts? Additions?
(1) "I'm coming back to the heart of worship, and it's all about you. It's all about you, Jesus."
- The Heart of Worship
(2) "You took the fall, and thought of me above all."
- Above All
First, what is wrong with such lyrics. With regard to (1), it completely ignores two members of the Trinity elevating Jesus above them, since as it claims it is all about Jesus. Jesus doesn't even believe that it is all about Jesus. That said, one can hope that this was not the intent of the author. This mistake seems to come from the mistaken thinking that 'Jesus' is simply a pseudonym for 'God'. [UPDATE: Dale Tuggy over at Trinities sees such indiscretion in using the term 'Jesus' as a sign of modalism.] With regard to (2) I think it is incorrect since I subscribe to the Piper/Edwards line of thought where God, at the risk of idolatry, must always be uppermost in God's mind. Therefore, if Jesus thought of me above all, he would be committing idolatry. I'm not even sure if one can provide a positive spin that can explain such a falsehood. The best I can think of is that his love for me was one of the reasons for his sacrifice, but this is much different than the lyric.
What ought we to make of such lyrics, and thus, such praise songs? There is no doubt that Christian contemporary praise songs are theologically anemic when compared to hymns, but this is a different issue. Are such songs simply theologically lazy and given that they are in the genre of poetry their mistakes can be excused when in the heart of worship (pun intended) or are they simply heresy, if not blasphemy, and to be avoided?
I go back and forth with this one. In favor of such songs, (i) many people seem to succeed in worshiping God in singing them, (ii) some 'artistic license' seems to be inevitable for the sake of rhyming if nothing else (though at least 'divinity' rhymes with 'trinity'), and (iii) perhaps we can say that though the lyrics are literally false they implicate something that is true (this would be what I was trying to get at in giving my spin above). On the other hand, (i) such songs can lead to confusion for those who don't know how to give them a proper interpretation [if that's what I was doing], (ii) if such lyrics really are heresy or blasphemy how could one really worship God by uttering them?, and (iii) it is doubtful that all such inaccuracies implicate truths. Implicatures ought to be easily discernible which the above examples do not seem to be (at least for the majority).
[note: it may be responded that this is the fault of the pastors and congregations for not being theologically sophisticated to discern the lyrics cannot be literally true and that something else must be meant.]
Thoughts? Additions?
7.23.2006
Friday[ish]'s Quotables
I apparently do not hear as many gems over the summer, but I have stored up a few:
"Ha Ha! Burly man and a baby." -- some chubby VBS kid while pointing at me carrying Karis. It was a very Nelson-like moment.
"I am going to proceed now." -- brother Dan to the girl in the drive-through window after giving her his order.
"Shame on the family in my neighborhood who gave their ten year old boy a BB gun. He shot a squirrel that lives in my tree and now a family has no father. How are they to prepare for the winter months and stock their home with nuts? Aim your gun at targets, NOT AT SQUIRRELS. Squirrels are people too." -- This was written in the 'Gotta Vent' section of our neighborhood 'Penny Saver'. The 'Gotta Vent' section is always full of jewels, but this one was particularly good. Did she go and check to make sure it was a male squirrel so as to know it was the father? She obviously has no faith in single parent squirrel families, but 'squirrels are people too' is priceless.
"Ha Ha! Burly man and a baby." -- some chubby VBS kid while pointing at me carrying Karis. It was a very Nelson-like moment.
"I am going to proceed now." -- brother Dan to the girl in the drive-through window after giving her his order.
"Shame on the family in my neighborhood who gave their ten year old boy a BB gun. He shot a squirrel that lives in my tree and now a family has no father. How are they to prepare for the winter months and stock their home with nuts? Aim your gun at targets, NOT AT SQUIRRELS. Squirrels are people too." -- This was written in the 'Gotta Vent' section of our neighborhood 'Penny Saver'. The 'Gotta Vent' section is always full of jewels, but this one was particularly good. Did she go and check to make sure it was a male squirrel so as to know it was the father? She obviously has no faith in single parent squirrel families, but 'squirrels are people too' is priceless.
7.18.2006
Trying to Figure out the Trinity?
Me too. I have come across this great blog which is slowly working through the issues and possible responses with regard to this Christian doctrine. I would encourage others to follow along as well. It is fairly new, so it is not too late to go back and read the entries from the beginning.
7.15.2006
Monkey vs. Panda
It has been a long while since I posted anything of any practical of philosophical significance. A recent family debate has brought this issue to the forefront: Monkey vs. Panda.
Who wins? No other information is allowed to influence the decision (ie. what kind of monkey, if the monkey is trained in martial arts, if the monkey has a knife).
I think it is clear that the monkey wins. Opposable thumbs and the ability to use tools seal the deal when at the speedy monkey's disposal.
Sure, the Panda is a bear, but really it is only a nominal bear.
Just check out this picture if you have any doubts.
