One of these days we’re simply going to give up some Mere-O real estate to Brother Jim (perhaps as a dissenting opinion). His latest post is a fantastic reminder why teaching is one of the most rewarding occupations in the world.
College pastor Rhett Smith has been blogging recently about the emergent church, a topic I know next-to-nothing about, but this post had me up thinking too late last night.
In the midst of rightly criticizing the vitriolic tone of many emergent church critics, Rhett made this claim:
Either you are operating in a modernistic mindset or you are operating in a postmodern mindset. And it seems the two shall never meet.
In the comments to his post, I responded:
I don’t have any thoughts at all about the emergent church, but I thought I would point out a third way. You mention that either people are modern or post-modern–I actually think that it’s still possible to live as a pre-modern. The categories are fuzzy, but the best of Medieval thought (Thomas) seems to allow for a rationally defensible worldview that is fideistic (not badly fideistic) and optimistic about truth acquisition. The modern mindset questions the former–the post-modern (which, I’ll point out, I’m no expert on either–I just recently bought Grenz’s primer on Po-Mo) seems to question the latter. So, all that to say, hooray for the third way.
As I thought more about this, it seems that if the categories hold (and I’m not sure they do), the only rationally defensible mindset is actually the pre-modern mindset, especially for Christians. The Christian virtues of faith, hope, and love demand, I think, a presumption of belief, rather than the presumption of skepticism that Descartes initiates. Additionally, as our faculties are designed by God, it seems they are oriented toward truth acquisition or attainment, so there is good reason to be optimistic in that respect as well. The post-modern critique seems to be that the lack of agreement destroys the claims that truth attainment is possible, but I fail to see how this follows, as in a pre-modern context where truth-attainment wasn’t questioned, disagreement still existed.
As Mere-O commentor Tom Gilson (any relation to Etienne?) pointed out below, Mere-O has been reduced from “Large Mammal” to “Adorable Little Rodent” (scroll down) in the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem.
The upshot is that with the recategorization, we jumped from #2276 to #1895. Next up on the list? Ed Brayton, libertarian thinker (I think I’m right on this, but might not be), ID critic, and sometime contributor to IntheAgora.
Judging by the amount of commentors at our neighbors, it won’t be too long before Mere-O drops yet again. Such is the fickle life of blog-rankings.
The questions raised by GT (is blog11 to be unveiled in the near future, by the way?) in response to my previous post were very relevant and thoughtful and each one seems to get at some aspect of the puzzle that is so worrisome to me; I hope to respond to each over the next few weeks or so. In an attempt to cease the mad rush around the mulberry bush, I offer these thoughts as an examination of what the individual berries may have to offer:
1. What is the relationship between being foundational and being unassailable? What would be the consequences if (pace Descartes, et. al.) the foundations turned out to be assailable after all?
Something is unassailable in two possible ways:
1. There is no way of testing the validity of the thing and so it cannot be assailed in any way
2. All the things that support the thing are tested and found to be true and to rest upon a
final principle which is itself true; that is, the attempted assailing if you will, was
unsuccessful.
A foundation may or may not be assailable in these ways. Most epistemological foundations, if they are unassailable at all, seem to be so in the first way. An unverifiable first principle (E1) is appealing because it allows for a foundation, for a point upon which one can stand and say, “This far and no farther.” E1 is completely self-justifying, yet this justification offers no help in discovering the validity of E1. If something is unassailable because it cannot possibly be tested it loses its appeal as a foundation; its validity and everything built upon it will always be a gamble.
An epistemological foundation which is unassailable in the second way (E2) seems ideal, but also as impossible as one of Escher’s mind-boggling staircases which wind downwards for an eternity and yet irritatingly always end upstairs–unless one has the good fortune to simply have this type of foundation or pick it up without knowing it. The reason for this is that an epistemological foundation must already be in place and functioning in order to make use of the criteria which allow one to discover that the final principle of E2 is itself true.
A foundation need not be unassailable at all; however, an assailable foundation comes with a price. It must constantly be defended and upheld, and all the beliefs that flow from it cannot be known to be true (insofar as the foundation is not known to be true and is thus assailable). The first part of this price (the constant defense) may not be too high, if one is up to the task; yet, it hardly seems practical for most of us hoi polloi. There must come a point when we either say, “Right or wrong, this is my position; the devil take the details,” or else wholly devote ourselves to the study and defense of those details. The second part of the price seems much higher. Living one’s life with the realization that all of one’s beliefs may or may not be true goes a long way towards taking all impetus and passion out of one’s actions. It is good to walk circumspectly, but one must at least be able to walk.
If all foundations are assailable, another negative consequence arises. The common ground between men with varying foundations disappears as each foundation may be questioned only on the terms of another questionable foundation. Without a common foundation to work from(with accompanying principles and criteria by which to distinguish Truth from Error), all criticisms become meaningless.
