Mere-Orthodoxy

2006-04-01T17:11:00.000-08:00

We have a new home at www.mereorthodoxy.com

2006-03-18T14:18:00.000-08:00

A Fond Farewell of Sorts

2006-01-30T10:04:00.001-08:00

I've had a fantastic time blogging--it has brought numerous benefits into my life, most of which were entirely unexpected. However, I'm done. Kaput. Finis. Hit the wall. Etc.

At least at this address. And the other guys are going with me.

That's right--Mere(DASH!)orthodoxy.blogspot.com is officially no longer operational. It simply became too cumbersome to say on the air. And so we're packing up and moving to a new home, a much prettier, more sophisticated domain than our current dwellings.

We're still moving in over there, but the boxes have been transferred, and enough have been unpacked to allow us to entertain (or bore, whichever the case may be!) guests in the new digs. We hope you'll adjust your blogrolls and bookmarks accordingly and maybe even spread the word to friends (or foes) near and far.

And so, without further ado, we introduce to the (rather small!) viewing public, the brand-new Natalie Jost designed, Stacy Harp funded.....

MereOrthodoxy.

A Day in the Life of a Student Pilot

2006-01-29T10:56:00.000-08:00

The stomach flu, a head cold, and an ongoing sinus infection, combined with ten to twelve hour days of work, makes a tremendously powerful opponent and it is only now that I have gathered sufficient strength to return to Mere Orthodoxy after nearly a month's absence. To warm up my fingers and get the blog-o-rific juices flowing again, I will regale you with a Day in the Life of a Student Pilot. You may think this a cheap bid for sympathy, but I assure you that the last thing I am looking for is your commiseration--after all, I'm the one who gets to fly jets everyday. The day begins with an alarm clock at 0410. The Student Pilot rolls over and hits the snooze button, convinced that an extra four minutes of sleep really will make the difference between success and defeat in the day's battles. Four minutes later, Student Pilot is out of bed and groping for the bathroom door. He turns on the fan but leaves the lights off and steps into the shower. A deluge of warm water hits his sleepy body, beginning the slow process of waking up. Ten minutes later (yes, even student pilots indulge in a few excesses), Student Pilot is out of the shower and meticulously shaving, teeth brushing, combing, and deodorizing--the morning ritual to Hygiene a necessary part of the officer's life. After a quick breakfast of granola and yogurt, and a hurried sandwich slapped into a baggie, Student Pilot is out the door with coffee in hand and five minutes to go until show time at the squadron. At precisely 0500, Student Pilot punches in the door code and enters the squadron. Moving quickly down the narrow hallways covered with lockers and aviation art, he enters his flight room. His first priority is to stake out a computer (a valuable asset at a ratio of 1:4, computers to students). Once the computer is claimed, Student Pilot begins the hurried process of flight planning. He has to double check the weather at the base of intended landing, gather a multitudinous list of Notices to Airmen affecting his route of flight (and they always are multitudinous), write up and file an official flight plan, create a small card containing all his intended maneuvers, instrument approaches and patterns and landings as well as the timeline he intends to follow in order to accomplish all the above items, and calculate the landing and takeoff distance required to ensure that the unusually warm winter day combined with the high pressure system will not force him to be at the end of the runway with 10 feet remaining and still 15 knots below rotation speed--all of this information and more must be gathered in a short 30 minutes and then organized into a logical order so that it can be smoothly and efficiently presented to the Instructor Pilot. Instructor Pilot enters the room at 0530 and the briefing begins. All applicable information is discussed in detail, painful detail at times, to ensure safety of flight (or just to put Student Pilot on the spot; it's an oft debated matter among the students). An hour later the crew of two students and one instructor step to the jet--headsets, gloves, checklists, and in-flight publications in tow. Another hour ticks by as Student Pilot meticulously examines the aircraft with a flashlight (the sunrise is still a good 45 minutes away) to ensure all movable parts are movable and all static parts are static, and then enters the aircraft and begins the pre-flight checklists. Each switch and circuit breakers must be individually examined and its position verified using a memorized script between Student Pilot and his instructor. Finally, at 0730, Student Pilot is ready for takeoff. The next three hours can be pure bliss or pure pain, depending on a variety of factors including: the personality of Instructor Pilot, the amount of bean burritos eaten the night before, the competency of Air Traffic Control, and the degree of study in preparation for the flight. The flight profile begins with a series of precision instrument maneuvers followed by stalls in the Military Operation Area. After Student Pilot completes the maneuvers and Instructor Pilot is satisfied or sufficiently disgusted with the competency of Student Pilot, the aircraft is pointed to the airfield of intended landing for a series of instrument approaches and visual traffic patterns. Climb to 1500 feet above the runway. Turn left. Slow down. Lower the landing gear. Speed up. Turn left. Reduce power. Descend. Land. Push the power up. Take off. Raise the landing gear. Speed up. Repeat as desired. Each traffic pattern is an attempt at correcting the mistakes made in the previous, and Student Pilot attempts to hone his skills in preparation of the Check Ride which is always looming on the horizon. The sortie ends with a return to base and the debrief. A debrief is anything but brief, especially since Student Pilot has been awake for six hours by now and wishing breakfast had been a bit more substantial. However, Instructor Pilot apparently lives off the sound of his own voice and is perfectly satisfied to discuss, in minute detail, every aspect of the flight. After the debrief comes a short time for lunch followed by the most dreaded portion of the day--the Formal Brief. Again, nothing brief about this one either as it usually runs for an hour or more. It is a time for all the instructor pilots to test the knowledge of the student pilots regarding aircraft systems, local flying procedures, rules, and aviation regulations. Each student stands up one by one and is quizzed on his knowledge. Then comes the Stand-up Emergency. Two students walk to the middle of the room and are presented with a hypothetical emergency scenario. Together they have to talk the emergency to a logical conclusion, explaining how it will be dealt with and how they will safely land the emergency aircraft. A long and tedious event, the Stand-up Emergency usually is 40 to 50 minutes in length with the students explaining in laborious detail how they will activate this switch and deactivate that, how they will set the throttles at such and such a power setting to achieve such and such performance, and etc. Following Formal Brief, Student Pilot sits down to take a test on all the operating limits of the aircraft and then heads off to an hour and a half of academic classes on topics ranging from aircraft systems to enroute navigation. Any remaining time is used to prepare for tomorrow's flight. At 1700, just as the national anthem is piped over the base loudspeakers in three different tempos, Student Pilot steps into his room and collapses into the Lazy Boy. But only for a moment, there is dinner to eat, books to read and diagrams to study so that he can do it all over again...tomorrow.