That said I would appreciate further input.
Who wins? No other information is allowed to influence the decision (ie. what kind of monkey, if the monkey is trained in martial arts, if the monkey has a knife).
I think it is clear that the monkey wins. Opposable thumbs and the ability to use tools seal the deal when at the speedy monkey's disposal.
Sure, the Panda is a bear, but really it is only a nominal bear.
Just check out this picture if you have any doubts.
That said I would appreciate further input.
7.06.2006
Nine Months
Well it may seem like it has been nine months since my last post, but Karis is now nine months old. Karis now enjoys swimming, bike riding, feeding herself (somewhat sucessfully), crawling
(somewhat sucessfully), and pulling herself up whenever she can.
6.12.2006
The Supremacy of Philosophy
The GRE, despite my feelings for it, speaks highly of Philosophy majors (despite my participation in it) in contrast with say. . . Social Work majors.
Check out how your major compares here.
Check out how your major compares here.
6.02.2006
Friday's Quotables
"The historic fight for justice has become our own. It is now our turn to leave a legacy for generations to come . . . TO GENERATE HISTORY IN OUR TIME."
- The International Justice Mission's new campaign. Check it out and get involved here.
"Canadians are healthier than their U.S. neighbors and receive more consistent medical care"
- Harvard Medical School Study. Read the article here.
"She had said a couple of things that led them to believe this wasn't their daughter"
- Bruce Rossman with Spectrum Health Alliance, about the mix-up regarding the Taylor tragedy. Read more here.
"Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time?"
- CBS SportsLine's Clay Travis on Pat Robertson's (76) claim that he leg-pressed 1 ton [twice what elite athletes can do]. CBN credits the feat of strength to Robertson's protein shakes. Read more here.
- The International Justice Mission's new campaign. Check it out and get involved here.
"Canadians are healthier than their U.S. neighbors and receive more consistent medical care"
- Harvard Medical School Study. Read the article here.
"She had said a couple of things that led them to believe this wasn't their daughter"
- Bruce Rossman with Spectrum Health Alliance, about the mix-up regarding the Taylor tragedy. Read more here.
"Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time?"
- CBS SportsLine's Clay Travis on Pat Robertson's (76) claim that he leg-pressed 1 ton [twice what elite athletes can do]. CBN credits the feat of strength to Robertson's protein shakes. Read more here.
5.30.2006
Short People Just Got Scarier
Here is the story of how a judge just sentenced a man who sexually assaulted a child to probation since she thought he was too short to handle prison. First off, that is ridiculous. Second, if you weren't uncomfortable around short people before, think about how much worse things just got now that they have a get out of jail free card.
5.29.2006
NFL Predictions
Here is a sign that my sport allegiance has switched: though the Stanley Cup Playoffs are still underway, all I can think about is the upcoming NFL season. This last week I have been examining the upcoming year's schedule and making my early picks. Here is my projection for the regular season (playoffs are still under consideration):
AFC NORTH . . . . . . . . . . NFC NORTH
Pittsburgh (13-3) . . . . . .Chicago (11-5)
Cincinnati (12-4) . . . . . .Minnesota (8-8)
Baltimore (7-9) . . . . . . .Detroit (5-11)
Cleveland (2-14) . . . . . .Green Bay (1-15)
AFC SOUTH . . . . . . . . . .NFC SOUTH
Indianapolis (14-2) . . . Carolina (13-3)
Jacksonville (13-3) . . . New Orleans (7-9)
Houston (4-12) . . . . . . Tampa Bay (7-9)
Tennessee (1-15) . . . . .Atlanta (3-13)
AFC EAST . . . . . . . . . . .NFC EAST
New England (10-6) . . Dallas (11-5)
Miami (10-6) . . . . . . . .New York (11-5)
New York (4-12) . . . . .Philadelphia (9-7)
Buffalo (4-12) . . . . . . . Washington (5-10)
AFC WEST . . . . . . . . . .NFC WEST
Denver (13-3) . . . . . . .Seattle (14-2)
Kansas City (12-4) . . .Arizona (10-6)
San Diego (8-8) . . . . . Saint Louis (5-11)
Oakland (5-11) . . . . . .San Francisco (1-15)
[I think that my lows are too low and I have too many highs, but it's the best I can do with my first attempt]
AFC NORTH . . . . . . . . . . NFC NORTH
Pittsburgh (13-3) . . . . . .Chicago (11-5)
Cincinnati (12-4) . . . . . .Minnesota (8-8)
Baltimore (7-9) . . . . . . .Detroit (5-11)
Cleveland (2-14) . . . . . .Green Bay (1-15)
AFC SOUTH . . . . . . . . . .NFC SOUTH
Indianapolis (14-2) . . . Carolina (13-3)
Jacksonville (13-3) . . . New Orleans (7-9)
Houston (4-12) . . . . . . Tampa Bay (7-9)
Tennessee (1-15) . . . . .Atlanta (3-13)
AFC EAST . . . . . . . . . . .NFC EAST
New England (10-6) . . Dallas (11-5)
Miami (10-6) . . . . . . . .New York (11-5)
New York (4-12) . . . . .Philadelphia (9-7)
Buffalo (4-12) . . . . . . . Washington (5-10)
AFC WEST . . . . . . . . . .NFC WEST
Denver (13-3) . . . . . . .Seattle (14-2)
Kansas City (12-4) . . .Arizona (10-6)
San Diego (8-8) . . . . . Saint Louis (5-11)
Oakland (5-11) . . . . . .San Francisco (1-15)
[I think that my lows are too low and I have too many highs, but it's the best I can do with my first attempt]
Two Movies
I recently took at short break from adding to my book library to get a couple of older movies. I picked up The Mission and Brother Sun Sister Moon, both of which are good to have in your collection. Watching The Mission again was particularly interesting since the aspects of the movie that I identify with have changed considerably since the first time I saw the movie, and even since subsequent viewings. It is a powerful movie that deals in part with the Christian reaction to aggression. I used to identify strongly with De Niro's character in taking up arms to defend the mission. Now I see the better course of action as the one taken by the other priest. Pacifism is a tricky issue and it is something that I want to spend more time studying this summer. That said, I would encourage you to check out these movies and perhaps discussion can ensue.
