One of the reasons I initially began studying philosophy was through studying Christian apologetics. Apologetics has a long history, and many eminent theologians have written apologetic works. However, it is unfortunately true that a lot of the bestselling contemporary apologetics books are really bad. So it's worth paying attention to the good ones. This is why I decided to read Warranted Christian Belief, by Alvin Plantinga.
Plantinga, a philosopher at Notre Dame, is one of the most well-known and interesting writers in contemporary philosophy of religion. He was one of the earliest proponents of "Reformed Epistemology." According to this view, it is within the bounds of rationality to believe in God, and even to be a Christian, in the absence of proofs or evidence for these beliefs. More recently, he has published a three book series laying out a complete epistemological system. The last book in this series, published in 2000, is Warranted Christian Belief (WCB).
Essentially, this book is an application of his epistemological theory to Christianity. Thus, it is not directly a book of apologetics--at least as traditionally conceived. Apologetics, which literally refers to a defence or apology for a doctrine, focuses on responding to two types of objections. The first, which Plantinga calls de facto objections, are objections to the truth of Christian belief. The most well-known de facto objection is the problem from evil--which if successful is a proof that God doesn't exist.
The other kind of objections are de jure objections. These objections do not attempt to show that Christian beliefs are false, but that there is something irrational, unjustified, or unwarranted in accepting Christian beliefs. For instance, if I formed the belief that the Seattle Mariners would win the World Series next year, not because I thought there team was really good, but just from sheer fandom, we would say that I don't have any warrant or justification for that belief. However, that is not the same thing as saying the belief is false, as it could end up being true.
In WCB, Plantinga proposes to just focus on de jure objections. The reason he gives for this is that he thinks both the critics and defenders fail to show that Christian belief is, or is not, true. Thus, we must decide whether we should, or should not, or whether it is permissible to accept Christian belief in the absence of certainty.
This seems to me like an interesting question. Like Plantinga, I don't think that the atheist or the theist have really shown adequate de facto reasons for belief. However, I've tended to assume that the appropriate response is agnosticism or a form of modest atheism. So I'll go through this book, somewhat corresponding to the sections, and put down my thoughts and responses.
I'll address Part 1 in my next posting on the book. In it, Plantinga asks whether there even is a question about the justification of Christian belief. If, as some have claimed, Christian beliefs, and religious beliefs in general, are not propositional, then the question as to the de jure nature of Christian beliefs doesn't exist.
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Poetry: Marie Howe
Marie Howe is one of my favorite poets. Unfortunately, she only publishes a book every ten years--literally. 2008 is one of those years, and here is a poem from her just published collection, The Kingdom of Ordinary Time.
Non-violence
Some nights, long after we'd gone to sleep, our drunk father would wake us all up and order us to clean the kitchen. We'd stumble down to the counters and the dishwasher, blinking in our pajamas, dimwitted from sleep and embarrassed to look at each other. Let's do this quickly, someone would say, and then it will be over. And we'd get started--one wiping the counters, one sweeping, one washing pans, one drying, one stuffing the overflowing garbage into bags.
Sometimes that was it. We'd be back in our beds within the hour. Some nights, when we were done cleaning the kitchen, he'd say, Now clean the basement. We'd look at each other--was resistance worth the trouble tonight?--and without another word, head down the basement stairs.
One of those basement nights--was it one or two o'clock?--in a spirit of rising determination, we decided to sing. What did we sing? Some old Christmas carols? Did the boys sing too? It seems that all 8 of us did--picking up the broken toys, pulling the little school desks into rows again. Our father stood at the top of the basement stairs holding out his arms like Moses, saying to our mother--Listen to them singing. See? They're happy. They want to do it.
Sometimes, after we'd cleaned the kitchen and the basement, he'd say, Now clean the garage. And one of us would finally say, It's a school night Dad--and our spiritual victory, so carefully wrought and contained, would shatter--his fist would come down--we'd argue and scatter, and he'd rage around until he tired of it.
The night went on and on. One night when he woke us all up, I asked the kids to sit down in a circle at the foot of the front stairs. We're just going to say No--if we're like Martin Luther King--if we all say no together, we'll win. Don't argue. Don't talk. Just hold hands.
Was I seventeen? Sixteen? My brother was a year older--tougher I thought, able to endure much. And when our father slapped the belt against the wall he didn't flinch. But when our father pulled one of the little girls to her feet--It's ok, she said, it's ok--I can take it--he was already walking towards the kitchen, kicking the back hall door open and the circle broke--the rest of us, one after the other, slowly getting up.
