If I started a band, I’d try as hard as I could to touch this. The funny thing is that even if I achieved it nobody local would like it. The kids these days just don’t like good music. There, I’m officially a grumpy old man. Anyway, here’s Elvis Costello and the Attractions at the peak of the their early period.
It might be rude, I can’t really tell.
We have universal healthcare in Canada and we’re very proud of it. Our politicians brag about it all the time. Why don’t we have a similar universal food program in Canada?
If we had to pay for healthcare, the rich would get better care than the rest of us, right?
The idea behind universal healthcare is that your monetary wealth shouldn’t determine your access to healthcare. The poor deserve the best healthcare just as much as the rich.
Isn’t the same true of food? Don’t the poor deserve the best food just as much as the rich? Isn’t it obvious that the rich are healthier (at least in part) because they can afford far better food? What about exercise clubs?
Here’s an interesting article by James J. A. Smith. It is called Teaching a Calvinist to Dance. It is a kind of personal testimony and apology (i.e. apologetic) for being both Reformed and Pentecostal.
I couldn’t disagree more with his enthusiastic embrace of Pentecostalism.
I know, nothing is more thrilling for an author (and yet so boring for his readers) than criticizing a fellow Christian on the web. And few things are more evident of self-righteousness than ill-tempered, uncharitable criticism.
Still, I can’t help but disagree. Read the article yourself and come to your own conclusion.
As for me, Pentecostalism is a kind of cancer that eats away at Christ centered piety in the church. I see the Pentecostal/charismatic world as a bastion of spiritual abuse. Taking the Lord’s name in vain seems to be standard practice. (I take that to mean using the name and the authority of the Lord to back up one’s own projects and desires. ”God told me to do this!” ”The Lord would have us do that!”) Pentecostalism is an ugly, power hungry version of Christianity.
At least that’s what Pentecostalism is to me, according to my personal encounters with it in real Pentecostal churches and with real Pentecostal people. I’ve attended Pentecostal churches and have some friends who still do. I’ve interacted with tons of Pentecostals at the bible college I attended. I have no doubt there are many saintly folks among the Pentecostal set. It may even be that the official teaching of Pentecostalism (if such a thing exists) disapproves of these kinds of abuses. Still, my lived experience of Pentecostalism was saturated with this stuff.
Whereas most people outside of the church think that fundamentalism is the big threat, in fact it is Pentecostalism that poses the great danger. It is the Pentecostals who think they have direct line to God. It is the Pentecostals who seem so unwilling to exercise their critical faculties. Pentecostal leaders can hardly be reigned in and kept in check–they speak for God himself. If you are worried about Pat Robertson and his kind, you are worried about Pentecostalism.
I’ve encountered first hand far too many “words from the Lord” from Pentecostals which turned out to be complete and utter falsehoods. I simply don’t buy it anymore. Don’t try it with me. (Don’t take me as saying that God doesn’t lead us. God does. But that is a very different thing from the Pentecostal/charismatic practice of constantly receiving “words” directly from the Lord. So many of these “words” are obviously not from God.)
Smith has this to say:
In particular, I think Pentecostal spirituality and charismatic worship take the sovereignty of God so seriously that you might actually be surprised by God every once in a while. You are open and expectant that the Spirit of God is sometimes going to surprise you, because God is free to act in ways that might differ from your set of expectations.
In my experience, nothing is LESS surprising and LESS unexpected that the kinds of “acts of God” which pop up during Pentecostal/charismatic worship. These things are very predictable. For the life of me, I don’t know why more folks don’t call Pentecostals/charismatics out on this. The Pentecostal dog and pony show can be (and usually is?) just as empty and formulaic as your worst liturgical high-church nightmare.
What can I say? Maybe my view of things is skewed. But that’s how I see it for now. I’m not Pentecostal or charismatic, and I’m happy about it. I’m not Reformed either.
I’ve come across a bunch of youtube videos of news reports on racism in small town America. This got me thinking. Maybe I have lived a sheltered life. I grew up around the kind of Christians who would find overt racism completely ridiculous and incomprehensible. The first song I learned was probably “Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight…”
I’m a grad student at a university. Here too overt racism simply isn’t a live option. It has been so thoroughly shamed as to be laughable. We all have an instinctual distain for overt racism. We can’t help but feel shocked and shaken when we encounter even a whiff of racism. The only thing left to worry about is ’systemic racism’. BTW - I learned about systemic racism way back in grade 7. Grade 7!!! I can hardly remember a time in my life when I wasn’t trained and ready to be on guard for hints of racism. This, even though you could probably count the number of visible minorities in my hometown on a couple of sets of hands.