5.28.2006
Inspired by the Code
It is no da Vinci, nor does it have a hidden code (either) -- don't tell Lesley, she is still searching -- but I took my first attempt ever at painting a quasi-mural to give Karis' room a little more fun. Now her room is lamb-tastic!
Friday's Quotables
"I have that, and crime deterrent."
- My current favorite ad.
I don't have a cell phone, but if I did, it would certainly have crime deterrent.
See it here: Crime Deterrent
- My current favorite ad.
I don't have a cell phone, but if I did, it would certainly have crime deterrent.
See it here: Crime Deterrent
5.22.2006
Things Bugging Me
1. Why is the country spelled 'Philippines' and people from that country referred to as 'Filipino'?
2. Why are the colours of the lights on the pedestrian cross-walks orange and white? Why is the hand not red and the little man green?
3. Why are grapes classified as red or green, yet grapes are a typical example of something that is purple?
2. Why are the colours of the lights on the pedestrian cross-walks orange and white? Why is the hand not red and the little man green?
3. Why are grapes classified as red or green, yet grapes are a typical example of something that is purple?
5.20.2006
New Pictures
New pictures (200+) are up here.
The password is 'Karis'.
Also, if you create an account you can order 15 pictures for free.
Friday's Quotables
"Good and evil both increase at compound interest: that is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance. The smallest good act today is the capture of a strategic point from which a few months later you may be able to go on to victories you never dreamed of. An apparently trivial indulgence in lust or anger today is the loss of a ridge or railway line or bridgehead from which the enemy may launch an attack otherwise impossible."
- C.S. Lewis
"[God] makes every snowflake different, we make ice cubes."
- D.A. Carson
"For the truth is that God in his wisdom, to make and keep us humble and to teach us to walk by faith, has hidden from us almost everything that we should like to know about the providential purposes which he is working out in the churches and in our own lives."
- J.I. Packer
- C.S. Lewis
"[God] makes every snowflake different, we make ice cubes."
- D.A. Carson
"For the truth is that God in his wisdom, to make and keep us humble and to teach us to walk by faith, has hidden from us almost everything that we should like to know about the providential purposes which he is working out in the churches and in our own lives."
- J.I. Packer
5.19.2006
More on Luck
I am really fascinated by the concept of luck and its applications in philosophy. However, I have realized that it is a difficult task to pin down exactly what luck is. Reading Duncan Pritchard's book Epistemic Luck has brought this out.
Here is Pritchard:
Using the notion of an 'accident' does not seem to work since some cases of luck are not accidents. It is a matter of luck that an individual wins the lottery, but it is not an accident in typical cases anyway.
Using the notion of 'chance' does not seem to work for similar reasons. A mudslide can occur by chance, yet if no one's life is affected by it we would not consider such an event lucky.
Using the notion of 'control' is problematic, since many things are out of our control (the sun's rising) yet such event are not considered lucky.
Pritchard offers the following 2 criteria:
(L1) If an event is lucky, then it is an event that occurs in the actual world but which does not occur in a wide class of the nearest possbile worlds where the relevant initial conditions for that event are the same as the actual world.
(L2) If an event is lucky, then it is an event that is significant to the agent concerned (or would be significant were the agent to be availed of the relevant facts).