Review: "Joe Versus the Volcano"

2006-01-28T17:16:00.000-08:00

Before there was Sleepless in Seattle and You've Got Mail, Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan made Joe Versus the Volcano, a film with lasting value that could help save your soul if you don't watch out.

The plot goes thusly: Tom Hanks plays Joe, a hypochondriac with a dead-end job he hates. He is isolated and depressed and his life just doesn't seem much worth living. In the meantime in the world abroad, a rich businessman who has a deal with an island people runs into trouble. The islanders won't do business with him because their god demands a sacrifice and they can't find one from among their own ranks. So the rich guy rigs Joe's doctors appointment and has his personal doctor diagnose Joe with the dealy disease of "Brain Fog." Joe is almost happy to have a disease to justify his unhappiness and doesn't really question the shady diagnosis.

Step 2 is that the rich guy comes and offers Joe a chance to be the sacrifice and briefly "live like a king, die like a man." Joe gladly quits his job, and soon sets sail to the island with Meg Ryan's character Angelica (see the symbolism!) piloting the ship. Along the way they get into a wreck, fall in love, but finally arrive in at the island where Joe must face his destiny with Angelica at his side.

I won't go on and spoil any of the plot because you've got to see this film if you're the kind of person who read Mere-O posts.

The film is ripe with symbolism and the overarching theme that the way to live is to courageously lose yourself, letting go of your fears and selfishness and to actively seek the good, trusting in providence (the film basically implies God) to watch over and protect you.

My favorite scene in the film - and one of the better scenes I've ever seen at all - is when Joe and Angelica are drifting in the ocean. Anglica is unconscious, and Joe is starting to become weak and dehydrated as he has given her all of the water. Late one night as he is staring up at the stars the moon begins to peek over the horizon. It rises into a great silver mass right in front of the overawed Joe, who struggles to his feet and finally lifts his arms above his head, revelling in the beauty before him. Then he prays, "Dear God, whose name i do not know, thank you for my life. I forgot how big...thank you, thank you for my life!"

I don't really know what's going on with the "whose name I do not know" part, but if you have ever been keenly aware of beauty similar words may have fallen from your lips. This recognition of the glory of creation instantly turns our minds to that which is greater than us - our God.

All that to say, it is surprising to find a film from the early nineties so saturated with Christian themes. It's pretty goofy and corny, but that's nothing different from classic comedies of the past and doesn't mean there aren't deep layers of meaning buried in the humor - think Aristophanes or Shakespeare. This is definitely a film that will make you remember and be thankful for this great gift of life! If you let it, it might make you a Manalive.

P.S. Apparently, there are whole websites devoted to the layers of meaning in this movie like this one.

The Transposition of Time in Heaven

2006-01-21T23:38:00.000-08:00

My wife and I had a great conversation with dear friends today about heaven. We were reading passages out of Peter Kreeft's excellent work on the subject. At one point, Kreeft claimed that an argument for heaven is our heart's longing for timelessness. C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, I believe, argues that certain experiences in this life are less than perfect because they end too soon. We desire to live in those transcendent moments until we've had our fill. Both Lewis and Kreeft extrapolate on this phenomenon and conclude that heaven, being a place that satiates all our deepest longings and desires, would be timeless. All of us in the conversation felt a little bit uncomfortable with the assertion that heaven is timeless. After all, we don't even really know what it is to have an experience without time. Being Christians, we all believe that our souls will be eternally embodied. Having a body implies change and thus life in time. So isn't heaven just an endless stretch of time? In the passage we read, Kreeft immediately addressed such a notion. His point was that heaven had to be more than our earthly experience of change and time because it simply doesn't satisfy. So we were stuck. Then my friend, Shea, moved us beyond mere bewilderment by pointing out that the way we experience time here on earth has the connotation of decay. Pondering this observation, I morbidly built on the point that even in an almost timeless moment, such as a first kiss, we move a moment closer to death. Entropy is a fact of this life and colors our understanding of time; in fact, it becomes almost synonymous with time when we think about autumn changing into winter and judging longevity by noticing how dilapidated so-and-so area of the city has become. We hear our grandparents say, "I remember when such-and-such place was so nice to live in and now you wouldn't want to take a walk there in the day time." Kreeft went on to describe the "time" in heaven as a point existing apart from the line that we would call our life. Our life begins and ends. Heaven, he said, is like looking at the line straight on. It is measured in a different way that is somewhat difficult to put words to. I think what he was getting at is this: in heaven change still occurs and thus time exists there. Lewis and Kreeft are not wrong on the point, but when they say heaven can satisfy our longing for timelessness, what they mean is that time is looked at and experienced completely differently. Instead of being defined, or at least described, by entropy time is instead characterized by new life. Each moment in heaven brings a fullness not experienced the moment before. If life on earth for the Christian now is like a chart showing the stock market with its abrupt highs and lows gradually getting better, life in heaven will look like a smooth exponential line. Entropy will be replaced by life. Instead of tripping and spraining one's ankle in heaven, one will suddenly find their ankle even stronger for trip and will find it was the first step in a wonderful dance! This is not all to say that the conept of timelessness should now be understandable. It is actually to say the opposite. It cannot be understandable because we don't quite know what it means for more life to emerge from the passing of time without the decay. But doesn't it sound better? Lord, come quickly!

