The Problem with Prophets
September 8, 2006
Sometimes it takes a whack with a two-by-four alongside the head before I wake up. Several people have told me I have to read this article in Christianity Today, so maybe I really should. In the meantime, here is how Michael Kruse responded to a commenter to his post about the C-T article:
Kruse Kronicle: The Problem with Prophets
What some on the Left do now is chastise Christians for bringing their religious values in to the public square. (And I share some their frustration at some of the values that are brought into the public square in the name Christianity but not the legitimacy of bringing their religious values into the public square.) Christians are supposed to be a counter-cultural witness and not become entangled in matters of the state. But then on other issues they cozy up to politicians, start PACs, partner with political groups, seek organize and sway votes, as they seek to advance a political agenda. They are no longer prophets but political partisans.
It strikes me that what is going on is not prophetic witness but “proof texting” positions with one theological perspective in one place and another perspective in another place. What that says to me is that there is a predefined political agenda in search of theological justifications, not a political stance that has emerged from a consistent theological framework.
Again, not having yet read the C-T article, I agree with Kruse that one of the biggest challenges we have as evangelicals is learning to bring our beliefs into the public square in a consistent and God-honoring way. If we do it right, the result will be transparent and winsomely attractive to our pagan friends.
We’re clearly not there, yet.
Dave, moving Christianity Today to the top of his reading stack.
The non-denial of the non-self
September 2, 2006
Ooooh, I just love this one. It’s a very welcome diversion for a lazy Saturday morning. Its subtitle is “How philosophy can help create secure databases,” but don’t let that worry you
Cryptography | The non-denial of the non-self | Economist.com
N THE 1940s a philosopher called Carl Hempel showed that by manipulating the logical statement “all ravens are black”, you could derive the equivalent “all non-black objects are non-ravens”. Such topsy-turvy transformations might seem reason enough to keep philosophers locked up safely on university campuses, where they cannot do too much damage.
Yes indeed. Now, the following is for you, Linda, to explain.
What interested Dr Esponda was how the immune system represents information. Here, “everything” is the set of possible biological molecules, notably proteins. The immune system is interesting, because it protects its owner from pathogens without needing to know what a pathogen will look like. Instead, it relies on a negative database to tell it what to destroy. It learns early on which biological molecules are “self”, in the sense that they are routine parts of the body it is protecting. Whenever it meets one that is “not self” and thus likely to be part of a pathogen, it destroys it. In Hempel’s terms, this can be expressed as “all non-good agents [pathogens] are non-self”.
Which leads the author to this thought:
A database of names, addresses and Social Security numbers (a common form of identification in America) might require only 200 characters to contain all possible combinations. That would limit the total number of character combinations. A positive database containing all the data in question would be a small subset of those combinations. The negative counterpart of this database would be much larger and contain all possible names and addresses that were not in the positive database plus a lot of gibberish. But it would not be infinite. By looking at the negative database, it would be possible to deduce what was in the positive database it complemented.
OK, Larry, it’s your turn. Is this something we should lose sleep over?
Dad, waiting patiently on the sidelines for illumination with Laura and Leslie.
Does your head hurt?
July 13, 2006
Mine does, when I try to make sense of all the stuff going on in the world. Fortunately for the world, I don’t need to make decisions about problems like stem-cell research and US-North Korean relations. But we expect congress to make many such decisions, and columnist Peggy Noonan says that we expect much too much of our merely mortal congressmen and women.
I am thinking about the huge and crushing number of issues we force politicians to understand and make decisions on. These are issues of great variety, complexity, and even in some cases, many cases in a way, unknowability.
…For politicians it is the same but more so. They not only have to try to understand complicated and demanding questions, they have to vote on them.
She lists dozens of such problems that congress had to decide on just last week. It is clearly an impossible task for anyone, let alone our inexpert but well-meaning politicians.
So, what is the answer? Noonan doesn’t know (and I certainly don’t), but she concludes with these observations:
I have only three thoughts. One: It is good to keep in mind, at such a time, that we must let as many questions devolve into the private sphere as possible. Not all can but many can, and on so many issues it’s better to err on the side of individual freedom than the authority of the state. Two, in making big decisions do not lose simple common sense, which is common human sense, which is, for instance: If you start to clone humans it will have an ugly end. Three: Do not let go of your faith. Do not lose it. In the age in which too much is demanded of the slim wisdom of politicians, it is our only hope, and theirs.