Justice before love, I'd say years later. What I meant was justice was love. That's what I thought then. What did I know? I would have sat there a long time, no matter what our father had done.
Non-violence
Some nights, long after we'd gone to sleep, our drunk father would wake us all up and order us to clean the kitchen. We'd stumble down to the counters and the dishwasher, blinking in our pajamas, dimwitted from sleep and embarrassed to look at each other. Let's do this quickly, someone would say, and then it will be over. And we'd get started--one wiping the counters, one sweeping, one washing pans, one drying, one stuffing the overflowing garbage into bags.
Sometimes that was it. We'd be back in our beds within the hour. Some nights, when we were done cleaning the kitchen, he'd say, Now clean the basement. We'd look at each other--was resistance worth the trouble tonight?--and without another word, head down the basement stairs.
One of those basement nights--was it one or two o'clock?--in a spirit of rising determination, we decided to sing. What did we sing? Some old Christmas carols? Did the boys sing too? It seems that all 8 of us did--picking up the broken toys, pulling the little school desks into rows again. Our father stood at the top of the basement stairs holding out his arms like Moses, saying to our mother--Listen to them singing. See? They're happy. They want to do it.
Sometimes, after we'd cleaned the kitchen and the basement, he'd say, Now clean the garage. And one of us would finally say, It's a school night Dad--and our spiritual victory, so carefully wrought and contained, would shatter--his fist would come down--we'd argue and scatter, and he'd rage around until he tired of it.
The night went on and on. One night when he woke us all up, I asked the kids to sit down in a circle at the foot of the front stairs. We're just going to say No--if we're like Martin Luther King--if we all say no together, we'll win. Don't argue. Don't talk. Just hold hands.
Was I seventeen? Sixteen? My brother was a year older--tougher I thought, able to endure much. And when our father slapped the belt against the wall he didn't flinch. But when our father pulled one of the little girls to her feet--It's ok, she said, it's ok--I can take it--he was already walking towards the kitchen, kicking the back hall door open and the circle broke--the rest of us, one after the other, slowly getting up.
Justice before love, I'd say years later. What I meant was justice was love. That's what I thought then. What did I know? I would have sat there a long time, no matter what our father had done.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Battlestar Galactica
Political bloggers like Battlestar Galactica so I thought I'd give it a try. Overall, it's been good, but disappointing. I've also been watching HBO dramas such as Oz, The Wire, and other shows such as Homicide and in comparison BG is superficial and unrealistic. It wants to examine current political issues, especially those relating to the war on terror, but at least through the second season hasn't really said anything interesting.
Anyway, here are five things that annoy me about Battlestar Galactica:
1) All the major romantic relationships involve women tempting men. Sharon and Helo. Sharon and the Chief. Tigh and his wife. Gaius and 6.
2) "Fracking"? Still sounds stupid and is jarring.
3) All the political dissidents are terrorists. They might be justified, or have the right aims, but they all use violence. This isn't surprising as there evidently isn't any government beyond the executive office (and an ineffective Quorum), and so no recourse to democratic means of change.
4) Somehow the 12 Colonies were able to develop the technology to create AI without a hint of developing a philosophy to go along with it. There is a lot of talk about how the Cylons are machines ("toasters"), not human, etc., but this is a starfaring people, one who you would think have grappled with the idea of non-human persons, and at least have people who claim that the Cylons are persons. But even the empathetic people on the Galactica seem unable to even think beyond the non-organic nature (which doesn't even apply to the human-like Cylons) of the Cylons. Why is this?
This last one is the most annoying. The biggest emotional conflicts the characters have is coming to terms with the "humanity" of their opponents--and this conflict rings false because there is no sense of why they are so prejudiced against the Cylons--why they are not just evil, but also not persons.
Anyway, here are five things that annoy me about Battlestar Galactica:
1) All the major romantic relationships involve women tempting men. Sharon and Helo. Sharon and the Chief. Tigh and his wife. Gaius and 6.
2) "Fracking"? Still sounds stupid and is jarring.
3) All the political dissidents are terrorists. They might be justified, or have the right aims, but they all use violence. This isn't surprising as there evidently isn't any government beyond the executive office (and an ineffective Quorum), and so no recourse to democratic means of change.
4) Somehow the 12 Colonies were able to develop the technology to create AI without a hint of developing a philosophy to go along with it. There is a lot of talk about how the Cylons are machines ("toasters"), not human, etc., but this is a starfaring people, one who you would think have grappled with the idea of non-human persons, and at least have people who claim that the Cylons are persons. But even the empathetic people on the Galactica seem unable to even think beyond the non-organic nature (which doesn't even apply to the human-like Cylons) of the Cylons. Why is this?