Part IV - What is "information"?

2006-01-09T23:57:00.000-08:00

Many thanks to Radar, a newcomer, for his thoughtful comments and his referencing real research in the areas we are discussing and attempting to shed light on. Radar, I assume you have encountered a few answers to the question "What exactly is 'information'?" I would invite you to read my quickly-collected thoughts below, and add whatever you might think beneficial. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren's task was as follows: Intelligent Design proponents simply do not define "intelligent." They will also say that there is too much "information" in the genome to have evolved, but cannot define "information." Having dealt briefly (whether satisfactorily or no) with the term 'intelligent'; I would now like to attempt a definition of "information." It is mere regurgitation of something I have found particularly helpful and challenging in the book Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, which is an impressive, encyclopedic piece of research, covering the history of Christianity, some basic, populuar-level epistomology, and the presuppositions of the currently prevelant philosophy of science. The argument cited by Warren runs: "information," which is supposedly found in the human genome, cannot be produced from simpler elements to more complex. His challenge is to define the nebulous term "information." Pearcey gives for a definition of information, and argues that the above argument is stronger than it might seem. She argues that the above is not an argument from ignorance, but that it is an argument from principle. Types of Pattern Now, there are four kinds of pattern. 1. Random selection (from a limited pool). 2. Simple repetition. 3. Cyclic repetition. 4. Information. Examples of each: 1. ABKQNOKDJQOKGHOCN. 2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. 3. ABCABCABCABCABCABC. 4. THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG. Sources of Each Type How do we arrive at each of these? #1. can be produced by the formula "A or B or C or D or E (on through the 26 possibilities)... plus A or B or C or D or E... plus" and so on, with 17 total additions. #2. can be produced by the formula "A times 17" #3. can be produced by the formula "ABC times 6" #4. can only be produced by the formula "THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG times 1" A preliminary definition of Information This fourth kind of pattern is the only one that counts as information, because a) it is meaningful as a whole, and b) its meaning cannot be "built" out of its parts. While chance can produce random collections of letters (from a given pool), it cannot produce information. While law can produce simple repetition, it cannot produce information. While chance plus law can produce limited cyclical repetition, it cannot produce information. Only a mind can produce information. There's a preliminary definition, and, again, I invite correction/commentary from Radar or anyone who has studied this subject more thoroughly than I. Information as such, found in the Human Body Now, DNA patterns in the human body are more like the 4th kind of pattern (ie Information) than the other two. Certain genetic chains translate into certain tasks when "read" by the appropriate proteins. These chains are not merely two codes with their own "meaning" added to eachother to create a sum of the two meanings. Two independently meaningful codes produce a third meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts. When observed occuring naturally and mindlessly in the human body, this is, well... its kinda eeiry. Notice that this argument is one from principle, not from ignorance. We are not giving up and saying, "We do not yet know how a complex genome evolved out of simpler ones, so let's call it something else." Rather we are confidently saying, "It is impossible that information arise out of patterns governed by law or chance." A few more examples: Random selection, from a pool of 10 arabian numerals (chance) = 65198432491649849546546 654651324935856519894654 Simple Repetition (law) = ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Pattern (law plus chance)= ICANTBELIEVEITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIEVE ITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIVEITSMIDNIGHT. Information (designed by a person) = MIDWAYTHISWAYOFLIFEWE'REBOUNDUPON/ IAWOKETOFINDMYSELFINASTRANGEWOOD/ THERIGHTROADWASWHOLLYLOSTANDGONE. The fourth sentence example had to be created "with the end in mind." It could not, in principle have evolved from a set alphabet of simpler letters, repeating in obedience to any law of repetition or cycle.

(More ID vs. E) A Distinction between "Mechanism" and "Originating Cause"

2006-01-09T23:15:00.000-08:00

Many people are trying to understand the answer to this question: "Where did all the complexity come from?" IDers say, "It came from an intelligent designer," Evolvers say, "It came from previous simplicity, gradually increasing in complexity." In the previous post, Warren made this challenge: "An intelligent designer" doesn't explain anything, scientifically, unless we can explain how he's doing it." He summarized, "Intention is not an explanation. Things don't get intended into existence." With which I fully agree. There is a difference between mechanism, and originating cause. It is the difference between "How" and "Why," the difference between a pool cue striking an ivory ball into a pocket, and a person who's trying to win a game. I do not claim to know the mechanism for how things got made, I claim to see clues that suggest they were made on purpose.

a refreshingly clear definition

2006-01-05T03:36:00.000-08:00

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence. ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion."

