Alister McGrath and Richard Dawkins' Dialogue

Interesting video.

This actually raises my respect for Dawkins. The fact that these guys can talk as calmly and rationally as they are, even without really mincing words, is pretty impressive. The whole thing certainly doesn't need watching to get that point across; even five minutes would do to get it across. I still like McGrath better, but I have to give Dawkins more credit than I have in the past for making an honest effort to interact with ideas.

CMR Commentary

Creative Minority Report has some excellent theological musings on a new piece of an old celebrity scandal, here.

A Thought

Whenever a human being, particularly a human being who professes belief in God, realizes that the world is not the way it ought to be, they ought to do three things:

(1) Examine whether in this aspect the world is as it should be or not, that is, attempt to discern how this aspect of the world would be seen by the Divine.

Then, granted (1), they should

(2) Pray that this aspect of the way things are, insofar as it originates in themselves, would be cleansed and purged from their inner life.
(3) Work to change the world by their own actions--in thoughts, words, what they do and what they do not do.

I had a realization recently that there was in fact something about the world that I absolutely hated, and that I had an opportunity to help change it by doing it differently. So I did. Granted that I didn't go in quite the order I recommend, I also realized how I'd failed to pray for this change in myself as well as in the world.

I'm not going to say what it is. But if anyone has thoughts on this as an abstract ideal, let me know.

Braid and Portal Are Freaking Amazing

This is a beautiful game. Screwed with me on many levels, but it was heavily enjoyable. I loved its world and its characters...it was also kind of sad. But it was good, and there's an actual lesson to be learned.



This game is also quite pretty. I'm hesitant to call it 'beautiful,' and I'm also hesitant to identify much of a real 'lesson,' or message, but it's a similarly brilliant puzzler-disguised-as-something-else kind of game.

The Person You Want to Be

Let X = the person you are.
Let Y = the person you truly want to be. Not "if I were richer" or anything like that, but who you want to be morally, philosophically, spiritually.

Does X = Y?

Why or why not?

Whether X = Y or X != Y, is the fact of the equality or inequality a good or a bad thing?

I've been thinking about this question a bit lately, in particular in relation to relationships (romantic or unromantic.) I've decided it's fine for one person to change another in relationship as long as a) both people are open to being changed, b) both people are working towards a state of X = Y, c) neither of them is being coerced or forced along in an inappropriate fashion.

What the Hetts?! #17: God by any Other Name...

Well, an article here has a Roman Catholic bishop suggesting that Christians use the name Allah to refer to God.

"What the Hetts?!"

I'd be more comfortable of this if I were convinced that Christians and Muslims worshiped the same God...and I'm not convinced of such a thing. For purposes of philosophy of religion we could certainly talk about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept of God (all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving/benevolent), but when the rubber hits the road I think there are some decent differences. And I don't mean differences like Calvinists/Arminians arguing over a few verses in Paul. I mean differences between systems that are more fundamentally about grace and systems more fundamentally about works.

Also, since this is a news site--and I no longer rely on those to keep articles up for years and years--I'm providing a link to the Google-cached version of the article at this location.

The Swing of Things

In an effort to get back in the swing of things with this blog I'm going to try and do two regulars: 1) What the Hetts?! on Thursdays. I've got a couple that could appear tomorrow. 2) Christian Theology Board Game on Sundays.

Hopefully I can establish a decent habit for this stuff before I go to Mexico. Once I get there the second may not be so realistic but I might still manage the first. If need be I could probably shift What the Hetts?! temporarily to a weekend day. I've basically been gaming, lazing around and (somewhat) reading this summer, having finished Neuromancer and moved on to The Fountainhead. I just passed page 200 in that book, so I've got a little under 500 to go. Neuromancer is good if you like a science-fiction caper. It won, like, three big science fiction awards, and is quite well-written. I'm not sure I caught every detail of the plot, or exactly what was going on everywhere, but it's quite an enjoyable ride.

As for The Fountainhead, I know it's supposed to be in part a distilling of Ayn Rand's philosophy, though she apparently doesn't intend it to be primarily that, at least from what I hear...At any rate it appears to be about architects and their lives and careers, and it's at least pretty well-written so far. Not sure how much of her philosophy I'm going to agree with in the end. I already know it partly involves rejection of the supernatural, so pending the revelation that God is not supernatural I'll have to disagree with that part. But some elements of it I might agree with.