This last one is the most annoying. The biggest emotional conflicts the characters have is coming to terms with the "humanity" of their opponents--and this conflict rings false because there is no sense of why they are so prejudiced against the Cylons--why they are not just evil, but also not persons.
Monday, January 14, 2008
As was said on some anynomous blog comment
If nothing else, blogs, and especially blog comments, have proven the fact that you can find a liberal or a conservative or anyone else that disagrees with you that have said pretty much any outrageous or stupid thing you might wish or expect.
We already know this. Therefore, please, if you write an article describing the reaction to some event, just don't bother quoting them. I don't care what some guy who emailed you said, and just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean that he or his views or invective is representative of what I said or believe.
yeah, I'm talking about you NY Times Public Editor.
We already know this. Therefore, please, if you write an article describing the reaction to some event, just don't bother quoting them. I don't care what some guy who emailed you said, and just because I'm a liberal doesn't mean that he or his views or invective is representative of what I said or believe.
yeah, I'm talking about you NY Times Public Editor.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Gov. Siegelman a Political Prisoner?
Scott Horton points to an article in Raw Story about the awfully suspicious prosecution and conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. Horton has done a lot of good work looking into this case, and it is disturbing how blatant the Alabama U.S. Attorney was in coming after Siegelman.
This highlights one of the most disturbing aspects of the U.S. Attorney scandal. We've really only heard about the cases where these Attorneys refused to give in to the Bush Administration's pressure and so were replaced. But what about those who did give in to the pressure, or never needed that pressure in the first place? What have they been doing?
This highlights one of the most disturbing aspects of the U.S. Attorney scandal. We've really only heard about the cases where these Attorneys refused to give in to the Bush Administration's pressure and so were replaced. But what about those who did give in to the pressure, or never needed that pressure in the first place? What have they been doing?
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
More political sex
It looks like another Republican Congressman has been caught with his pants down.
Roll Call:
To me these stories are just embarrassing. It is difficult to see what was illegal in Senator Craig's actions (at least from the arrest report), and I am very tired of the private, especially sexual, lives of politicians making so many headlines. Sure, I know that the Republican Party largely deserves these headlines due to their continual hounding of President Clinton, but the same reasons why I think that was wrong hold here as well. I have seen no good reason to think there is a connection between a politician's sex life and his public service and I wish (uselessly I know) that these stories would just stop--or at least relegated to the gossip page where they belong.
Perhaps the least important issue for me is the hypocrisy element (highlighted here by Hilzoy). Yes, Sen. Craig supported DOMA and has a clear record of voting against homosexual rights, but yet seems to be a closeted gay man. I'm not sure why his homosexuality (if true) would make his discriminatory actions towards homosexuals any more appalling than they already are. If he was caught soliciting sex from a woman his support of DOMA would be just as reprehensible. But yet that is often the most scandalous aspect to these spectacles.
I suppose the reasoning is something like this: if Senator Craig is truly homosexual and yet claims that homosexuality is wrong then either a) he should know better because of his own experience b) he is lying about his own views for political gain (i.e. he doesn't believe that homosexuality is wrong).
It seems to me that (a) is irrelevant. Yes, he should know better. However, he would hardly be the first morally conflicted homosexual if he was honest in his condemnation of homosexuality. More importantly, as a Senator, Larry Craig already has this responsibility. I would expect of all Senators that they would all, homosexual or not, have a broad enough range of experience to know better. In other words, any increased responsibility that Larry Craig might have to better understand understand the legal and moral rights of homosexuals due to his own alleged homosexuality is by far trumped by his responsibilities as a Senator to understand these legal and moral rights.
As for (b), it seems to me that most politicians, including almost all of the Democratic candidates for President are already doing this. To my knowledge, none of the major Democratic candidates are willing to support marriage rights for homosexuals (although they will support civil unions, state laws, etc.). I could be wrong here, but I find it difficult to believe that otherwise liberal and progressive politicians such as Edwards and Obama believe that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Thus, their refusal to admit this publicly is also a matter of lying about their views for political gain. I am not trying to draw a moral equivalency between Edwards and Obama's "lying" to Craig's posited lying, as Edwards and Obama are not working to limit homosexual rights but to increase them--just pointing out that, again, it is not the lying or hypocrisy about their actual views that matters but what their actions as politicians.
Roll Call:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.
To me these stories are just embarrassing. It is difficult to see what was illegal in Senator Craig's actions (at least from the arrest report), and I am very tired of the private, especially sexual, lives of politicians making so many headlines. Sure, I know that the Republican Party largely deserves these headlines due to their continual hounding of President Clinton, but the same reasons why I think that was wrong hold here as well. I have seen no good reason to think there is a connection between a politician's sex life and his public service and I wish (uselessly I know) that these stories would just stop--or at least relegated to the gossip page where they belong.