Part IV - What is "information"?

2006-01-05T03:00:00.000-08:00

Many thanks to Radar, a newcomer, for his thoughtful comments and his referencing real research in the areas we are discussing and attempting to shed light on. Radar, I assume you have encountered a few answers to the question "What exactly is 'information'?" I would invite you to read my quickly-collected thoughts below, and add whatever you might think beneficial. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Warren's task was as follows: Intelligent Design proponents simply do not define "intelligent." They will also say that there is too much "information" in the genome to have evolved, but cannot define "information." Having dealt briefly (whether satisfactorily or no) with the term 'intelligent'; I would now like to attempt a definition of "information." It is mere regurgitation of something I have found particularly helpful and challenging in the book Total Truth by Nancy Pearcey, which is an impressive, encyclopedic piece of research, covering the history of Christianity, some basic, populuar-level epistomology, and the presuppositions of the currently prevelant philosophy of science. The argument cited by Warren runs: "information," which is supposedly found in the human genome, cannot be produced from simpler elements to more complex. His challenge is to define the nebulous term "information." Pearcey gives for a definition of information, and argues that the above argument is stronger than it might seem. She argues that the above is not an argument from ignorance, but that it is an argument from principle. Types of Pattern Now, there are four kinds of pattern. 1. Random selection (from a limited pool). 2. Simple repetition. 3. Cyclic repetition. 4. Information. Examples of each: 1. ABKQNOKDJQOKGHOCN. 2. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. 3. ABCABCABCABCABCABC. 4. THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG. Sources of Each Type How do we arrive at each of these? #1. can be produced by the formula "A or B or C or D or E (on through the 26 possibilities)... plus A or B or C or D or E... plus" and so on, with 17 total additions. #2. can be produced by the formula "A times 17" #3. can be produced by the formula "ABC times 6" #4. can only be produced by the formula "THEQUICKBROWNFOXJUMPSOVERTHELAZYDOG times 1" A preliminary definition of Information This fourth kind of pattern is the only one that counts as information, because a) it is meaningful as a whole, and b) its meaning cannot be "built" out of its parts. While chance can produce random collections of letters (from a given pool), it cannot produce information. While law can produce simple repetition, it cannot produce information. While chance plus law can produce limited cyclical repetition, it cannot produce information. Only a mind can produce information. There's a preliminary definition, and, again, I invite correction/commentary from Radar or anyone who has studied this subject more thoroughly than I. Information as such, found in the Human Body Now, DNA patterns in the human body are more like the 4th kind of pattern (ie Information) than the other two. Certain genetic chains translate into certain tasks when "read" by the appropriate proteins. These chains are not merely two codes with their own "meaning" added to eachother to create a sum of the two meanings. Two independently meaningful codes produce a third meaning that is greater than the sum of its parts. When observed occuring naturally and "mindlessly" in the human body, this is, needless to say, kind of eeiry. Notice that this argument is one from principle, not from ignorance. We are not giving up and saying, "We do not yet know how a complex genome evolved out of simpler ones, so let's call it something else." Rather we are confidently saying, "It is impossible that information arise out of patterns governed by law or chance." A few more examples: Random selection, from a pool of 10 arabian numerals (chance) = 65198432491649849546546 654651324935856519894654 Simple Repetition (law) = ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; Pattern (law plus chance)= ICANTBELIEVEITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIEVE ITSMIDNIGHTICANTBELIVEITSMIDNIGHT. Information (designed by a person) = MIDWAYTHISWAYOFLIFEWE'REBOUNDUPON/ IAWOKETOFINDMYSELFINASTRANGEWOOD/ THERIGHTROADWASWHOLLYLOSTANDGONE. The fourth sentence example had to be created "with the end in mind." It could not, in principle have evolved from a set alphabet of simpler letters, repeating in obedience to any law of repetition or cycle.

Part III - What does "intelligent" mean?

2006-01-03T11:38:00.000-08:00

A hearty thanks to Warren for his thoughtful responses. There is a second misunderstanding that I have observed twice or thrice, here or there. It is a simple and understandable one, having to do with the term "intelligent." Warren conveniently supplied me with an instance of the misunderstanding here: "...Yet it cannot define "intelligent," and so cannot make any falsifiable predictions. For example, a man's urethra, passes through his prostate which is prone to inflammation later in life causing all kinds of problems. That does not appear to be "intelligent." ... If a designer is intelligent, one might expect him to reuse the innovation from one organism on any other. But in an evolved system, an organism can only use and make minor modifications to traits inherited from its ancestors. So then which hypothesis explains why birds and bats, both engineered for flying, do not share traits such as hollow bones, feathers, and wishbones? Could an eagle not benefit from a canine-like mouth? Maybe beaks are better for flying. But then why did bats not get any?" There are plenty of examples to be amassed about parts or systems of nature not working correctly. Quite simply, this is not the point. Perhaps a better term than "Intelligent Design" is "Intentional design." Intelligence simply refers to a thoughtful, willful agent acting with a purpose. How "intelligent" this person is in accomplishing their purpose is quite irrelevant. The interpretation of certain irreducibly complex systems like the Flagellum Motor is this: "The evidence suggests that this system, which cannot (yet) be accounted for by evolution, but is already well explained by intention." Rather than ask, "If there is an 'Intelligent Designer', why do some things work poorly? Rather ask, "If there is no designer, why does anything work at all?" Right now, the best explanation for the "suprising fact" that the universe "appears to be designed" is.. Well, that it was intentionally designed.