So.

So, summary.

Since I got here, I've...

* Been to each class at least once.
* Had exactly two class periods cancelled due to snow/ice.
* Gotten a taste of how bad 18 credits is going to be.
* Hung out with people.
* Gone to Mass/Bible study.
* Noted just how much my roommate Tyler procrastinates.

So, classes.

Modern Western Civilization

The professor is going to be fairly solid. The class on the whole should also be fairly solid. What I will probably enjoy least will be the textbook, for the reason that, well, I'm not going to be exceptionally interested in the material coming in. But I did get to pick the history I would take, and I did pick this, so I can't complain too much.

Linear Algebra

Easier than Discrete Math by a bit, and definitely easier than Number Theory. Right now we're mostly dealing with matrices and related subjects, so it'll require further examination. I had problems staying awake last Friday and am (successfully as of today's period) combatting this by the same method I am using in Augustine of Hippo. The professor, who I also had for Discrete Math, is solid, so learning stuff in this course shouldn't be a problem if I apply myself.

Augustine of Hippo

Confession: I've slept twice in the three periods of this course I've had. Not a good sign, but I plan on combatting it short-term with caffeine and long-term with a bit more sleep. That strategy, by the way, actually worked today. Pun: Unintentional, but I'm not going to change it just because it's an unintentional pun. Class Itself: Should be fun and interesting to learn about Augustine. The professor (same one I had for church history last semester and who is the theology advisor) is going to be solid.

Responding to God

I actually met the prof for this class at the theology-major party and she's awesome. It's going to be fun stuff, although I'm going to have to find time for five instances of an assigned weekly spiritual practice, which could be troublesome, because I also have to find enough time to do said practice for roughly fifteen minutes in a minimally distracted and minimally interrupted space. However the class should be an overall good and interesting experience as it seems to be taking a more experiential approach to learning.

Philosophy of Religion

This should be fun. The professor I know to be solid given my Intro to Philosophy course a few years ago. The material also interests me and I hope to be challenged

Number Theory

Will be fun, but boy is it going to be tough. I have a bunch of proofs due tomorrow, essentially. Not that I didn't do any this weekend, but I should've done more. To illustrate how this class could be, here's a picture that my roommate took of me while I was thinking about one of the proofs:



It's really not that bad and according to the professor (who I am also predicting will be solid) the homework sizes will go down, but the picture was genuinely taken while I was thinking about the math homework.

So, socializing.

General Entertainment and Gaming

Played games (video, like Super Smash Brothers and SoulCalibur II) with friends and with my roommate. Played pool with a couple of friends, too. Generally hung out. Watched some of The Office including the excellent two or three episode arc that ties like half the series' "through lines" or overarching stories together. Also, on SoulCalibur II, I think the plan is that Tyler and I will be playing at least a few matches a week (not necessarily a few times a week, but it might go in in leiu of other procrastination tools like The Office on a given night. Eventually we hope to actually get better at playing the game. It'll be fun because we're fairly evenly matched at it.

Other

I've had the chance to talk theology / random life things / philosophy with people some this semester which of course has been loads of fun. I haven't had quite the two-or-three hour discussions yet but I've at least heard a few peoples' funny stories, which is always good.

So, religion.

Bible Study and Mass

Um, well, I went to CHUBS (Christie Hall Bible Study) last week; that was about it for Bible Study. Also, if you didn't know what the U stands for, 'tis a marketing thing: "It's because we want you there!" is the line used.

I also went to mass (Christie Hall Mass and Chapel of Christ the Teacher both Sunday nights) and I'm doing hall mass again tonight.

The Christian Theology Board Game

This is my sort of independent project which is designed to be a quasi-educational board game about Christian theology. I haven't done enough work in the last two weeks as evidenced by the lack of new cards on Sundays. However I intend to pick up the pace and start doing them again by next Sunday. If I can get enough done then I can take a weekend (perhaps with some help from my closest on-campus collaborators) to put together an actual copy of the game, and soon after to test it out. The Advisor (the theology prof) said he'd be willing to test it with us which could make for great fun.

