among other things:
At least now I unerstand why I feel compelled to watch Nicholas Cage movies.
As reported by Harper’s Magazine, Charles Bernstein has proposed a poetry bailout, geared to restore the confidence of poetry readers. Bernstein said the following in a prepared statement:
As you know, the glut of illiquid, insolvent, and troubled poems is clogging the literary arteries of the West. These debt-ridden poems threaten to infect other areas of the literary sector and ultimately to topple our culture industry.
Cultural leaders have come together to announce a massive poetry buyout: leveraged and unsecured poems, poetry derivatives, delinquent poems, and subprime poems will be removed from circulation in the biggest poetry bailout since the Victorian era. We believe the plan is a comprehensive approach to relieving the stresses on our literary institutions and markets.
Let there be no mistake: the fundamentals of our poetry are sound. The problem is not poetry but poems.
…
As we know, lax composition practices since the advent of modernism led to irresponsible poets and irresponsible readers. Simply put, too many poets composed works they could not justify. We are seeing the impact on poetry, with a massive loss of confidence on the part of readers.
Whatever happens with the financial markets, let’s not let this warning go unheeded.
Thanks to John H at Confessing Evangelical for bringing this to our attention.
If I haven’t mentioned before that Nancy Pelosi is an idiot, I’d like to make that point now. Some action by the government is necessary. Bipartisan effort to accomplish this is necessary. Why doesn’t Madam Speaker understand this? Why does she always feel the need to resort to the same partisan crap? My guess is that it’s because she doesn’t understand the issues. She certainly doesn’t seem to understand history. Her typically myopic speech this afternoon sent the markets into more of a tizzy than they were. And to what advantage? Because just perhaps some cooperation was happening?
Nothing we do now is perfect; had congress listened to the warnings 7-8 years ago, we’d be in a different place today. But, partisan bickering seems to stop all progress.
Here’s what I think is happening: We have an election in just a few weeks. One side is using this crisis – at the expense of the American people – to confuse the issues, knowing that the automatic response is to blame the current president for any economic issues, even if the root can be traced back to a Democratic administration.
I know I’ve said this before, and I’ll say this again: the 2 party system is hurting us. Partisan politics is deadly. Stop it.
It is not my intention to spend much time here discussing the election, et al. However, given the current economic situation and the rhetoric being thrown around, I just want to point out a couple of videos that point out a few important facts that people need to be aware of. The first is a Fox News report timelining Buch and McCain’s attempts to stop the madness; Bush first warned of the portential crisis in April 2001:
The next is only humorous due to the great music soundtrack that accompanies the information in the video. Even though the video is 9 minutes long, the info passes so quick you might need to pause it a few times so you can actually read what’s being shown. I haven’t fact checked this myself, but I’ve heard much of this information already from reliable sources; and, the video does provide sources along the way. The last bit is a bit too pushy and political for me, but take the info in the video for what it’s worth:
For some strange reason, I subscribe to a few atheism blogs. Lately I’ve added Debunking Christianity to the list, although I’m not sure how long it will stay; I’ve been largely bored and unimpressed with level of writing and thinking there. But, just when I thought I’d never agree with John Loftus on anything, he surprises me by doing a thoughtful review of John Haught’s new book, God and the New Atheism. Here’s an interesting excerpt from Loftus’ post, in which he agrees with some of Haught’s criticisms:
As a theologian and philosopher of science, Dr. Haught effectively dismantles what I consider to be a few naïve understandings of the new atheists regarding faith and the scientific method. It’s a common mistake that applied and theoretical scientists unaccustomed to understanding the philosophy of science make. Is faith a belief without evidence? No. Do scientists come to their conclusions based solely on the evidence? No.
I don’t want to be too harsh on the new atheists, since I truly appreciate the impact they have had in raising the level of awareness for skeptics, but Haught is correct here, if in fact that’s what they think. Anyone who has seriously looked into the philosophy of science and read Thomas Kuhn, Michael Polanyi, Ian Barbour, Frederick Suppe, Paul Feyerabend, and even Karl Popper knows that science is not completely objective, that facts are theory laden, and that certainty as a goal is impossible to achieve, which leaves room for faith. Popper, for instance, talked of science progressing by “conjectures and guesses.” Feyerabend even argued that there is no such thing as the scientific method! Scientists themselves are people with passions, prior commitments, and/or control beliefs. In fact, there are many beliefs we have for which we have no evidence, as Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued–such things as I’m not dreaming right now, that I’ve existed for longer than 24 hours, that I am not merely a brain in a mad scientist’s vat which is being caused to remember the events of today in the year 2030, or that we’re not all living in something depicted by the movie the Matrix.