Part II - What, then, IS intelligent design?

2006-01-02T23:57:00.000-08:00

It is an interpretation of the evidence found in the observable universe. *In interpreting evidence, there are three types of causes used by scientists. 1. Law, 2. chance, and 3. intention (or design). 1. Law explains things like the rate of speed an apple will fall to the earth if dropped from 40 feet. Chance and intention to do not enter in. 2. Chance explains the number of dots that will appear face up if a pair of dice are thrown 38 times in a row. Law and intention do not enter in. 3. Intention explains things like a dead man, lying in a forest with three bullet wounds in the head. Law and chance do not enter in. The conclusion of intelligent design is simply this: the order of the cosmos (small and large) is best explained by this third kind of cause, namely, it is probably the result of some intelligence acting willfully towards a desired end. All forms of science draw from each of these explanatory causes, but for the sake of context, I've provided a brief list of sciences that depend heavily on one of these three. Branches of study relying on Law: Mathematics, Physics (somewhat), Philosophy (somewhat), etc. Branches of study relying on Chance: Mathematics, Economics, etc. Branches of study relying on Design: Forensic Science, Psychology, Literature, Archeology, History, Criminology, etc. The argument is simply that Physics is one of those sciences wherein intentionality is discovered as a cause. There need be no fear of an unthinking acceptance of any one or the other religious system as a part of acknowledging what is currently the best, most likely hypothesis available for explaining what we see.

Part I - What is NOT Intelligent Design?

2006-01-02T22:26:00.000-08:00

Twice I have heard certain critiques levelled against intelligent design theory and its proponents that do not seem to me to comment on the actual theory. I would like to present this critique now and point out that is not actually critique of intelligent design, but a critique of some misunderstood modification thereof. As a critique of this as yet unnamed third theory, it is devestating. Of intelligent design theory per se, it is not a critique at all. Critique of some theory #1: Federal Judge John E. Jones III... called [intelligent design] a "mere re-labeling of creationism" and said it amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. What intelligent design is not, part 1: Intelligent design is not Christian, is not Creationism in the normal sense of the term, nor is it even Theistic. It is a scientific hypothesis born out of observation of our very perplexing universe.* Critique of some theory #2: "I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him." First of all this is hilarious. Second of all, it does not, sadly, comment on the important issues surround the origins debate. The critique being levelled, if I may be permitted to "propositionalize" the joke, is that invoking a god or gods as the creator of things, without seeing him, knowing anything about him (them), or even making sense of his (their) attributes, is absurdity beyond absurdity. Well and good! God does make sense to some people, I have no problem with that. What intelligent design is not, part 2: Intelligent design makes no comment (as of yet) as to who this intelligence is. Whether it is a spaghetti monstor, a lepricon, or James Taylor, having become supremly powerful and omniscient, going back in time to design our universe to support life... this is not currently at question. The first question for science is, "The universe has irreducibly complex systems within it. What hypothesis explains this data?" I do hope this clarification is helpful to some people. Please let me know if it is not, or if I am missing something.

4. Interpreting Mulberries

2005-12-18T14:38:00.000-08:00

In this ongoing exploration of knowledge, the time has come for me to offer an explanation of what I mean by an interpretive grid, that perhaps rather nebulous thing that seems to come between the individual and the cosmos. The following is an attempt to answer the fourth question raised in response to my original question about knowledge. Links to previous discussions are provided below. 4. What is an interpretive grid and what does it do to the raw data? Is there a non-metaphorical way of talking about the "cooking" of the raw data? Perhaps more importantly, if there is "cooking" going on, what is the nature of our access to IT (the cooking)? Do we watch it happening? Infer that it is happening? If we watch it, what does it "look" like? If we infer it, from what premises? By interpretive grid I mean that collection of beliefs, experiences, desires, dispositions, and propensities to act which determine the manner in which an individual thinks about and responds to external inputs and data. The interpretive grid determines the categories with which an individual might collect and sort the data he receives. It enables him to see and/or understand things as such-and-such; it is the means by which raw input is ordered and interacted with by the individual. It seems that the operation of the individual's interpretive grid on the raw data is observable, to some degree at least. Through introspection, a person can take stock of many of his beliefs, desires, and dispositions and analyze the ways in which those beliefs are operating on the new data which is being presented to him. However, the interpretive grid does not seem to be completely accessible to the individual because some portion of it is in use as long as the individual is thinking, experiencing, analyzing, or observing. The means by which an individual interprets the world is a part of him, a part of his thinking, analyzing, and understanding and must be turned in on itself in the act of introspection. The problem created by the existence of the interpretive grid is not that it necessarily bars one from knowing the truth about the world, however it does seem to bar one from knowing that he has true beliefs. In other words, the individual cannot compare his beliefs about X as such-and-such with X itself; he does not have access to the thing itself due to the mediation of his beliefs, dispositions, etc. which arise between his self and the object. This seems to create a situation in which the individual is tragically isolated from all other things, imprisoned behind a grid that at best is a very clear window, and at worst is a wall of stone through which no light can peek. Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush: Foundational Principles of Knowledge 1. Mulberry Pickin's: The Relationship Between Being Foundational and Being Unassailable 2. Mulling on Mulberries: The Significance of Differences in Belief Among Intelligent People 3. What's A Mulberry (To You)?: The Limits of Perspective on Obtaining Objective Truth