So, conclusion.

That's pretty much everything that's been up with me lately. Good day and God bless, all. Also, Tyler is procrastinating like mad right now, not that being on Facebook is helping him any.

Every Agent Acts Towards An End

Apparently St. Thomas Aquinas believes it is very important for me to realize that every agent acts towards an end. At least, I think so, or else there wouldn't have been five to seven whole paragraphs about it.

So I guess I'll pass along that statement to you: "Every agent acts towards an end."

Adventures in Philosophy: What Capitalizaiton Can do for You

nana said: hope you got some sleep, dear little Daniel man, and that you did what you needed to do on your mid term. thank God for mid term breaks. sleep it away.love you oodles and gobloons.Lord, Liar, Lunatic. i love the alliteration. interesting study. please let me know your conculsions. what does Chesterson say?

I'm not going to quite sleep away my Mid Term Breaks, but I'm off to a good start in that department. Physics was an interesting test and I'm a bit nervous as to what the grade is. I hope it will be a B, at least. Other classes seemed to have gone fairly well. Not sure about English. English I also am hoping for a B. I've gotten a B+ and a B so far on Orr's papers; hopefully on an essay exam it's roughly the same.

As for Lord, Liar, or Lunatic: I diagrammed the argument (I'll post the diagram in my more awake hours, later "today") and showed it to the professor I've been corresponding with (name / last name withheld for confidentiality reasons.) We had a lengthy discussion about a lot of things, but that argument was one of them.

In particular we've been doing (and did again) a bit of hair-splitting over the meaning of the phrases the Son of God, the son of God and sons of God. (This is important because Lewis' argument rests in part upon what claims Christ made, and so as such when Jesus claims to be "the Son of God" it would be best to make sure we know what He means. Of course I've taken my side on that one, but the professor is a philosopher and we were looking at the argument skeptically, and some of his theories about the meaning of the words as such were taken into account. Vital differences:

"the son of God" -- refers to only one, and son isn't capitalized, which serves as the difference between the wording used with Adam and the wording used with Jesus (with Jesus, it is capitalized)
"the Son of God" -- only used in reference to Christ, or in reference to claims Christ is supposed to have made about himself.
"sons of God" -- refers to lots of things, including (quasi-angelic?) beings in the Old Testament. But it's plural, suggesting that it's not an "only one" as the first two phrases are.

Capitalization marks the difference in terms of the word Son vs the word son. Wherever "son of God" refers to Christ, "son" is capitalized. It might not seem like much, but when a translator decides on that one letter they make serious implications. Bear with me if you don't understand just yet.

When using the word "God" vs. the word "god," the capital G makes the difference in determining whether a false god or the One True God is referenced. The same thing applies in the phrase "son of God" vs. "Son of God"--except that the uncapitalized letter doesn't denote anything especially false--just that the word works in a different sense.

So I conjectured to the professor that, given that we could know how a translator determines to use the capital S, so that we might be able to judge the system of determination as good or bad, we might be able to know, to a better degree of certainty, exactly what claims Christ made about himself. Of course I already believe I know to a very good degree of certainty. One day I do intend to attempt to peice together the system that a translator will use for determining where that capital S is used and where it is not.

The most amazing realization that came out of that discussion was that there really was so much of a meaning, so much of an interpretation, in that capital S. Consciously or not, they will confirm the hypothesis that, in Scripture, capitalization is helping them to tell the difference between false Gods and the One True God, between the sons of God, the son of God and the Son of God.

I'm also forcing myself to read Karl Barth this week. If I have to read Toni Morrison (The Bluest Eye) I might as well also read some of, if not all of, the selection of Barth's Church Dogmatics which was in our library. I'll have more on Barth, and my diagram and further analysis of Lord, Liar or Lunatic later.

Teaser analysis: Granted:

- a slight reworking of the argument for more formality, implied steps and less-harsh rhetoric
- replacing Lewis' conclusion regarding one's reaction to Christ's claim with a more specific conclusion that is often given it, and may have been given it by Lewis outside of the argument as presented by the excerpt

It is quite credible to say that, whether the argument itself is sound or unsound, the argument form is perfectly valid. That is to say, if everything Lewis takes as a given is given him, the conclusion can be proven logically.