Granted, he doesn’t agree with most of Haught’s thinking, and I’m the last person to try to imply that. However, I’m impressed with Loftus’ intellectual integrity here, something which does indeed distinguish him from the crowd. At least in this post.
I have been fascinated with the 1st Chapter of Romans for some time; while it serves as an introduction to the rest of the book, Paul says an awful lot in just a few verses. Paul was, of course, writing to the church in Rome – that is, those in Rome who have been already converted to Christianity, which included both Jews and Gentiles. If I had been a member of that church, I think this line might have caught my attention:
14I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. 15That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
Just what is he getting at here? I would think that this would have sparked some discussion, especially since the Jewish and Greek (gentile) Christians often had trouble getting along, especially as the early Jewish Christians had trouble giving up Jewish practices such as the dietary laws (see Chapter 14). Paul’s purpose, I think, in writing this letter was at least in part to emphasize and confirm the basic truth of the Gospel, and that it was the same for both Jews and Gentiles. He was probably speaking to the Jewish Christians specifically when he wrote,
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
While I don’t know that this was Paul’s intent, in this next section, Paul gets to the heart of his thoughts on epistemology. Many tend to focus on the subject of God’s wrath and sexual immorality, but that’s not my point here; let’s look at this passage and see what it tells us about Paul’s epistemology:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Verses 18 and 19 clearly are directed to contemporaries, who Paul accuses of suppressing the truth, which Paul maintains is plainly evident; not that the presence of God is something they had to deduce based on vague clues. No, Paul is clear here: “God has made it plain to them.” Continuing on, Paul goes on further, stating that from the time of Creation, God’s nature has been clearly seen. He then develops what has happened historically; at least, verse 21 starts what appears in NIV to paint an historical picture of man’s fall from knowing God – not just being aware of God – to choosing to worship material objects. The story of the golden calf comes to mind here, as one example. More currently, we see the rise of philosophical materialism, which of course is simply exchanging belief in a Creator for a self-creating (or eternal) material world. As I’ve argued before, materialism is the philosophical foundation to much of modern science. As Nietzsche said in On the Genealogy of Morals:
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’; this thought does not bear thinking through since it is paralogical: a philosophy, a ‘faith,’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist.
But, that’s a bit of a side-track, as interesting a quote as that is.
What stands out to me in the Romans passage is that the knowledge of God is not simply inferred by Creation; the knowledge of God comes initially by God as He reveals himself. This thinking parallels Jesus’ statement in John 6:44, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” As I said in a recent post, God is not an explanation, a belief derived from natural observation. This reduces the belief in God to a construct rooted in naturalism, which of course is fitting for those who wish to argue it away. Rather, I am unapologetically a presuppositionalist as I view the world, having first had revelation of God. In other words, I need no further proof, although I see it all around me.
The knowledge of God, whether we look to nature, or logic, or science, or even the Bible, originates with God. This is, of course, theology, just in case you were wondering. But, if the knowledge of God only comes from God, then theology is where it’s at.
Now, this raises some very interesting questions, for which I don’t have answers. One such question, which I would expect at least some atheists to ask, is “Why hasn’t God revealed himself to me?” Just earlier this evening I read an interesting account of someone who tried for 20 years to believe, but finally had to admit he simply couldn’t. Does God reveal himself to all? Romans 1 would seem to indicate a “yes” answer. Then, why do so many claim to have never found him? As I said, I don’t necessarily have the answer. It’s something to think about…
West of House
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door.
There is a small mailbox here.> _
If this is completely meaningless to you, then chances are you’ve never heard of CP/M, single-density drives, or Zork. If this is the case, you also missed the golden age of computer gaming, back when imagination and a knowledge of classic literature were more important than quick reflexes and a high-speed internet connection.
The Zork trilogy of games by Infocom were potentially more addictive than World of Warcraft, even though they contained no graphics whatsoever, no sound effects, and each could fit on a 191k floppy disk. I know, as I was one of those who occasionally stayed up until 3am trying to outsmart a unicorn or find a way through the gates of Hades. However, while I solved Zork I, I never completely solved II or III. I did have a lot of fun, though.
Today, as luck would have it, I stumbled across this video by MC Frontalot (not something you’d typically find on my Walkman), featuring an appearance by none other than Infocom’s Steve Meretzky:
Destined to be a classic, I’m sure. It is, in any event, a great tribute to the Zork games.