the vegetarian life

2005-12-15T22:36:00.000-08:00

The girl that I am in love with has recently become a vegetarian. Being a vegetarian is not normal. Vegetables are nice. I like them. The girl I love is nice. I like her. but being a vegetarian is not normal. However, the prospect of eating only vegetables (and cheese, etc. etc. i.e. eating only everything but meat) has made me think carefully and existentially about food. I say existentially because I'm wondering how much of our experience with food derives from food, as opposed to our imaginings about food, or the significances we attribute to eating certain foods, etc. My first reaction to the thought of "going vegetable," as I might call it, must have come from one of the involuntary muscle groups I think, if muscles can cause emotional responses. Because I did not need to think about how to respond, or think even about what "going vegetable" might entail for me, there was just simply and suddenly a great big sense of being aghast. My mouth might have hung open a bit. I probably blinked once or twice. I was thinking about In 'n Out. I probably licked my lips. I was thinking about Orange Chicken and chow mein. I was thinking about all the blessed number of hamburger variations out there. I just kept thinking about meat and meat and meat, accompanied, as I mentioned with a distinct sense of being completely aghast. I don't even think I was particularly cognizant of the connection between the Sushi Crab rolls in my mind and the aghast sensation all through my body, but only that they were in very deep conflict with each other. I can't say how long this lasted. But within the week I was able to move on, and I began to process "going vegetable-ism" with the much greater control (which some presume to call clarity, though I'm not so sure) that our heads give us. I don't know how to explain this, or convince any of you about this, so, I'm just going to assert it: the pleasure that comes from food itself is negligable, meaning, you can neglect it and be fine. Steaks are yummy. I don't think anyone's contesting that. But yummyness itself is negligable. I realized that there is a disparity between the full significance and pleasure I get out of eating meat, and the actual pleasure that is in eating meat. Call me crazy. But I bet you're crazy too. Why? is the next question. On one hand, in my head, I can totally swallow the idea of giving up meat. But then I find that I have these attachments to meat that far exceed what meat even has to offer. It's the very same way with any one thing that we get really excited about. Nothing sucks quite as much as exposing your unharnessed excitement for T. S. Eliot to a well versed scholar of poetry who then replies, "Yeah, Eliot's pretty good." And suddenly you realize that Eliot is a human poet who wrote human poetry while all this time you've been reading him as a endless genius god of poetry. But when the well-versed prick of poetry calls the spade a spade... all you can do is admit that you were caught up in an excitement that exceeded the poem's actual successes or failures. On the other hand, nothing is greater than to connect with another person who is as unreasonably excited and lost in the enjoyment of the same thing you are. What do we make of that? It seems it isn't hard to be the stoic. You will perhaps always win the argument. but there is some sort of virtue, perhaps, in discovering more pleasure in a thing than the thing is worth. But there too is a fine line between that and idolatry. idolatry too is the taking of pleasure or placing of hope in a thing beyond what the thing is worth. I have now opened more cans of worms that I have hooks to fish with. And I must leave these thoughts off squirming as they are either to bake in the sun and crust on to the dock or else to find their own way back to cool soil where someone else can dig them up again and sell them to some other fisherman who isn't as sleepy as I am right now and needs to go to bed as badly. alright, enough.

Congrats to Joe Carter

2005-12-15T22:31:00.000-08:00

Joe Carter, one of my favorite bloggers, has won the "Best Religious Blog" category of the Weblog Awards, 2005. Mere-O garnered a healthy 98 votes, which is encouraging, given our competition. Thank you to all those who helped us stay ahead of Mere-O friend Charles Lehardy! In other news, I am going on blogging hiatus for the rest of 2005. I am disappearing tomorrow to finish a project I have been working on for some time--a book that I am hoping to vanity publish (thanks for the term, Jon) in January. Finally, starting January 1st, watch for exciting changes here at Mere-O. 2006 is going to be an exciting year for Mere-O, and we're eagerly anticipating its arrival!

One Complaint About Narnia...

2005-12-15T09:09:00.000-08:00

I hesitate to post this because I think the Narnia film very, very good. The film captured the major ideas of the book, which is all you can ask for. The second time I saw it, I liked it far better than the first time because I had more perspective as far as evaluating the film in its own medium. But the one thing I haven't heard anyone talk about yet that truly bothered me both times I saw it was the constant sarcasm amongst the children as well as the desire to go home. My guess is Andrew Adamson, director of Shrek, has a sense of humor and a framework that is prone to sarcasm. Also, I'm sure at some point in the making of the script someone suggested Lewis made his characters too good and they needed to make them more "realistic." That is why in the film we have Peter being condescending to Edmond even towards the end, we have the sweetest of little girls, Lucy, making a sarcastic comments to Susan when they all get into Narnia and when she calls her older sister "boring." The beauty of the characters of the children in Lewis' books is that they conjure a deep desire in you to be good. The books show that morality is the truest adventure: one does not have to be "edgy" to find fulfillment. Lewis accomplishes this in his books in a completely believable way - it wouldn't be so inspiriting otherwise. I missed this theme in the film, but they have plenty of chance to make it up in subsequent films in the chronicles.