Oh yes. As for Chesterton...he wasn't alive when LLL was put out. Or do you mean in terms of proving Christ's divinity? Anyway, good night and God bless.

For the Record, I Can't Sleep

I was going to sleep at 11:00 PM tonight. 11:00 PM. That would have been very, very nice. But I stayed up. And then realized at 12:00 that I couldn't actually sleep. I laid awake for about a half an hour and then came to my computer, in theory to blog. So here's a blog.

Did I mention I'm having trouble sleeping and have my last midterm at 8:10 AM tomorrow? Eventually I will become tired enough, and will sleep. Or my eyes will sleep and the rest of me will lay awake feeling like life is horrible becuase I have a midterm at 8:10 AM tomorrow. Fall Break's coming just in time...

I'm going to go to the Philosophy Table tomorrow. Er, today. Maybe while I get sleepy I'll do a bit of research and e-mail one of the professors who does it about our Lord-Liar-Lunatic argument correspondence. Currently we're trying to determine possible exceptions to the argument (plausible we haven't touched too much, at least not that I know of) and are currently splitting hairs over what Christ meant in calling Himself the Son of God.

My research tonight: Where Scripture refers to the sons and/or daughters of God and whether in any case they are referred to as not being adopted. This is a vital component of the discussion because can potentially affect one's interpretation of Christ's claim to be "the Son of God."

If anyone's got any questions they can feel free to ask. I haven't exactly established what the LLL argument is yet; I need to make sure I look it up tomorrow, or something, too, in its original form. Eventually I'll diagram it logically.

Goodnight / God bless.

In Fact, It's Only Lunch

I think, therefore I am
Cogito, ergo sum
But what am I
Who am I
What is my purpose in this life
Is it predetermined
The sequence of events seems so set
So neat
The way that things unfold
Free will or no, everything's so intertwined
It scares me

I'm not too far away from home
But I'm scared out of my mind
Wondering what about today, yesterday or tomorrow
No matter what decisions I make
"Don't worry about tomorrow"
God tells me
"Each day has enough trouble of its own"
But I still worry

What if I do badly enough in my classes this semester that I lose my scholarship and have to pay $20,000 more in loans
What if I discover when it's too late that I've got the wrong major
I'm pretty sure I do
I'm pretty sure it should be theology, not math
What if I discover that even when I get up to full capacity, my work can't cut it in Calculus, and I get a horrible overall grade?
(This is the guy who gives the good homeworks 3-4/5)
I've heard nobody gets fives, ever

What am I sure of
Today I talked philosophy at lunch
With the President of the UP Philosophy Club
And a professor
And my roommate
And the question was basic epistemology
How you know what you know

(Inserted because it came to mind. My joke. Random. Do not read with kids in room; it contains violence and a word that some people may find offensive, but a mildly amusing pun.)

A farmer and his hired hand, Ogie, were taking a break from work one day, along with the rest of the farmer's family and the rest of the hired hands. A philosopher happened to be walking down the road and stopped to chat with the other hired hands, asking them how they knew that pitchforks worked, or how they knew that God existed, or that some soil was fertile and other soil not. Eventually the hired hands grew tired of this, and all grabbed their pitchforks, shoving them into the philosopher.

One of the hired hands exclaimed, yelling to the impaled man: "That's how we know pitchforks work!"

Ogie, confused, wondered aloud as to what had made the hired hands so mad as to impale a philosopher.

The farmer responded, "'e pissed 'em all, Ogie."

Anyway as I said the question was basic epistemology--and of course if you don't know something rationally, then you don't know it rationally--and the same goes for empirically. But some of the stuff that was said with regards to why a Christian might have a shaky epistemology didn't click with me. There is still plenty of "how we know what we know," or rather "how we don't necessarily know" for a Christian to consider, however--I don't mean to say that everything I heard came across badly. Much of it was valuable and valid questioning.

Still a fun discussion, however, and one worth having...

Tomorrow I study. Much. And I e-mail my Calculus professor to make sure that I know what needs to be done to get 3s and 4s on his homework. The lab grading is pretty generous, so I'm counting on some balance from that, but we have a test soon, and I need to do well on it.

