Calling Lucy Lowe!

Well Lucy, if you’re reading this, feel free to comment with a few examples of some of the more “awkward” Bible texts of which you’re aware, and your positions on them. It will be interesting to explore, consensus or not.

God and Economics

This post discusses one of Ludwig von Mises’s key insights which formed the basis for the differentiating factor of the Austrian school of economics.  It’s an interesting article, and I couldn’t help but notice many parallels between Mises’s arguments and those of theists.

I found it particularly interesting that Karl Popper was referenced.  I’ve found his “Black Swan” criticism of certainty within deductive empiricism to be a helpful illustration of how “random hypothesis” procedures can’t be transferred to explorations about morality, logic and other universal concepts.  One can never reach a useful theory through only trial and error; one must begin with some reasonable a priori principles.  This line of reasoning can be employed to show the weaknesses of naturalistic explanations of uniquely human traits; nature has only trial and error mechanisms, and thus the complexity and harmony of human intelligence, aesthetic appreciation and morality aren’t explained by it.

The recent subprime loan crisis in the U.S. provides an interesting economic anecdote for this principal.  Some of the brightest mathematical minds of our day were employed by investment banks to model behaviors of borrowers, and their models showed that a strong return with an acceptable amount of risk could be reached via certain “packaged” combinations of high quality and low quality loans.  These models were pimp-slapped by reality when defaults on loans reached levels far outside of the historical norms used as a given, and the economic carnage is expected to reach into trillions of dollars.

Here’s hoping we can find a way to limit the intellectual carnage caused by similar ill-advised confidence in empiricism in theistic/atheistic discussions.

If the medium affects the message, how will the Christian message be affected by the new media?

Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost has invited bloggers to respond to the question posed in the title of this post, and so respond I shall:  I’ll explore various characteristics of new media, and then expound on how I think old-time religion will be shaped by new-time outlets.

“Pull” media, as opposed to the “push” media of television, radio, etc., provides users a large menu from which to choose items to their individual taste; no longer are those on this side of the digital divide (more on this later) relegated to the dictates of the anointed media conglomerates.  This encourages the development of a dynamic, varied and extremely competitive media landscape.  Such an environment tends to reinforce strong individuality, as the many actors in this drama must amplify their voices and views to be effective; it’s no coincidence that Dr. Ron Paul’s strong libertarian ideals tickled the fancy of Netizens across the U.S.  

The gospel can be very fruitful in these conditions.  If Christians refuse to dull the tang of their message with watery concessions to secular culture, the naturally radical nature of faithfully following Jesus will be a boat of signal in a sea of noise.  Speaking intelligently, loudly and unswervingly about timeless truths will be refreshing in a time of mushy thoughts and half-hearted positions.  I believe the Christian message will grow bolder due to these strongly individualizing conditions.

The anonymity afforded by new media often combines with intense individuality to create a volatile brew.  Discourses which would be fairly civil in the flesh become furious, flailing pwnage fests on the hills of our many digital fiefdoms: “How dare you interrupt my individualized comfort with your alternate views, I believe I will craft a Hitler reference or two…”.  I’m afraid the days of respectful dissent may be behind us.  Christians will have to develop thick new media armor to sustain an engaging minority presence in this majority secular world.  Effective presenters of the good news will truly have the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness; especially self control.  Nothing will weaken the Christian message quite like its deliverers getting down into the mud with anonymous God bashers.

The new environment is also marked by speed, speed SPEED, like a gazelle set on fire and pointed toward a lake. The oft lamented tiny attention spans encouraged by schizophrenic MTV editing seem downright glacial in comparison to the furious link leaping made possible with our T5,000,000 lines.  The Christian message will feel great pressure to display in many forms, in many places in order to catch the passing eye or ear of a possibly open minded media surfer.  We’ll need our presentation of the Message to be as attention grabbing as a peacock in heat if we hope to make it vital; expect to see creativity abound in effective Christian communications.  Please note: there’s always a danger in thoughts like these that people may interpret them, wrongly, as a dumbing-down of the gospel.  Engaging presentation and spiritually nutritious content needn’t be mutually exclusive; we’ll need to be careful to maintain the integrity of the Christian message while we tap dance, juggle and write in Latin and Greek simultaneously.  Christians have been notoriously poor at this task, so I think we’ll probably see a few more missteps of oversimplification in the name of “seeker-sensitivity”.

Ever since Internet, Inc. pushed out Web 2.0 onto shelves, we’ve also been encouraged to be interactive with new media.  It’s not enough to just collect all the RSS feeds and bookmarks that we find stimulating, we must enter the fray ourselves and add our ever-so-important contribution to the glut by blogging, uploading media, spreading viruses and belly-bashing the sumo wrestler for a “free” iPod.  We also connect with our fellow travelers; birds across the globe can discover they are of a feather and virtually flock together.  The isolation of earlier new media wanderings has given way to billions of mouse-clicking cliques.

The Christian community is thus given a great opportunity to add their perspectives to the idea marketplace, and to invite newbs into encouraging relationships.  I think we’ll see more apologetics-oriented bloggers, more online sermon audio archives, more digital Christian community in general.  This can have the effect of strengthening believers who know other Christians only virtually, which can in turn help the gospel spread even in areas of persecution.  In all this, though, we must be careful to not “forsake the assembling together of ourselves as some do”, lest we lose the real offline interaction so important to our humanity, our families and our faith. 