Anyway, for years now I’ve thought overt racism was nothing but a sad but distant memory. Sure, I’ve heard people tell me rude race based jokes (although to be honest right now I can’t think of any specific memories of this). But never for a moment did I suspect that the people who told these jokes harbored serious racist beliefs. They just liked telling rude jokes.
Maybe I’ve been hanging around too many Canadians, too many Christians and too many of the university set. I’m out of touch? Apparently small town America still harbors a bunch of overt racists. I’m talking about the kind of folks who go right out and say that they’d never vote for Obama simply because he’s black. They said as much directly into a TV camera with little to no shame.
Weird. I don’t get it.
Here’s a video of Bill O’Reilly going nuts on camera. What a blowhard.
Update: Here’s a hilarious remix of the above video. Somehow they turned it into a twisted gangsta rap song. If you are offended by rude language don’t click. F-bombs galore. Whatever is offensive about this came straight from O’Reilly’s mouth. This the cable TV face of conservatism? What a jerk. I chuckled through the whole thing.
I know physics does. I know biology does. I know chemistry does. But does science exist?
If by science you mean the collection of the sciences, then obviously science does exist.
But is there a thing called science which can speak with its own voice?
Who gets to say what counts as physics?
Someone will say that the physicists do. After all, they are the people doing physics, so they’re in the best position to know what physics is. Physics is what the physicists do, so if we want to know what physics is we need to ask the physicists what they’re doing.
But that’s circular, right? How do we know what a physicist is? They are the people who do physics. How do we what physics is? It is what the physicists do.
Given that it seems possible that the physicists could do something as physics which isn’t rightly physics (e.g. baking banana muffins), we can’t be satisfied with the circular definition.
The domain of inquiry which constitutes physics is handed to the physicists from somewhere else. It is known by other means than physics itself. Physics begins with the recognition of this domain of inquiry, it does not establish it.
Isn’t the same true of biology, chemistry and all the rest?
So I watched the Agenda with Steve Paikin last night. It was about public confidence in science. It was funny for a couple reasons.
First, a few of the guests seemed to have no concept of the problem of demarcation. The problem is that we don’t know how to sort out the scientific from the non-scientific, in any principled way. It might be easy to sort out some extreme cases (the tooth fairy). But if you think that the division is always clear, I’ll bet you haven’t thought carefully enough about it. The scientific community might have an established policy concerning what counts as scientific. But that doesn’t mean they have a principled basis for the policy, capable of withstanding philosophical scrutiny.
At least one of the guests seemed to think that the whole hullaballoo would dissolve if people only understood what science is. There is surely some truth this this, but in my judgment not nearly as much as you might think. What science is isn’t obvious, is it?
Second, one of the guests talked about what he called ‘the illusion of consensus on the matter of climate change’. Another of the guests, a pretty young research scientist, was asked to respond. Her only response was that she had no response. She smiled, batted her pretty eyes in utter disbelief, and said she simply had no response.
She said all her colleagues believe in climate change, she asserted climate change, she said climate change was a working assumption in much of her daily work as a research scientist, but she could say no more. Maybe this was the right response for her to make. But it didn’t address his specific point that the document people inevitably make reference to when they talk about the scientific consensus on climate change is not a true expression of scientific consensus (for a number of reasons).
Since she believes in climate change, she doesn’t need to consider the case against it. Given limited time and money, that might be how it works. But then the case for her beliefs on climate change isn’t ‘evidence based’ in the relevant sense. Instead, her beliefs are legitimated by the plausibility structure of the community which matters for her success, along with other evidentially irrelevant pragmatic factors.
My only point here is that this does not square with what the apologists of science have to say about science when they are trying to convince the unwashed masses of the greatness of science. They’re always bragging about how different they are from the humanities departments: they have to base all their beliefs on the evidence and they have to relinquish any belief that isn’t supported by the evidence. Sort of, but not quite.
The best observation of the evening was by a fellow who noted that people don’t distrust science per se, they distrust the corporations and institutions who bankroll science. Isn’t this distrust at least somewhat appropriate?
(BTW - if you read the preceding as a personal endorsement of anti-climate change beliefs you’ve misread me.)
Aristotle said man (humankind) is an animal with reason (a rational animal). This is the definition of man, not the definition of the name ‘man’. It is one thing to say how we use the word ‘man’. It is another thing to say what this thing is (man), which we use the word ‘man’ to pick out. People always get the definition of names and the definition of things confused.