Perhaps the least important issue for me is the hypocrisy element (highlighted here by Hilzoy). Yes, Sen. Craig supported DOMA and has a clear record of voting against homosexual rights, but yet seems to be a closeted gay man. I'm not sure why his homosexuality (if true) would make his discriminatory actions towards homosexuals any more appalling than they already are. If he was caught soliciting sex from a woman his support of DOMA would be just as reprehensible. But yet that is often the most scandalous aspect to these spectacles.
I suppose the reasoning is something like this: if Senator Craig is truly homosexual and yet claims that homosexuality is wrong then either a) he should know better because of his own experience b) he is lying about his own views for political gain (i.e. he doesn't believe that homosexuality is wrong).
It seems to me that (a) is irrelevant. Yes, he should know better. However, he would hardly be the first morally conflicted homosexual if he was honest in his condemnation of homosexuality. More importantly, as a Senator, Larry Craig already has this responsibility. I would expect of all Senators that they would all, homosexual or not, have a broad enough range of experience to know better. In other words, any increased responsibility that Larry Craig might have to better understand understand the legal and moral rights of homosexuals due to his own alleged homosexuality is by far trumped by his responsibilities as a Senator to understand these legal and moral rights.
As for (b), it seems to me that most politicians, including almost all of the Democratic candidates for President are already doing this. To my knowledge, none of the major Democratic candidates are willing to support marriage rights for homosexuals (although they will support civil unions, state laws, etc.). I could be wrong here, but I find it difficult to believe that otherwise liberal and progressive politicians such as Edwards and Obama believe that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Thus, their refusal to admit this publicly is also a matter of lying about their views for political gain. I am not trying to draw a moral equivalency between Edwards and Obama's "lying" to Craig's posited lying, as Edwards and Obama are not working to limit homosexual rights but to increase them--just pointing out that, again, it is not the lying or hypocrisy about their actual views that matters but what their actions as politicians.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Scopes 2.0
I recently had a heated discussion with an evangelical Christian about the unfairness of teaching evolution, but not creationism, in the public schools. One of his claims was that evolutionists are now in the same position, and doing the same thing to creationists, as creationists were formerly condemned for doing (especially in such famous cases as the Scopes trial) namely, not letting teachers teach what they think it is right to teach. In other words, now it is the scientists and science teachers who are trying to stifle dissent through political means rather than persuasion by evidence.
Now I think this is troubling to many liberals about the case against "teaching the controversy" (as it is coyly termed by modern creationists). After all, isn't freedom of speech a basic human right? And really, who are we to tell people what they should or should not teach their children?
But I think this criticism rests on misunderstandings of the actual cases where school boards have changed the laws and of the claims of the scientists and their Democratic supporters.
First, most of the legislation (and I'm too tired right now to look up links--maybe tomorrow) that has been passed and challenged in the courts has not just said, say whatever you want, but rather, that you have to teach both sides, or present evolution and the creationist criticisms of evolution. So I take it from the beginning that the creationist isn't (or at least shouldn't be) claiming that the scientists are wrong to say that we should have political control over what is taught in public schools. Rather, they are being inconsistent to their own principles of free inquiry, especially as exemplified in the mythology of their free-thinking heroes.
But this is just wrong. Scientists (and I know some scientists disagree, but this is the view of the major scientific organizations) don't claim that people should be allowed to teach whatever they want. If someone is teaching science, then they should be teaching science properly, which crucially means something like the consensus views of most scientific experts on a particular issue. This is why there will be much more uniformity in most scientific textbooks as compared to the textbooks used in the humanities.
To make this point more clearly, the issue in the Scopes trial was not freedom of speech, (after all, teachers have a public duty to teach well, not just however they wish), but rather that scientific education should be ultimately controlled by scientists rather than by politicians, parents, preachers, amateurs, etc. And that control is what is still being challenged by modern-day creationists such as the members of the Kansas School Board, the Discovery Institute, and others. So it would be misleading for the creationists to cast themselves in the position of John Scopes being forced to teach something they think is wrong as that is not the primary issue.
This criticism relates to another mistake made by creationists. They will often point to the few biology-related scientists who criticize some aspects of evolution, generally without proposing a workable alternative--mainly just Michael Behe--as evidence that their is a real controversy on this issue and so it is in fact the scientists who are calling for change. The Discovery Institute has been particularly bad on this issue, repeatedly making strong claims about how the amount of disagreement means that we should change how we teach biology.