Finally, as hinted at early on in this post, new media intensifies generational and socio-economic divides.  I’d love to see my parents talk to their grandchildren via webcam, but as they never became particularly computer savvy and live in a rural area snubbed by internet providers, this probably won’t happen soon.  We’re likely on the cusp of information-haves gaining ever greater advantages over have-nots, dwarfing the already extreme differential.

Enter Christians opening internet access centers for the poor, providing computer training, supporting community WiFi efforts; just as a warm meal encourages gospel receptivity in a hungry person and acts as a great object lesson, so too can bridging the digital divide engender positive associations and reflect Jesus’ standing in the gap for us.  The Christian message will need to reach the un-wired, too, if it is to stay compelling.

Christianity has a remarkable track record of maintaining its core through social and technological upheavals, and I’m sure the new media phenomenon will not erode this foundation.  Built on the Rock itself, the message will remain as critical as ever, though carried as it is by human messengers, I’m sure we’ll see the new tools at our disposal misused from time to time.  Despite the frailties of man, though, I’m excited to see how Christianity will find its voice in this latest technological epoch, and to stand witness to God in the machine.

Back to Keith

Sometimes when I get an idea in my head, I can’t seem to stop thinking about it.  So, all these months later, I now have new insight into the “Thought Experiment” referenced a few posts back: I now think my first response to Keith is actually more solid than I originally thought. 

I basically said that if indeed those who would hurt a child fell into some sort of sleep just before the act, the Argument from Morality would be even stronger than it is, and I think it is one of the strongest arguments for supernaturalism and God as things are.  Only the most uncomfortable of rhetorical acrobatics could explain such a sleep in any non-supernatural way (although I’m sure some would try, perhaps postulating that natural selection selected the mechanism in order to preserve the genes in the children).  True free will requires choice, and if the alternative to believing in God isn’t somewhat reasonable, there really is no true choice but to believe in Him. In a similar way, Marshall “Why Does God Hate Amputees” Brain doesn’t think through what it would mean for practically all amputees to grow back their limbs after receiving prayer.  Suddenly, God would no longer be an option, but a requirement. 

There are two counters to this line of reasoning I’d like to tackle: 

1. God supposedly revealed Himself to people in the Bible, yet they still had choice
   a. However, He often only revealed Himself after a person had already become set in their path
   b. When (a) was not the case (i.e. Adam and Eve), a somewhat reasonable counter-choice against God was presented (”you will not surely die, God doesn’t want to you to become powerful like Him”, etc.)
   c. Further, the only cases I know of either (a) or (b) involve God working out the plan of salvation, and He seems to be pretty quiet in history otherwise 

2. If God allows for a world which is set up to create a seemingly reasonable alternative to Him, “God” is an unfalsifiable idea, since any proof against His existence could be swept under the umbrella of His allowing free will (somewhat along the lines of a young-earth creationist saying the world was created with apparent age).
   a. If God didn’t break into history, I would allow for that.  But since He did, and left behind numerous bits of falsifiable archeological/historical/textual evidence, this is a moot point.

Humanity: Kickin’ mammal butt, taking names

I’ve been thinking: if evolution is true, why is it that humans are so far advanced past even the most advanced mammals in intelligence?  There’s no great buildings erected by simians, or photorealistic art created by whales, or exponentially increasing medicinal breakthroughs helmed by dogs.  If all mammals share a common ancestor, we would expect to see a roughly similar level of intelligence development among them all.  There are certainly some non-human mammals who are smarter than others, but nowhere near the order of magnitude between humans and the most advanced mammalians.

One could argue that a whale has hugely more advanced intelligence than a paramecium, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.  A paramecium hardly has resources for intelligence, but whale and elephant brains are huge compared to ours.  Many scientists believe brain size can be a decently accurate indicator of intelligence, so what’s up with these lazy beasts?

One could also argue that our fine motor skills allow us to better express our intelligence, but it wouldn’t be too hard for an elephant to utilize their trunks to make intelligible markings on the ground indicating a language of some sort, or markings indicating abstract mathematical reasoning.  Could it be that these creatures are so beyond us that we just don’t comprehend the subtleties of their grand superiority?  I doubt it; I’m no Einstein by any stretch of the imagination, but I can appreciate his transcendent intelligence.

Any time I try to put on an evolutionary perspective, I find myself thinking: if this is true, why do I perceive beauty in a sunset, or feel gratitude, or desire meaning and autonomy?  You won’t see much discussion of these sorts of questions in Talk Origins and similar evolution apology sites.  I wonder why?

quiet, easy to dismiss

quiet, easy to dismiss

heaving with beauty, torrid raw hunger of life

squeezed into the tip of a point

forgotten, abused for convenience

overwhelming, simply bypassed

hard-won satisfaction with disease

still overwhelming, pivoting

remembered.

expanding point, enveloping, inviting, becoming

aching awe, blinding pure fury love

quiet,  set inside like a wall  

Mad No Longer

After taking several months to ponder the last post, I feel I’ve come to somewhat of a conclusion: If a human’s possible moral freedom is limited even in the slightest way, humanity in general is wronged deeply, not unlike how human life in general is cheapened by a single murder. Possible moral freedom should be thought of as that freedom which exists inside the necessary limits of the physical world (as humans are physical) and of social/cultural behavior firewalls (as humans are social creatures).

Moral freedom is connected deeply to who we foundationally are, for much of our humanity comes from our ability to make moral choices.  Accordingly, there is no such thing as unnecessary evil.  For humans to exist as we know them, evil must exist, from minor to horrific levels.

After surveying the various views, this one seems to be the most resonant with reality.  Nonetheless, thinking through it all has really made me fall in love with God’s subtlety, respectfulness, and grandeur all the more.