"Life" by George Herbert

2005-12-15T02:17:00.000-08:00

I had a birthday last week, and, as a part of the evening celebration, took a moment to "zoom out" on my life. The psalmist reminds us that human life is like grass, or clouds. It is brief and passes by. In light of this brevity, What are those things worth doing? What is not just futility? George Herbert wrote a poem about an experience he had. It is a pleasant little piece, and makes a suggestion about what is worthwhile. In this moment of reflection his words came as a conviction and comfort. Take a moment, if you like, to smell this small flower of a poem.

"Life"

I made a posy, while the day ran by;

Here will I smell my remnant out, and tie

My life within this band.

But time did beckon to the flowers, and they

By noon most cunngly did steal away,

And withered in my hand.

My hand was next to them, and then my heart:

I took, without more thinking, in good part

Time's gentle admonition:

Who did so sweetly death's sad taste convey,

Making my mind to smell my fatal day;

Yet sug'ring the suspicion.

Farewell dear flowers, sweetly your time ye spent,

Fit, while ye lived, for smell or ornament,

And after death for cures.

I follow straight without complaints or grief,

Since if my scent be good, I care not, if

It be as short as yours.

Athanasius on Postmodernism

2005-12-14T08:02:00.000-08:00

Of course, Athanasius (denizen of the 4th century as he was) knew nothing of postmodernism. Nevertheless, his wonderful treatise On the Incarnation refutes a typical Christian postmodern criticism. A major motivation for the postmodern Christians I've met - and Daniel Fuller author of Unity of the Bible and a Christians who may not declare himself as postmodern, but uses similar phraseology - is to cut off the shackles of the bankrupt "modern" Christianity and move beyond. What exactly "beyond" means is a point of much controversy, but the point is to become "A New Kind of Christian", especially through engaging the narrative of the Bible in a new way. One consequence of this idea is that we ought to throw out systematic theology and philosophical sounding reasoning about the Bible. Fuller and a self-declared postmodern Christian friend of mine hardly represent the whole movement but the gist of the argument is that Christians can't do systematic theology because it takes them away from the all important narrative. As any true inerrantist, I fully agree that we must make the Bible the foundation of our belief structure. But instead of throwing off the so-called shackles of the past and becoming critical of all those who have passed down the traditions to us, we must devour the works of great fathers of the past like never before. Athanasius is one of those men. He demonstrates for us how to stay rooted in the Scripture while doing systematic theology. The first and largest section of his treatise is devoted to the Coming of the Word and the Victory of the Cross. He lays out from the time of creation why we human beings need the Word to come and save us. He doesn't just quote the Bible, but he captures the central ideas and movements of the Scripture and shows how Christ, His death and resurrection bring all to completion. So this Christmas season don't rush to the next promise of "new" and "cool". Head back for the rich tradition that will ultimately challenge us in a way the most cutting skeptic never could. Read a man like Athanasius, trying to fend off heretical Arians from orthodoxy, and find a treatise founded on the story of God's redemption of mankind. That will get you charged up for December 25 and will cause you to consider what it meant for God to become a man, walk among us and even die for us. Become an old kind of Christian.

Haldane on Philosophy

2005-12-11T23:38:00.000-08:00

I previously blogged about Professor John Haldane's new appointment at the Vatican. As I was perusing the high-brow ecumenical journal First Things, I was excited to run across an article on philosophy by Haldane entitled "What Philosophy Can Do." In it, Haldane summarizes and critiques the current state of philosophy. He contends that the divorce between the the untrained thinker and the trained professional stems from the misguided understanding of the role and nature of philosophy. Specifically, it has become divorced from the interests and language of the naturally curious because it has neglected the issues of mind, soul, and God. Haldane's positive thesis regarding philosophy is interesting and persuasive--it amounts to a rejection of a notion of abstract thinking that philosophy inherited from Liebniz and Hume. If nothing else, it explains why "possible world" modality may not actually be useful for describing and interpreting reality. If you can, read the whole thing. It's well written and worth the effort.

3. What's A Mulberry (To You)?

2005-12-11T13:51:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I feel like the monkey who chased the weasel 'round and 'round the mulberry bush in trying to understand how one can know he has discovered truth. In an attempt to stop the circle and moved forward, I asked the following question:

What are the foundational (and therefore unassailable) principles and criteria by which an individual may set forth to distinguish Truth from Error? How are these principles and criteria truly and justifiably known?