But this is making the same mistake as before, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form. First of all, scientists as individuals have no more right to try to dictate how we should teach science in public schools. So even Einstein in 1915 has no right to say, hey look, Newton was wrong and so you should stop teaching him. Even though Einstein was correct in his claims, and was able to back them up with strong evidence, in order for that to matter to the public school educators it must first enter into the scientific community and be judged by them. If it becomes part of the prevailing paradigm (or replaces that paradigm), then it can be taught. But notice how it is not Einstein, brilliant as he was that legitimates this process. Rather, it is the community of scientists coming to an agreement that does so. Since the community of scientists has come to an agreement about both the scientific status of the idea of evolution and the irrelevance of the arguments offered by its critics, it would be wrong to teach as a matter of science a non-existent controversy here.
So, to me if we are to have a discussion on this issue we should be honest about the terms of the debate. I know that the idea of science is held in very high regard in U.S. culture and so no one likes to argue against science. However, it seems to me that the real issue remains what it was for the Scopes trial: Who should control science education? Those arguing against the teaching of creationism claim it should be scientists and those arguing for the teaching of creationism believe it should be some other group.
I apologize for the laziness of this post, not including links and switching at whim between normative and descriptive claims, but hopefully my point is somewhat clear.
Now I think this is troubling to many liberals about the case against "teaching the controversy" (as it is coyly termed by modern creationists). After all, isn't freedom of speech a basic human right? And really, who are we to tell people what they should or should not teach their children?
But I think this criticism rests on misunderstandings of the actual cases where school boards have changed the laws and of the claims of the scientists and their Democratic supporters.
First, most of the legislation (and I'm too tired right now to look up links--maybe tomorrow) that has been passed and challenged in the courts has not just said, say whatever you want, but rather, that you have to teach both sides, or present evolution and the creationist criticisms of evolution. So I take it from the beginning that the creationist isn't (or at least shouldn't be) claiming that the scientists are wrong to say that we should have political control over what is taught in public schools. Rather, they are being inconsistent to their own principles of free inquiry, especially as exemplified in the mythology of their free-thinking heroes.
But this is just wrong. Scientists (and I know some scientists disagree, but this is the view of the major scientific organizations) don't claim that people should be allowed to teach whatever they want. If someone is teaching science, then they should be teaching science properly, which crucially means something like the consensus views of most scientific experts on a particular issue. This is why there will be much more uniformity in most scientific textbooks as compared to the textbooks used in the humanities.
To make this point more clearly, the issue in the Scopes trial was not freedom of speech, (after all, teachers have a public duty to teach well, not just however they wish), but rather that scientific education should be ultimately controlled by scientists rather than by politicians, parents, preachers, amateurs, etc. And that control is what is still being challenged by modern-day creationists such as the members of the Kansas School Board, the Discovery Institute, and others. So it would be misleading for the creationists to cast themselves in the position of John Scopes being forced to teach something they think is wrong as that is not the primary issue.
This criticism relates to another mistake made by creationists. They will often point to the few biology-related scientists who criticize some aspects of evolution, generally without proposing a workable alternative--mainly just Michael Behe--as evidence that their is a real controversy on this issue and so it is in fact the scientists who are calling for change. The Discovery Institute has been particularly bad on this issue, repeatedly making strong claims about how the amount of disagreement means that we should change how we teach biology.
But this is making the same mistake as before, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form. First of all, scientists as individuals have no more right to try to dictate how we should teach science in public schools. So even Einstein in 1915 has no right to say, hey look, Newton was wrong and so you should stop teaching him. Even though Einstein was correct in his claims, and was able to back them up with strong evidence, in order for that to matter to the public school educators it must first enter into the scientific community and be judged by them. If it becomes part of the prevailing paradigm (or replaces that paradigm), then it can be taught. But notice how it is not Einstein, brilliant as he was that legitimates this process. Rather, it is the community of scientists coming to an agreement that does so. Since the community of scientists has come to an agreement about both the scientific status of the idea of evolution and the irrelevance of the arguments offered by its critics, it would be wrong to teach as a matter of science a non-existent controversy here.
So, to me if we are to have a discussion on this issue we should be honest about the terms of the debate. I know that the idea of science is held in very high regard in U.S. culture and so no one likes to argue against science. However, it seems to me that the real issue remains what it was for the Scopes trial: Who should control science education? Those arguing against the teaching of creationism claim it should be scientists and those arguing for the teaching of creationism believe it should be some other group.
I apologize for the laziness of this post, not including links and switching at whim between normative and descriptive claims, but hopefully my point is somewhat clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)