For some time I’ve wanted to find a way to port my old CP/M games from my Kaypro II (yes, I still have mine) over to CD and find an emulator so I could play them again. However, inspired by the above video, my son Isaiah found that the games – available for both Mac and PC – are downloadable for free! And they even work on Vista!
So, the golden age is still upon us. Both of us have been breaking into white houses, killing trolls, and wandering around underground mazes all evening. So, go grab yourself some classic computer fun, and waste a few hours exploring the mysteries of Zork. But, just remember: Don’t wander around dark places unless you’ve got your lantern or some matches, or you’re likely to be eaten by a grue. And, we wouldn’t want that…
Today Scot McKnight writes at Jesus Creed on why there seems to be a trend that
There is a rise, a burgeoning rise, of young college students converting from low church evangelicalism, with its anemic, unhistorical ecclesiology, to the great liturgical traditions: Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
This is happening at evangelical Christian colleges and seminaries; and, not only that, but seminary professors as well are moving to more traditional, liturgical churches (including Lutheran and Episcopalian). As someone who was raised Lutheran and who has experienced the failings of evangelicalism for about 30 years, I truly understand why. I’ve written about it extensively here (and here) over the past couple of years.
At first, there was the explanation that people were looking for some kind of mystery, and that liturgy provided that. While this might be true to some extent, the real trend seems to be more than this. A couple of weeks ago I visited a local Episcopal service and spent about an hour afterward talking to a couple who had become Episcopalian in college; he had been Nazarene, she Baptist. They spoke of the depth of theology and meaning, and the sense that they were actually in touch with the historical church.
For me, I’ve found that evangelicalism, for the most part, lacks both theology and historical understanding. You can attend some of these churches and never be sure what they believe. I suspect that many members aren’t even aware that there are creeds, and may not be able to recite the Lord’s prayer. They may leave feeling that they’ve failed and need to do better, but have no sense of forgiveness, or even that it’s available.
While I am still uncomfortable with some high liturgical practice (the bowing and kneeling, for example), what I like about liturgical worship includes:
I am thrilled to have found an evangelical church that has not lost all of the above- they have somewhat of an incarnational understanding of communion, and have just started giving Bible reading center stage – but still plan on visiting local liturgical churches on occasion. I’ve found that more than just leaving Church feeling good or enjoying a sermon, participating in liturgy actually feeds my soul. I am starting to remember what Church was all about.
The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
From Look Who’s Irrational Now, by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway (WSJ 9-19-08). According to the survey, close to a fourth of professing atheists believe in a god or force, 10% pray weekly and 12% believe in Heaven.
And, even Bill Maher, whose anti-religion documentary is to be released soon, appears to be somewhat of a nut:
Mr. Maher told David Letterman — a quintuple bypass survivor — to stop taking the pills that his doctor had prescribed for him. He proudly stated that he didn’t accept Western medicine. On his HBO show in 2005, Mr. Maher said: “I don’t believe in vaccination. . . . Another theory that I think is flawed, that we go by the Louis Pasteur [germ] theory.” He has told CNN’s Larry King that he won’t take aspirin because he believes it is lethal and that he doesn’t even believe the Salk vaccine eradicated polio.
In my prior post, I quoted from Bradley Monton, philosophy professor at the U of Colorado, Boulder. I stumbled upon Monton a few days ago, and enjoy him immensely, even if we disagree on some key issues. I’ve been very critical of all of those dubbed the “new atheists” for their huffing and puffing and bad logic. Monton is different; he actually seems to have taken the time to examine and understand Theism, and it’s obvious that he doesn’t have the baggage that Dawkins, et al. have.
In the last couple of days Monton has been responding on his blog to posts Tom Gilson has up at Thinking Christian, and vice versa. Monton started by asking a very perceptive question, “Do people really believe in God?”, in which he discusses apparent conflicts between professed belief and behavior. In his most recent post, he says:
… if Christians think that some people are saved and some are not, and there is something really worthwhile in being saved, and those who aren’t saved are really missing out, then why aren’t they spending more energy encouraging people to be saved? (One standard account is that the saved people go to heaven, while the unsaved don’t, but I recognize that different Christians differ on these details.) Yes, there are people who devote their lives, or at least significant portions of their lives, to missionary work and evangelism, and I admire them for following their convictions. It’s the Christians who don’t do this that I have trouble understanding. I know people who profess to be Christian and yet who live their lives pretty much like atheists do, except for the occasional trip to church, or prayer over dinner. For these people, their behavior is deeply at odds with their professed beliefs, and it makes me wonder if they really believe what they say they believe.
It seems that he may understand some things that most atheists, along with some Christians, don’t.