Faith is the key. God is truly sovereign and in control even of congress and all of the world’s leaders, even if His means are invisible to us. I believe this, if for no other reason that the alternative is utter despair and hopelessness.
Dave, trying to be hopeful.
Did Ken Lay die of a broken heart?
July 7, 2006
Peggy Noonan thinks so. Read her opinion at:
It’s hard to think rationally about Ken Lay and his career, but it’s not hard to think of him as a human being and family man, and now that he’s gone I prefer to think of him as a grandfather. (I wonder why?) Anyway, Noonan wrote a thoughtful piece.
Lay came from nowhere, rose high, messed up, fell.
Dave, turning philosophical again.
Tango anyone?
July 6, 2006
My email friend Bill Bonner may have the right of it when he says (from his sojourn in Argentina),
Whatever direction we take, we trip over a contradiction. Things always seem to be black and white at the same time.
That is why we took up tango, dear reader. People who dance the tango or write poems don’t let contradictions bother them. They glide across the floor and enjoy themselves. As far as we know, no serious tango dancer has ever committed suicide. It’s the mathematicians and engineers who blow their brains out.
Fortunately, I’m no mathematician and have forgotten how to spell engineer, so I plan on being around a while yet to see how this crazy old world sorts itself out.
Mathematics and creation
June 8, 2006
I promised myself I would say no more about “intelligent design,” but please consider the thoughts of Benedict XVI, as he responded to a shouted question while meeting with young people preparing for World Youth Day. I found the following quotation in Richard John Neuhaus’s The Public Square, in the June/July 2006 issue of First Things.
I’ve also been thinking about the implications of developing a Christian world view, and the Pope’s remarks also bear on that .
The great Galileo said that God wrote the book of nature in the form of mathematical language. He was convinced that God gave us two books: that of Sacred Scripture, and that of nature. And the language of nature - this was his conviction - is mathematics, which is therefore a language of God, of the Creator.
Let us reflect now on what mathematics is. In itself it is an abstract system, an invention of the human spirit, and as such in its purity it does not really exist. It is always realized approximately, but - as such - it is an intellectual system, a great, brilliant invention of the human spirit. The surprising thing is that this invention of our human mind is truly the key for understanding nature, that nature is really structured in a mathematical way, and that our mathematics, which our spirit invented, really is the instrument for being able to work with nature, to put it at our service through technology.
It seems an almost incredible thing to me that an invention of the human intellect and the structure of the universe coincide. The mathematics we invented really gives us access to the nature of the universe and permits us to use it. …I think that this intersection between what we have thought up and how nature unfolds and behaves is an enigma and a great challenge, because we see that, in the end, there is one logic that links these two: our reason could not discover the other if there were not an identical logic at the source of both.
In this sense, it seems to me that mathematics - in which God as such does not appear - shows us the intelligent structure of the universe. Now there are also theories of chaos, but these are limited, because if chaos had the upper hand, all technology would become impossible. Technology is trustworthy only because our mathematics is trustworthy. Our science, which ultimately makes it possible to work with the energies of nature, presupposes the trustworthy, intelligent structure of matter, …the “design” of creation.
To come to the definitive question, I would say: Either God exists or he doesn’t. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of the creative Reason that stands at the beginning of everything and is the origin of everything - the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom - or one upholds the priority of the irrational, according to which everything in our world and in our lives is only an accident, marginal, an irrational product, and even reason would be a product of irrationality. In the end, one cannot “prove” either of these views, but Christianity’s great choice is the choice of reason and the priority of reason. This seems like an excellent choice to me, demonstrating how a great Intelligence, to which we can entrust ourselves, stands behind everything.
But to me, it seems that the real problem for the faith today is the evil in the world: One asks oneself how this is compatible with this rationality of the Creator. And here we really need that God who became flesh and who shows us how he is not only a mathematical logic, but that this primordial reason is also love. If we look at the great options, the Christian option is the more rational and human one even today. For this reason, we can confidently elaborate a philosophy, a vision of the world that is based on this priority of reason, on this trust that the creative Reason is love, and that this love is God.