Besides being very vague criteria (advantage?) Pritchard's criteria fail to account for the cases of epistemic luck that are his target (Gettier cases). Briefly, if the belief in question is a belief in a deep contingent fact which is true in all or most the nearest possible worlds, then that belief can still be Gettierized yet it will not be lucky on Pritchard's account. (Thanks to Rich and Trent for pointing this out)
Having said all that, I am looking for help in describing our concept of luck. Do any of the accounts seem right in certain ways? Here are some questions:
1) Is what we call lucky pragmatic? Could chance events really be lucky, it is just that we don't call them that?
2) Is there anything about foreseen consequences that ought to play into the concept?
3) Is the concept nothing but trouble and anything that appeals to luck would do better appealing to some other clearer concept?
Here is Pritchard:
Using the notion of an 'accident' does not seem to work since some cases of luck are not accidents. It is a matter of luck that an individual wins the lottery, but it is not an accident in typical cases anyway.
Using the notion of 'chance' does not seem to work for similar reasons. A mudslide can occur by chance, yet if no one's life is affected by it we would not consider such an event lucky.
Using the notion of 'control' is problematic, since many things are out of our control (the sun's rising) yet such event are not considered lucky.
Pritchard offers the following 2 criteria:
(L1) If an event is lucky, then it is an event that occurs in the actual world but which does not occur in a wide class of the nearest possbile worlds where the relevant initial conditions for that event are the same as the actual world.
(L2) If an event is lucky, then it is an event that is significant to the agent concerned (or would be significant were the agent to be availed of the relevant facts).
Besides being very vague criteria (advantage?) Pritchard's criteria fail to account for the cases of epistemic luck that are his target (Gettier cases). Briefly, if the belief in question is a belief in a deep contingent fact which is true in all or most the nearest possible worlds, then that belief can still be Gettierized yet it will not be lucky on Pritchard's account. (Thanks to Rich and Trent for pointing this out)
Having said all that, I am looking for help in describing our concept of luck. Do any of the accounts seem right in certain ways? Here are some questions:
1) Is what we call lucky pragmatic? Could chance events really be lucky, it is just that we don't call them that?
2) Is there anything about foreseen consequences that ought to play into the concept?
3) Is the concept nothing but trouble and anything that appeals to luck would do better appealing to some other clearer concept?
5.17.2006
When is praise deserved?
This question came up in conversation with a friend from school. It seems clear that praise is deserved when one goes above and beyond the call of duty (performs a superogatory act). The question is whether one deserves praise simply for fulfilling one's duty. In other words, if one does exactly what is required, do they deserve praise?
On the one hand it seems not. After all, they are just doing what they are supposed to do.
On the other hand, doing what you are supposed to do is no easy task or it is not a task that is accomplished by many, thus one does deserve praise for so doing.
I would appreciate feedback. I am pulled toward thinking that one deserves praise simply for fulfilling a duty but I am not super confident and I don't know what the common intuition is.
On the one hand it seems not. After all, they are just doing what they are supposed to do.
On the other hand, doing what you are supposed to do is no easy task or it is not a task that is accomplished by many, thus one does deserve praise for so doing.
I would appreciate feedback. I am pulled toward thinking that one deserves praise simply for fulfilling a duty but I am not super confident and I don't know what the common intuition is.
5.15.2006
5.14.2006
Our Mother's Day
We had a great first Mother's Day with a trip to the Rochester Lilac Festival and planting flowers at home.
First Footnote
It's a small step, but I have made it into my first real footnote. It is in a Matt Weiner paper on knowledge. It is a pretty interesting paper where Matt claims that our concept of knowledge is actually incoherent, but the incoherence is pretty much harmless. Here is a link to the paper, check out footnote 65.
5.13.2006
Friday's Quotables (student evaluation edition)
"he tried to make learning logic be fun."
"[logic] should not be a core course."
"how you grades . . . extremely fair."
"did not enjoy subject material, but Matheson made it tollerable."
"the book was bad, it was written in Brittish English not American English."
"I hate logic."
"the instructor was the man."
"[logic] should not be a core course."
"how you grades . . . extremely fair."
"did not enjoy subject material, but Matheson made it tollerable."
"the book was bad, it was written in Brittish English not American English."
"I hate logic."
"the instructor was the man."
5.11.2006
Good News About Injustice
I've started reading Gary Haugen's book and have really enjoyed and been challenged by what I have read thus far. Here are a couple appetizers:
- Just as children need to develop object permanence, Haugen writes that we Christian's must develop compassion permanence -- not just being moved by compassion when directly confronted with such a situation, but having genuine lasting compassion even apart from direct stimulus.
"the extent to which our compassion extends beyond our immediate circle is the extent to which we are loving more like God and less like our carnal selves."
- "unless seeking justice is a category of endeavor that is completely different from every other activity on earth that is important to God, the answer to the how question has something to do with what God's people do or don't do."
- "over time I have come to see questions about suffering in the world not so much as questions of God's character but as questions about the obedience and faith of God's people."