And so I think that's all. I know I sort of randomly transitioned from free verse to prose, but I can still live with myself. Have a nice day, y'all. And no, that's not all that happened today, in fact, it's only lunch. But I don't feel like explaining every detail of my life right now.

A First Draft is Due Monday

So, I entered college, right? And I knew it was going to involve more writing, right? Right. So I have a Descartes-related paper due on Monday. It'll be quite interesting when it's finally finished. But right now I've barely managed to get past my paraphrase of his Evil Demon hypothesis (admittedly, at 500/1200 words, that's a pretty big chunk of the paper, and the work I did today brings it to just a bit under 800. Which leaves a bit over 400, ideally, for tomorrow. So far I'm thinking I'm going to do well in my summer classes, but I'm betting that whatever the letter grade is I'll do better in Theology than in Philosophy.

BTW, I've now missed two days total of blogging (those who say I've missed more, note that I am counting the early AM hours of days as my posts for the previous day. So this is Saturday's post, even though it's currently 12:10 AM Sunday.)

I wonder if there's anything from my old writings I could dig up...well, no, because those are on the other computer. Still, I have to say something. Or do something. Or contend something. That's what I do with this blog. I contend things and challenge things which, to me, seem to be untruthful or theologically bad. I suppose I should give a paragraph and better give my argument against pluralism (for those of you who want to know, that argument was first given in this post, and in retrospect was more of a complaint about a double-standard.)

The new argument:

Pluralism and exclusivism both set up certain standards, ideals we may say, in relation to the word "tolerance." However it is my purpose to show that while exclusivism meets its own definition of tolerance, pluralism by definition does not meet its total, complete ideal of tolerance--there must be an exception to its rule. The exclusivist's ideal of tolerance is simple: While I believe truth is exclusive and certainly cannot reconcile my beliefs with the disparate beliefs of my neighbor (e.g. a Christian system and a Buddhist system) I will respect my neighbor's right to his belief, and, should some moral principle or ritual action seem to be thought of in the Buddhist system than in the Christian system, I shall adapt it and make it part of my belief insofar as it is compatible with Christianity. This is my take on exclusivism--I like to call it "tolerant exclusivism." Really, the only part of the definition that is really central is the part be fore "and, should I see"--the last part is something I embrace, but I do not believe that all reasonable exclusivists are bound to it.

The pluralist's ideal of tolerance is as follows: I will presume that truth is relative in order that the beliefs of all may be reconciled, and, should I see something that seems to be better thought of in another system of belief than in mine, I will adapt it and make it part of my belief without regard to any conflict between the two systems. This is what I call "tolerant pluralism." However, once we consider the implications of such a system, we see that it does not meet its stated ideal. There is one idea which pluralism is bound to reject, because it prevents the presumption that truth is relative: exclusivism. Therefore pluralism, to be honest, must have an addition to its definition of tolerance which makes it known that "all beliefs may be reconciled save those of an exclusivist nature." From these two paragraphs flow two essential points:

1. Tolerant exclusivism meets its own standard of tolerance--its definition of tolerance allows people to believe whatever they want.
2. Tolerant pluralism can never meet it own standard of tolerance, if this standard is to be the same as in its original, ideal form--its revised definition of tolerance allows people to believe whatever they want, so long as it does not contradict the idea that truth is relative.

Given the way the systems work even with themselves, tolerant exclusivism seems the natural choice. Of course it does not sound as good as far as ideals go. Pluralism is very appealing because it seems to foster dialogue and coming together and other wonderful things. But we see in discussion of its implications that the ideal of pluralism, seeming to be "too good to be true," really is.

It is worth noting that some will notice that exclusivism is often, even by tolerant exclusivist standards, quite intolerant. Those who are intolerant exclusivists find themselves automatically placed outside of the realm of reasonable exclusivist action by default; this meaning that, if we are to force others to believe what we believe in order that they be "saved," we really have no guarantee that they are saved, because they have been forced into their "salvation" by the sword, or the law, or whatnot. Therefore while it is good to remind the exclusivist of his/her potential intolerance--keeping him/her on his/her toes--it does not in and of itself make a good critique of exclusivism to say that it pushes some to intolerance.