In response to this question a number of other questions were raised. This is a continuation of my response to those questions. Links to the rest of the conversation are at the bottom of this post. 3. What is the relationship between being limited to (stuck "in") one's own perspective and having (or not having) access to objective truth? If having a perspective which is different from the perspecitves of others is the problem [i.e., the thing that keeps individuals from accessing objective truth], then is the God's-eye perspective really any better? Is God stuck with the God's-eye perspective? Or can he choose another one? An individual (which includes having and being limited to a particular perspective) may have access to objective truth if truth is the sort of thing that can be had through operation of human faculties such as sense and reason. For the purpose of this discussion, let us assume that truth is this sort of thing. So, in principle, those humans that rightly exercise their minds and senses will come to know objectively true things about themselves and the world. "This is cold," "That is hot," "This is love," "That is God,"--all statements which are coherent and possibly true--are arrived at through a particular perspective, through a particular interpretation of an individual's experiences and application of one's cognitive faculties. It is necessary for individuals to come to interact with the world in this way and to come to know the world through the exercise of their bodies and minds as there seems to be no other way for information (including knowledge) to enter the soul. However, the necessity of the individual perspective in approaching the world seems to be the greatest obstacle from knowing that one indeed does know objectively true things. The obstacle arises from being limited by one's perspective to see and understand things as "such-and-such"--seeing and understanding things to be as they appear to me. Given our assumption above about the nature of truth, it is possible that an indivdual may correctly see and understand something as "such-and-such" (i.e. the thing really is the way it appears to the individual to be); however, the individual has no way of knowing that his perspective or perception has yielded true knowledge since he is limited by that perspective to see it in a particular way. No way of knowing, that is, unless there are some principles of interpretation that can guarantee a correct interpretation of the object being viewed or studied. The God's-eye perspective is, in this sense, simply one more perspective among perspectives. The superiority of the God's-eye perspective comes not in it being a non-perspective, but rather in being the perpsective that has all the relevant information and principles of interpretation, allowing one to know things as they really are. Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush: Foundational Principles of Knowledge 1. Mulberry Pickin's: The Relationship Between Being Foundational and Being Unassailable 2. Mulling on Mulberries: The Significance of Differences in Belief Among Intelligent People

Radio Recap

2005-12-10T21:43:00.000-08:00

I just returned from being on the radio. B-. I've realized that being articulate while under the pressure of time is very challenging for me. He also asked a few questions that I drew blanks on, which was particularly frustrating. But I opened with a good line, so perhaps that will go a ways toward redemption. Mere-O friend Joshua Claybourn of IntheAgora would have been surprised at my language regarding Narnia. As I mentioned, the film isn't perfect, but I chose not to mention those parts I thought weak because on the whole, I thoroughly enjoyed it. In particular, Aslan's charachter was underdeveloped, making the crucifiction scene less impacting. Additionally, I thought the White Witch especially bad. Though not as effective as it could have been, the movie was not a disappointment. There wasn't, I thought, a huge gap between the promised product and the actual delivery, largely due to Lewis's careful and powerful storyline and enjoyable performances by the Beavers and the Pevensies.

Movie Review: Narnia

2005-12-10T00:29:00.000-08:00

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, a movie I have long anticipated, did not disappoint. It was not perfect--and by that I do not mean that it substantially deviated from the book--but it was cathartic, uplifting, and thoroughly enjoyable. The movie opens in surprising fashion for those who have read the texts, but the twist is effective. The opening shot of a Nazi pilot dropping bombs on London immediately establishes the tone--there is no middle ground in the fight between good and evil. Additionally, it contextualizes the events that occur in Narnia and suggests that the battle between good and evil is not limited to that enchanted land, but continues here and now. The rest of the movie is thoughtful and fun. The Beavers are more than delightful. Lucy is as charming as others have suggested. The final battle seen is excellently crafted. But the story centers upon Edmund and his betrayal, and it is Edmund who delivers a solid, compelling performance--his awareness of his sinfulness when revealed to Tumnus as the betrayer is palpable. It is Edmund's smile that is broadest, as if he is bubbling over with joy, when they first see the thrones and no wonder, for his was won at the greatest cost. But the story is more than Edmund. It is also Peter, whose courage in the battle will inspire ten-year-olds (and some twenty-three year-olds) everywhere to charge against the White Witch. The story is also Susan, whose reluctance to fight evil nearly destroys the three Pevensies. It is Lucy, the spirited one, whose devotion to goodness is relentless and endearing. It is Aslan, whose sacrifice trumps the White Witch's skepticism about the power and effectiveness of love. Though some parts of the movie were slow, though some performances found wanting, the movie is a beacon of optimism and hope. It is a story that does not shy away from pain, sadness or sinfulness, but begins in them and redeems them, ending with a joyous chase of the White Stag through the Narnia woods. In that respect, it could be considered Father Christmas' gift to an often cold and wintery world.

Matt's Narnia Update: Review forthcoming and on the Radio

2005-12-09T18:52:00.000-08:00

I've posted fairly frequently on Narnia-related topics recently (see here, here, here and here). It comes to an end tonight--we have tickets to see it at 9:45. I am hoping to pull together a review afterward, as Hugh is giving away radios and my best reviews usually happen immediately after watching the film. Additionally, I will be on KKLA tomorrow (Saturday) evening at 8:00 p.m. PST discussing the film and related issues with Dr. John Mark Reynolds. If not so blessed as to live in range, you can listen online here.

Kudos to Psuedo-Polymath

2005-12-08T00:26:00.000-08:00

Over at the WeblogAwards, Mark Olson of Pseudo-Polymath is up for best blog of the Top 3501-5000 blogs. Go vote for him. Mark is easily one of the most literate bloggers I read every day. His blog is always thought-provoking, and often over my head. He also introduced me to Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar, an amazing collection of essays and selections on courtship and marriage. You can count on a few citations working their way into my upcoming book...