- "Jesus (the Creator of all things seen and unseen) no more needed those five loaves and two fish than my wife and I need our three-year-old's 'help' in baking cinnamon rolls for visitors. But what a wonderful life-changing day for that boy to be part of Jesus' miracle. How fun for the disciples to go among the grateful, joyful multitudes -- to be the hands dispensing Christ's supernatural power and love. How ridiculous, on the other hand, that they should imagine that the vast piles of bread and fish should be given to them for any reason other than to feed those who were in need."
Haugen imagines a take on the feeding of the 5000 where the disciples just kept the bread and fish for themselves saying 'Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for providing me food and for having my situation not be like those who are hungry and have nothing to eat' while all the while the disciples were complaining and wondering why God wasn't helping out the hungry multitude.
As such, we can say, "Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for all the power, protection, freedom and justice you have granted us in sparing us from such fates." OR we can add, "what have you given me Father, that I might help those who don't have power, protection, who don't have freedom or justice?"
The International Justice Mission website is also worth checking out. Here is the link.
- Just as children need to develop object permanence, Haugen writes that we Christian's must develop compassion permanence -- not just being moved by compassion when directly confronted with such a situation, but having genuine lasting compassion even apart from direct stimulus.
"the extent to which our compassion extends beyond our immediate circle is the extent to which we are loving more like God and less like our carnal selves."
- "unless seeking justice is a category of endeavor that is completely different from every other activity on earth that is important to God, the answer to the how question has something to do with what God's people do or don't do."
- "over time I have come to see questions about suffering in the world not so much as questions of God's character but as questions about the obedience and faith of God's people."
- "Jesus (the Creator of all things seen and unseen) no more needed those five loaves and two fish than my wife and I need our three-year-old's 'help' in baking cinnamon rolls for visitors. But what a wonderful life-changing day for that boy to be part of Jesus' miracle. How fun for the disciples to go among the grateful, joyful multitudes -- to be the hands dispensing Christ's supernatural power and love. How ridiculous, on the other hand, that they should imagine that the vast piles of bread and fish should be given to them for any reason other than to feed those who were in need."
Haugen imagines a take on the feeding of the 5000 where the disciples just kept the bread and fish for themselves saying 'Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for providing me food and for having my situation not be like those who are hungry and have nothing to eat' while all the while the disciples were complaining and wondering why God wasn't helping out the hungry multitude.
As such, we can say, "Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for all the power, protection, freedom and justice you have granted us in sparing us from such fates." OR we can add, "what have you given me Father, that I might help those who don't have power, protection, who don't have freedom or justice?"
The International Justice Mission website is also worth checking out. Here is the link.
5.08.2006
It is finished
School and work both finished today. Now it is all summer from here on out. As of now the plan is to let Lesley get a job and me to have just a refreshing summer. Beach trips, camping trips, landscaping, and a Christmas party are all on the schedule. The blogging should be back to a vigorous pace now that my grading and final papers are all finished up. The summer should also include a good deal of reading. If some of you wanted to join along it would be a lot of fun. I am open to some suggestions, but three things I want to get to right away are this paper on original sin, this book by Gary Haugen (president of international Justice Mission), and this book by C.S. Lewis (thanks Katie). After that I'm looking at getting into the Oxford University Press series of the interdisciplinary symposium of various topics of Christian theology. It looks like a great series. I already have The Trinity, The Incarnation, and The Resurrection, and am waiting for my copy of The Redemption to come in the mail. Any are welcome to join me on these journeys. Let me know if you are interested. Otherwise I'm sure to post things about the readings on the blog, so stay tuned.
Also, two new grilling capabilities have emerged:
8. Grilled Swordfish (in Italian dressing marinade)
8. Corn on the Cob (extra butter/salt/pepper)
(I figured I should continue the tradition of numbering everything after 7, 8.)
5.05.2006
Fridays Quotables (bumper sticker edition)
'Fat people are harder to kidnap.'
'Never believe generalizations.'
'Dyslexics are teople poo.'
'Squirrels, natures little speedbumps.'
'I have the body of a god. Buddha.'
Additions welcome as always.
'Never believe generalizations.'
'Dyslexics are teople poo.'
'Squirrels, natures little speedbumps.'
'I have the body of a god. Buddha.'
Additions welcome as always.
5.04.2006
Snuffed Out
Just days before I am set to become unemployed the Flames go ahead and get knocked out of the playoffs by team Disney! It is bad enough that living in the EST the Western Conference games go until 1am or later and that the only games I can watch on T.V. are between Eastern Conference teams that I have no desire to see play, but now this. At least now I can use my time to catch up on things that I have been getting behind on, like flossing.
With regard to Lord Stanley's Cup, I am now officially moving my allegiance to the New Jersey Devils. I have always liked the Devils in the past, but with their new found offensive style they are a lot of fun to watch when the networks get it right and put one of their games on. Sorry Brian, I just can't go for the Sabres even though they are so close by. Too many Hasek memories.