I have said many times that the foundations of engineering are the disciplines of mathematics and physics, and the Pope seems to agree, at least in regard to mathematics.
Dave, which he has forgotten most of what he almost knew about mathematics.
Worried about privacy?
June 5, 2006
A recent ruling on the sharing of airline passenger data helps show how European and American views differ on the competing demands of individual rights to privacy and the public need for security is the subtitle of a recent Economist article. I find it hard to get worked up about invasion of my privacy, and I’m not sure why. One reason may be that, so far, I have never felt threatened. Another reason may be that I am not very smart and believe that if I behave and don’t call attention to myself, everything will be alright. Think Ostrich. All I have to do, I reason, is stay below Big Brother’s radar screen.
The war on privacy | Economist.com
Nothing is private now
But technology and online business methods may, anyway, make this argument redundant. Wider use of DNA profiles, security cameras and credit-card records all make it easier for authorities to track individuals’ movements. And the collection and trade of personal information given freely on the internet is at the heart of many online business models. Cookies, e-mails and details given to all kinds of websites leave an electronic spoor that the police, security agencies, businesses and hackers can follow.
Only the most egregious breaches of online security and deliberate attempts to procure personal information are reported in the media. But smaller leaks that compromise privacy are everyday occurrences. The mass of personal details used by government agencies or businesses increasingly renders old notions of privacy obsolete. The electronic trails that diminish privacy may help to trap crooks and terrorists, but where net curtains once shut out nosey neighbours it will, for good or ill, become increasingly difficult to shut anyone out in future.
So why worry? I suspect that a high degree of paranoia doesn’t much reduce the probablilty of being seriously inconvenienced, or worse, by incursions on my privacy. Even if I get hit tomorrow, it doesn’t change the probability of it happening. This mindset is probably largely due to the accident of living an upper-middle class life in the good old U.S. of A., and for that I am thankful.
Dave, which he yet may be taught a lesson that wakes him up, but he isn’t holding his breath.
The Nanas and the Papas
June 2, 2006
I’ll simply refer you to Kruse Kronicle for an interesting quote from a recent Chicago Tribune article. I agree with Michael’s comment and would add that the Boomers are just building on the mess that we Silent Generation types got started after WW II. I guess immortality ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.
Kruse Kronicle: `The Nanas and the Papas’
Dave, happy to look past all this stuff.
Rights, Obligations and Justice
April 12, 2006
Here’s a great article by Michael Kruse about what’s behind the ubiquitous cry for “rights” of one sort or another.
Kruse Kronicle: Theology and Economics: Rights, Obligations and Justice
Human rights. Civil rights. Property rights. Reproductive rights. Right to Life. Gay rights. Immigration rights. States rights. Right to privacy. Everywhere we look today there we find “rights.”
—
Often when we speak of “rights,” what we really mean is that we think something is important and good, and should be widely respected. This is different from what we call “unalienable rights.” These are rights that are inherent to us because of our humanity. Christians believe they are inherent to us because we are made in the image of God. The Declaration of Independence has what is still the most eloquent articulation of this idea of rights.
Interesting distinction, but I’m not too sure about the Declaration’s unalienable rights being inherent for the reasons given. I would argue (don’t I always?) that we creatures have no God-conferred right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. I have a problem finding any biblical basis for these rights.
God has given me life as a gift, cancellable by Him at will. The right to liberty, perhaps, but I doubt that the Declaration meant the same thing by liberty as did the Apostle in Galatians 5. I’ve ranted too much already about the absurdity of pursuing happiness. In short, God owes me nothing.
Dave, trying not to put too fine a point on it.
Dr. Syn
March 22, 2006
This morning I climbed the ladders from the orlop to the captain’s cabin, pulled up a chair and sat there for a moment, gazing back at the arrow-straight wake stretching out to the rising sun and reflecting a bit on my life inexorably flowing on with neither beginning nor end in sight.
Then I started to feel a chill about my meager hams, and the spell was broken.
Oops! Wrong image. It’s really a self portrait of Andrew Wyeth and copyrighted to boot. Sorry.
Dave, sailing the wrong direction in the ship of life.