‘Animal’ is the genus, and ‘rational’ is the specific difference.
The genus of ‘animal’ would be something like ‘living bodies’. The specific difference of ‘animal’ would probably be ’self-locomotion’. (This rules out plant life.)
The genus of living bodies would be ‘bodies’.
Anyway, if an alien landed on earth, presumably it would be an animal (a living, self-moving body) with reason. So then, according to Aristotle, it would be human. Even if it lacked genetic humanity, which is probably how we define humanity nowadays. Except that’s not really a definition, is it? A definition is supposed to tell us what a thing is, not describe one of its incidental properties. (If there really are rational animals without genetic humanity, then having genetic humanity is incidental to being a rational animal. Just like being black or white is incidental. Whether black or white, you’re still human.)
I honestly had no idea that this kind of overt racism still existed. Wow.
Here’s my favourite song right now. Two minutes of pop music perfection.
I’d sign this:
http://www.anevangelicalmanifesto.com/
I’d say I agree with its vision of Christian political engagement and political deliberation generally. Read it. The interesting political parts are near the end.
BTW - This document was not produced by the religious right. Read it.
Over the past day or so I’ve had 1000 hits to my Steve Paikin/Mark Steyn post. (Scroll down.) Wow. Mark Steyn’s website temporarily had a link to it, front and center on his site. (It is still there, but it is buried now.)
Heard about this documentary? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp)
Read this to see what’s going on here in Canada. (See this stuff too.) A major Canadian news magazine is being brought before a human rights tribunal for publishing generally unflattering articles on Islam. Three Muslim law students initiated the complaint against the magazine.
Here’s a tiny excerpt from the response of the editors of the magazine:
The students complained that the story and the cover image we used, presented a prejudicial and sinister image of the Muslim community and stoked unreasonable fears of a Muslim conspiracy to take over the world.
Sub in ‘Christian community’, ‘Christian conspiracy’ and ‘take over America’ and then you’ve got the same complaint against Jesus Camp. Isn’t it the case that more people in American will fear and hate Christians because of Jesus Camp? Well, then according to the current rules here in Canada, the makers of the film should be brought up on charges.
I’m against ALL tribunals of this kind, whether they stand to benefit some Christians or some Muslims. In the end they’re bad for everyone.
BTW - I haven’t seen Jesus Camp, but from what I’ve read about it, I’d say the “Christians” in the movie deserve to be publicly shamed.
It is a great and wonderful thing to be Christian.
Christianity is not an idealogy. In a sense it is not even a religion.
It is a great and wonderful thing to be reconciled to God by God. In and through His Church God encountered me and proclaimed the Gospel to me, offering Himself for my salvation and the salvation of the world.
To be Christian is to be on the way to somewhere amongst a great company of redeemed sinners, a pitiful bunch, who are on the way and yet not yet there.
Allow me to be frank, maybe even rude. We are a fucked up bunch, we Christians. Forgive me for my frankness. Seriously. The Gospel doesn’t require me to believe otherwise, and I believe it. Christ came to redeemed the sick and the lost. Here I am, sick and lost. On to the way to the heavenly city. If you are neither sick nor lost, move along. This is not for you.
Whatever else I know, I know this. It is a great and wonderful thing to be Christian. Here I stand, happily. On the way.
If you don’t understand this, if this scares you, I implore you to carefully consider what it is like to be me. Imagine what it is like to be Christian. Don’t right me off just because you don’t understand me, and I’ll return the favour.
The Agenda With Steve Paikin is probably the best television news magazine show in Canada. There, I said it.
It’d be hard to find better, more in depth, less sound-bitey current events television news show anywhere.
If you didn’t watch it tonight you missed out on the most exciting current events programming I’ve ever watched. Mark Steyn confronted the 3 Muslim students who initiated a human rights complaint against Macleans magazine, chiefly because of one of his articles published therein. Even though they had gone on record saying that all they want is to start a debate, they refused to debate him on the show. Instead Steyn was to be interviewed and then they were to be interviewed separately. In the midst of his interview he repeatedly offered to have the debate, right then and there, on live TV. Steve Paikin instructed the producer to play some video while he walked over to the students and asked them if they’d comply. (The show is comericial free.)
So right in the middle of a live taping, they set up a seat for Steyn in front of the students and they proceeded with the live taping. It was electric. You missed out.