With regard to Lord Stanley's Cup, I am now officially moving my allegiance to the New Jersey Devils. I have always liked the Devils in the past, but with their new found offensive style they are a lot of fun to watch when the networks get it right and put one of their games on. Sorry Brian, I just can't go for the Sabres even though they are so close by. Too many Hasek memories.
4.28.2006
Friday's Quotables (The Irresistible Revolution Edition)
'the best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them away.'
'we have got to unite ourselves as one body. Because Jesus is coming back, and he is coming back for a bride, not a harem.'
'most of the time when I see Christian superstars like Jerry Falwell or Al Sharpton, I feel like I'm watching professional wrestling. There's a lot of shouting and sweating, but the people seem to superhuman, and I'm not convinced all the moves are real.'
'God made us in his image, and we decided to return the favor.'
'live simply that others may simply live.'
'we have got to unite ourselves as one body. Because Jesus is coming back, and he is coming back for a bride, not a harem.'
'most of the time when I see Christian superstars like Jerry Falwell or Al Sharpton, I feel like I'm watching professional wrestling. There's a lot of shouting and sweating, but the people seem to superhuman, and I'm not convinced all the moves are real.'
'God made us in his image, and we decided to return the favor.'
'live simply that others may simply live.'
4.27.2006
4.25.2006
For the Kids
A challenge from Sports Illustrated??
"That $20 you just spent on lunch could help wipe out malaria. But it's your call . . ."
Check it out and be motivated here (from a man who is usually just annoying), and then go here.
I've already had a post entitled 'Cutting Down the Nets', so I'm in.
And thanks to several of you for passing along this site:
http://www.invisiblechildren.com/
I would enjoy hearing from those of you who are able to get involved.
"That $20 you just spent on lunch could help wipe out malaria. But it's your call . . ."
Check it out and be motivated here (from a man who is usually just annoying), and then go here.
I've already had a post entitled 'Cutting Down the Nets', so I'm in.
And thanks to several of you for passing along this site:
http://www.invisiblechildren.com/
I would enjoy hearing from those of you who are able to get involved.
4.24.2006
One Among Many
"Mr. Matheson,
I won't be able to come to class today. I currently have a migraine, and don't want to risk becoming physically sick by getting out of bed.
I apologize for missing class today."
XXXXXXX
I won't be able to come to class today. I currently have a migraine, and don't want to risk becoming physically sick by getting out of bed.
I apologize for missing class today."
XXXXXXX
4.22.2006
The Life of Brian
Brian asked me if I knew of any good classic or definitive books on the history of Canada or the U.S.
My knowledge here is extremely lacking, but if any of you have anything to pass on please leave it in the comments.
My knowledge here is extremely lacking, but if any of you have anything to pass on please leave it in the comments.
4.19.2006
Friday's Quotables (Simpsons Edition)
Homer: "Start inhalin' Waylon."
Ralph: "When I grow up I want to be a principle, or a catepillar."
Homer: "Silly rabbit, kicks are for ribs."
Homer: "Purple's a fruit."
Lenny: "So then I said to the cop, 'No, you're driving under the influence . . . of being a jerk.'"
Ralph: "Me fail English? That's unpossible."
Homer: "Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and Eskimos."
Wiggum: "I hope this taught you kids a lesson: kids never learn."
As always, I anticipate additions, but I have learned not to hold my breath.
Ralph: "When I grow up I want to be a principle, or a catepillar."
Homer: "Silly rabbit, kicks are for ribs."
Homer: "Purple's a fruit."
Lenny: "So then I said to the cop, 'No, you're driving under the influence . . . of being a jerk.'"
Ralph: "Me fail English? That's unpossible."
Homer: "Vampires are make-believe, like elves, gremlins, and Eskimos."
Wiggum: "I hope this taught you kids a lesson: kids never learn."
As always, I anticipate additions, but I have learned not to hold my breath.
Office Hours
The posts have been sparse lately since students keep coming in to my office hours. How am I supposed to get any blogging done? More soon.
Until then you can brush up on the rules of re-gifting. Especially you Danny!
Until then you can brush up on the rules of re-gifting. Especially you Danny!
4.12.2006
Friday's Quotables
In honor of National Humor Month these supposed quotes from the courtroom:
Q: "What is your marital status?"
A: "Fair."
Q: "Do you drink when you are on duty?"
A: "I don't drink on duty unless I come to work drunk."
Q: "Are you sexually active?"
A: "No, I just lie there."
Q: "How many autopsies have you performed on dead people?"
A: "All of my autopsies have been on dead people."
Q: "How many times have you committed suicide?"
Q: "How was your first marriage terminated?"
A: "By death."
Q: "And by whose death was it terminated?"
Q: "All of your responses must be oral, O.K.? What school did you go to?"
A: "Oral."
Q: "What is your date of birth?"
A: "July 15."
Q: "What year?"
A: "Every year."