God bless you all, and good night.

P & ~P; therefore Q

My first paper is underway! I just handed in my rough draft today, as a matter of fact, and it will be returned to me hopefully tomorrow with what criticisms I will need in order to rework and rewrite it. I hope the process goes well. My paper is on Peace, Reconciliation and Thich Nhat Hahn and the Dalai Lama. It came out decently.

I also got back my first test, and I was happy to see that I got an A- on my first test. (A friend suggested it was probably because he's grading on a curve; either way, 32/38 becoming an A- is awesome.) There was one killer which I think got me because it had a contradictory premisis and a seemingly unrelated conclusion. It was:

P & ~P

therefore

Q

The P & ~P is the contradictory part. In case you're interested, it goes:

P & ~P
P
P v Q
~P

therefore

Q

Another friend actually did get the question right, and the professor confirmed this. I actually remember when I was in class taking the test and the professor (he's actually a PhD) mentioned that that problem wasn't a misprint. Well, I think I'm just about done for today. I know the post is probably a bit shorter than usual. For what it's worth, I still have to do my bass practice later.

Formal Logic and the Rodeo

Rodeos. An interesting concept--skills that real-life cowboys/ranchers/etc. use(d?) are corraled into a family-fun and family-friendly collection of events. The events include things like bull riding, wild-horse racing (that is definitely the most hilarious event; the horses run that show), bull-wrestling, and so on.

I went to a rodeo last night. Well, technically, since it is now the Fourth by about eight minutes, I went to a rodeo the night before yesterday. But the rodeo experience was still quite entertaining. I have to admit I wasn't quite sure what to expect. The smells were less than glamorous, and it was a little bit of a wait once we sat down. The rodeo clown was more just an entertainer--not really the stereotype of the "clown" I think I was expecting.

Bareback horse riding was one of the more tedious sports, as just about every small town in Oregon seemed to boast its own competitor, and a few other Northwest towns as well. Aside from the million and one competitors it was fun. Bull riding was also very much fun--all that eight-second excitement but with at least half the tedium of various competitors. There was something where they wrestled small bulls (would it be bull calves?) to the ground, a "wild cow milking" competition (quite entertaining), barrel racing, and my personal favorite, wild horse racing. There were a couple of other events, too.

Wild horse racing isn't really racing on a wild horse. It's really a question of which team can A) get a member on their horse and B) get the horse through to the other side, through the side door of the arena, and do it C) the fastest. I think it was the first two teams who were counted, or something, but people kept going until five minutes had passed, so perhaps everyone who got through was counted. Beats me. The point of the event, as far as I could tell, was really to see how badly these horses could torture the cowboys. More than one of these poor guys were dragged quite aways across the arena by their horses. By the end of the five minutes four horses were running free, about three or four teams had passed through the gate, and one poor cowboy was sitting on his horse very very near to the gate, trying various tricks to try and get it to go in. The poor guy wasn't getting any response from his horse, whom he and his partner had in fact gotten this far already, and I believe the timer sounded when he was still standing outside the gate.

So there is a connection between two recent things in my life: we're in the middle of formal logic in my Intro to Philosophy class, and I'm addicted to a game called "Sherlock" which revolves around discerning, given certain statements, where certain icons lie in terms of column. Look it up on some Shareware site; I'm sure it's laying around somewhere. Formal logic, as it's coming across to me in class, basically means putting things in certain terms so that they can be read as a sort of formulae. You even have to diagram some things. It's kind of like the proofs from Geometry, except that it's about more than Hexagon X,Y,Z,P,D,Q. I'm having fun at school. It's a good place, UP. And taking summer classes now means I'm meeting people in a smaller setting, as opposed to meeting them in the multitudes at the Freshman Orientation. The whole college experience should be fun.

Well, I need to start winding this thing down. I've got some classwork to do tomorrow. My weekly assignment is likely to be something along the lines of "learn how much less procrastination works in college as opposed to high school." I have a bunch of definitions for words in Hinduism to be done tomorrow, and they won't define themselves. I also need to study my logic a bit and read about Buddhism. The strangest thing is, now that I've spent a week in school, I am no longer wondering what on earth I was thinking taking these classes in the summer to begin with.