I’m going to go ahead and waste time until 10 pm when Boston Legal comes on. It is probably my favourite TV show that is currently broadcasting. Who knew William Shatner was so damn funny?
Oh, and by the way, my wife is currently at a diner meeting with the president of the company she works for. I’m just sayin’. It has been a good night so far.
Read about the gambler’s fallacy here. The basic idea is this: it is false to think that, if a fair coin is flipped 10 times in row and tails comes up each time, heads will be more likely on the 11th flip.
If the coin is truly fair, the chances will be 50/50 every single time. So 11th flip will be 50/50 too.
It strikes me that those who call this a fallacy misunderstand those who think that the 11th is more likely to be heads than tails.
If you flip a coin a hundred times and every time it comes up tails, isn’t this good evidence that the coin isn’t a fair coin?
Sure, it is logically possible that tails will be flipped 100 times in row. But it has never happened to me or (probably) anyone you know. And if it did happen you’d be very suspicious that something funny was going on. Admit it. You’d be suspicious.
So while the 100th flip is still 50/50, that’s besides the point. What makes the head seem more likely after 99 tails is the joint meaning of the 100th flip together with the previous 99 flips. 100 tails in a row with a fair coin is unlikely, i.e. we don’t expect it to happen and if it did happen we’d be suspicious. (This is true even as we acknowledge that each flip has 50/50 chance of being tails.)
If the coin really is fair, then sooner or later heads will start being flipped. And, given that the coin is fair, we expect it will happen sooner rather than later. So heads seems more likely than tails.
The standard response to this is to admit that, before any coins have been flipped, the chances of 100 tails is low. But once some flips have been made the probability needs to be re-evaluated in light of these flips. So after 99 tails have been flipped, the chances of 100 tails in a row is considerably higher than before. But the fact that 100 tails is now more likely than before doesn’t mean the 100th is more likely than before to be tails. The chances are still 50/50.
But this completely misses the point. No one will deny that every flip of a fair coin is 50/50. Heads seems more likely because of its joint meaning together with other 99 tails flipped. This has nothing to do with the 100th flip itself. It has everything to do with its role in providing what is necessary for a very unlikely event - 100 straight tails. If 100 straight tails is indeed unlikely (and everyone admits this), then the conditions which would obtain this must be unlikely, right? For if the conditions were likely, then the 100 straight tails would be likely. But it is not. (Remember, we aren’t talking about these conditions taken in isolation, but according to their joint meaning as parts of a whole.)
As I see things, it all comes back to this: those who think that the gambler’s fallacy really is a fallacy think that rationality demands we consider each flip in isolation from the joint meaning it provides to a greater whole. But why think that? The standard response (see above) doesn’t give us a reason to think that. So don’t bother repeating the standard response to me. I don’t doubt that each flip is 50/50. I just think this has nothing to do with our rational and justifiable shock in the face of an ever increasing run of tails in a row.
Evidently I believe that it is perfectly consistent to believe: (a) that a flip is 50/50 and (b) it is also more likely to be a either a head or tail given its joint meaning in a greater whole.
Show me why I’m wrong.
The history of science reveals that we often believe the right things for the wrong reasons. Sometimes for embarrassingly wrong reasons. This suggests to me that our knowledge of things proceeds on a basis other than the explicit reasons we give. These explicit reasons are more like after-the-fact rationalizations. It seems that we know things before we know how we know them. So a lot of the intellectual heavy lifting that goes on is aimed at explaining and justifying what we seem to know by other means. If that’s all true, then it is the height of existential dishonesty when the champions of reason pretend that only explicit arguments and/or explicit scientific research furnishes us with knowledge.
The history of science also suggests that some of the scientific theories that seem most obvious today will be overturned or be drastically re-conceptualized in the future. This will happen because of unanticipated, surprise developments. Because of the surprising nature of these developments, we don’t know what we will be most embarrassed about in 30 years. We’ll have to wait until the surprises happen.
If it is irrational (or otherwise improper) to question the scientific consensus, wouldn’t rationality (or propriety) bring scientific progress to a halt? Admittedly, there would be a little bit of room for progress as we chased down all the implications entailed by the current scientific consensus. But don’t we expect surprises? Aren’t we at least open to surprise?
If it is wrong to question the scientific consensus, then aren’t we left trapped within the confines of this consensus? It is not as if we are free to move where the consensus moves. For the consensus will never move unless individuals or small groups first begin to step outside of it.
This website seems pretty cool: http://artofmanliness.com/
Why do I find this so funny? Here’s Charlie Rose interviewing himself.