Q: "What is your marital status?"
A: "Fair."
Q: "Do you drink when you are on duty?"
A: "I don't drink on duty unless I come to work drunk."
Q: "Are you sexually active?"
A: "No, I just lie there."
Q: "How many autopsies have you performed on dead people?"
A: "All of my autopsies have been on dead people."
Q: "How many times have you committed suicide?"
Q: "How was your first marriage terminated?"
A: "By death."
Q: "And by whose death was it terminated?"
Q: "All of your responses must be oral, O.K.? What school did you go to?"
A: "Oral."
Q: "What is your date of birth?"
A: "July 15."
Q: "What year?"
A: "Every year."
4.11.2006
Complacent Slumbers
Kant said of Hume that he awoke him from his dogmatic slumbers.
Thanks to Katie I have recently been undergoing a similar awakening with regard to my Christian convictions. Earlier in the blog Katie recommended Shane Claiborne's book 'The Irresistible Revolution' which Lesley and I have been fighting over at every chance we get to read it.
It is provocative, challenging, and you cannot walk away the same after reading it. He writes on everything from his time with Mother Teresa and at Willow Creek to the war in Iraq, the death penalty, and poverty.
It is particularly challenging to me since Shane urges us not to leave Christianity at a set of beliefs (even though these beliefs are so fun to think about). The challenge can be presented this way: If you surveyed others as to what Christians believe, all in all you would get a fairly decent report. If you surveyed others as to what Christians do, the answers would not be anything like what Jesus would want to hear. This is not good. We have come a long way from 'they will know we are Christians by our love'. Shane's goal is to put a radical face back onto Christianity. If you think that Christianity has been getting too comfortable, this is for you.
Thanks to Katie I have recently been undergoing a similar awakening with regard to my Christian convictions. Earlier in the blog Katie recommended Shane Claiborne's book 'The Irresistible Revolution' which Lesley and I have been fighting over at every chance we get to read it.
It is provocative, challenging, and you cannot walk away the same after reading it. He writes on everything from his time with Mother Teresa and at Willow Creek to the war in Iraq, the death penalty, and poverty.
It is particularly challenging to me since Shane urges us not to leave Christianity at a set of beliefs (even though these beliefs are so fun to think about). The challenge can be presented this way: If you surveyed others as to what Christians believe, all in all you would get a fairly decent report. If you surveyed others as to what Christians do, the answers would not be anything like what Jesus would want to hear. This is not good. We have come a long way from 'they will know we are Christians by our love'. Shane's goal is to put a radical face back onto Christianity. If you think that Christianity has been getting too comfortable, this is for you.
4.08.2006
Cohen's Paradox
Help me out by letting me know your intuitions regarding the following case.
When is the following sentence truthfully uttered and when is it not:
Joe is on the witness stand at a trial and utters the following:
U: "I state that I have never been a member of the communist party."
Now when is what he says true? Here are some options:
(i) U is true in virtue of Joe saying it.
EVIDENCE: Since U is about what is stated, and Joe is stating what he is reporting himself to be stating, U is true. Compare if Joe said, "Mary states that I have never been a member of the communist party." Joe would be speaking truthfully regarding Mary solely based upon the things that Mary states -- it would have nothing to do with Joe's actual membership of the communist party. Since the sentence about Mary has a similar structure to U, U should be treated in the same way, thus it is true if and only if Joe states it. Since Joe does state it, U is true.
(ii) U is true in virtue of whether or not Joe has ever been a member of the communist party. If he has, then U is false, if he has not, then U is true.
EVIDENCE: The judge would not be happy if he later found out that Joe was merely reporting what he states, not anything about his political memberships. Joe would likely be convicted of perjury if he had been a member of the communist party.
(iii) U is true if and only if Joe states it and he has never been a member of the communist party.
EVIDENCE: Conjoin the evidence for (i) and (ii), both are good, but neither is sufficient.
(iv) U is true if and only if some other reason.
EVIDENCE: You tell me.
When is the following sentence truthfully uttered and when is it not:
Joe is on the witness stand at a trial and utters the following:
U: "I state that I have never been a member of the communist party."
Now when is what he says true? Here are some options:
(i) U is true in virtue of Joe saying it.
EVIDENCE: Since U is about what is stated, and Joe is stating what he is reporting himself to be stating, U is true. Compare if Joe said, "Mary states that I have never been a member of the communist party." Joe would be speaking truthfully regarding Mary solely based upon the things that Mary states -- it would have nothing to do with Joe's actual membership of the communist party. Since the sentence about Mary has a similar structure to U, U should be treated in the same way, thus it is true if and only if Joe states it. Since Joe does state it, U is true.
(ii) U is true in virtue of whether or not Joe has ever been a member of the communist party. If he has, then U is false, if he has not, then U is true.
EVIDENCE: The judge would not be happy if he later found out that Joe was merely reporting what he states, not anything about his political memberships. Joe would likely be convicted of perjury if he had been a member of the communist party.
(iii) U is true if and only if Joe states it and he has never been a member of the communist party.
EVIDENCE: Conjoin the evidence for (i) and (ii), both are good, but neither is sufficient.
(iv) U is true if and only if some other reason.
EVIDENCE: You tell me.
4.07.2006
Friday's Quotables
"The constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
"There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers." -- William James
"Two kinds of people: the just, who consider themselves sinners, and the sinners, who consider themselves just." -- Blaise Pascal
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?" -- anonymous
"Two things a man cannot hide: that he is drunk, and that he is in love." -- Antiphanes
"Only the shallow know themselves." -- Oscar Wilde
"Too often we . . . enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- J.F.K.
"There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers." -- William James
"Two kinds of people: the just, who consider themselves sinners, and the sinners, who consider themselves just." -- Blaise Pascal
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people?" -- anonymous
"Two things a man cannot hide: that he is drunk, and that he is in love." -- Antiphanes
"Only the shallow know themselves." -- Oscar Wilde
"Too often we . . . enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- J.F.K.
4.05.2006
Big Baby Beautiful
Karis is fresh off her 6 month doctors appointment.
Here are the specs:
Height: 27 inches [90th percentile]
Weight: 15 pounds 5.5 ounces [45th percentile]
Head Circumference: 44.25 centimeters [90th percentile]
Here are some pictures of her 6 month celebration (04/05/06)
Packer and Packers
Read about how Billy Packer stands by his claim that George Mason should not have made the NCAA tournamet and how Brett Favre won't come back unless Green Bay can be competitive at the quarterback position here.
4.04.2006
The Problem of Evil Remixed
Thought to ponder:
The following is a recounting of a comic strip in The Irresistible Revolution:
'Two guys are talking to each other and one of them says he has a question for God. He wants to ask why God allows all of this poverty and war and suffering to exist in the world. And his friend says, "Well, why don't you ask?" The fellow shakes his head and says that he is scared. When his friend asks why, he mutters, "I'm scared God will aks me the same question."'
The following is a recounting of a comic strip in The Irresistible Revolution:
'Two guys are talking to each other and one of them says he has a question for God. He wants to ask why God allows all of this poverty and war and suffering to exist in the world. And his friend says, "Well, why don't you ask?" The fellow shakes his head and says that he is scared. When his friend asks why, he mutters, "I'm scared God will aks me the same question."'
Cutting Down the Nets
Congratulations to Rob who takes home the March Madness crown this year narrowly holding off Lesley's late surge. She is attempting to take solace in the Gamecocks back-to-back NIT championships. Cliff gets the consolation prize of most games correctly picked. One does have to wonder what to make of doing well in this year that defied logic merits. I'll leave that to you.
One final basketball comment/question: Does anyone else find it extremely annoying when announcers/coaches use the term 'bigs' as in 'Florida's bigs can really get down the court.' I have never heard that expression as much as this year, and have never noticed it bothering me before, but now I can't imagine any more annoying slang term in sports.
One final basketball comment/question: Does anyone else find it extremely annoying when announcers/coaches use the term 'bigs' as in 'Florida's bigs can really get down the court.' I have never heard that expression as much as this year, and have never noticed it bothering me before, but now I can't imagine any more annoying slang term in sports.
4.02.2006
More Rock Star Stuff
I just received my latest journal from Word Made Flesh. It was full of moving articles on brokenness. What a strange but essential Christian virtue.
The journal concluded with an excerpt of Bono's speech at the (US) National Prayer Breakfast this last February. An excerpt of the excerpt:
"'Stop asking God to bless what you're doing. Get involved with what God is doing -- because it's already blessed.' Well, God, as I said, is with the poor. That, I believe is what God is doing. And that is what He is calling us to do."
The whole speech is available here and is worth looking at.
The journal concluded with an excerpt of Bono's speech at the (US) National Prayer Breakfast this last February. An excerpt of the excerpt:
"'Stop asking God to bless what you're doing. Get involved with what God is doing -- because it's already blessed.' Well, God, as I said, is with the poor. That, I believe is what God is doing. And that is what He is calling us to do."
The whole speech is available here and is worth looking at.
4.01.2006
Friday's Quotables (Saturday 'Apology' edition)
Sorry on the delay. I guess I'm using 'apology' equivocally. I recently taught on Plato's Apology, here are some gems from there:
"human wisdom is worth little or nothing."
"to fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not."
"wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively."
"death is something I couldn't care less about, but that my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious."
"the unexamined life is not worth living for men."
"it is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death."
"human wisdom is worth little or nothing."
"to fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not."
"wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence makes wealth and everything else good for men, both individually and collectively."
"death is something I couldn't care less about, but that my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious."
"the unexamined life is not worth living for men."
"it is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is much more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