These consequences, if correctly inferred, motivate me to search for some foundational and unassailable principles which, being true, can be universally used to make progress in the acquisition of knowledge.
Mark Olson has tagged me with one of those ever-so-popular “blogging memes.” In case you don’t know, memes are the blogging equivalent of chain letters, without the corresponding “infinite amount of bad luck” if you fail to comply.
The questions (seven of them, you’ll notice):
1) Seven things to do before I die
2) Seven things I cannot do
3) Seven things that attract me to my wife
4) Seven things I say most often
5) Seven books (or series) I love
6) Seven movies I watch over and over again (or would watch over and over if I had the time)
7) Seven people I want to join in, too
Here we go:
1) Seven things to do before I die:
a. Become director of the Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University.
b. Have a book I author make it to the NY Times bestseller’s list.
c. Attain a Ph.D. in Systematic Theology.
d. Coach my son’s high school basketball team–just to keep the record clear, we do NOT have son and are NOT expecting.
e. Tour Europe with my wife.
f. Play a piano concerto with a symphony.
g. Learn Latin and Greek well enough to read Aquinas and Plato.
2) Seven things I cannot do:
a. Anything artistic.
b. Stop blogging.
c. Sit still.
d. write legibly.
e. Listen to country music.
f. Organize.
g. Say “no” to good opportunities.
3) Seven things that attract me to my wife
a. Her prayer life.
b. Her kindness.
c. Her delight in little things.
d. Her smile.
e. Her honesty.
f. Her wisdom
g. Her caritas.
4) Seven things I say most often:
a. Sure.
b. Yup.
c. Hello, wife!
d. I’m tired.
e. What’s for dinner?
f. What do you want to do?
g. Thank you.
5) Seven books (or series) I love:
a. G.K. Chesterton Orthodoxy
b. Dante Divine Comedy
c. Augustine Confessions
d. Plato Symposium
e. C.S. Lewis ‘Til We Have Faces
f. Dostoevsky Brothers Karamazov.
g. Calvin Institutes.
6) Seven movies I watch over and over again (or would watch over and over if I had the time)
a. Braveheart
b. LOTR
c. Spiderman 2
d. Braveheart
e. LOTR
f. Did I already mention Braveheart?
g. What about LOTR?
7) Seven people I want to join in:
a. Since Mark already named Jim, and since Jonathan has quit blogging, then for now, no one. Feel free to take it up if you wish, but let me know if you do.
Congratulations to Mere-Orthodoxy on the newfound distinction of “Third-Smallest of the Large Mammals of the Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem!” For some reason, I don’t think we’ll get link buttons made with that on it.
For those of our non-blogger readers, the Ecosystem is the main blog-ranking page. The rankings are divided according to life-form. The highest ranked bloggers are “Higher Beings”–the lowest are “Insignificant Microbes.”
Mere-O has been mired in the Maurading Marsupial range for some time now. Very recently, with your help, we’ve been raised up to #2276 in the ecosystem (scroll down to the very bottom), good enough for “Large Mammal” status. Only 2176 blogs prevent us from attaining coveted “Higher Being” status.
Of course, only 2 blogs separate us from returning to our lives as Maurading Marsupials. Here’s to life as a Large Mammal, no matter how long it lasts!
The wife and I had our very first Thanksgiving alone this year. It was a fantastic time and a scrumptious dinner. The report card:
Baked Brie in Bread: A+. Always amazing.
Spinach mashed potatoes: A. We’re still enjoying them.
Home-made rolls: A-. A little heavy, but delicious, especially with strawberry jam.
Stuffing: B. This was my fault–I made it and I messed it up. Parts were too mushy, other parts were too dry.
Pumpkin pie: A+. It was a great capstone to the meal.
Turkey: A. I wanted to give it an A+–my wife says it would have been, if I had carved it better. Live and learn. The basting sauce was excellent. White zinfandel wine with melted butter–we were told to use a T-shirt to keep the turkey moist. It worked extremely well.
All in all, a fantastic time. It’s going to be very difficult to return to work.
Happy Thanksgiving!
My prayers are with the US Marines in Iraq as my brother bravely serves among them in a land far away from the comforts of home and family. It must more difficult than we mere mortals can image, and yet they do it everyday and call it their job.
Check out this story about my brother’s battalion on ABC News 7, a L.A. affiliate of ABC. John North embedded himself with the troops. The video gives a clear picture of what everyday life is like for the troops over there…and also the significant progress they are making.
Bring them home safely, Lord!
Yes, I went and saw Pride and Prejudice and, by gosh, I liked it. It is released everywhere in the country today, my wife and I took advantage of our Los Angeles residency and saw it before everyone else last week.
We went because we both greatly enjoy Jane Austen stories, and we weren’t let down on this offering starring Keira Knightley as the witty Elizabeth Bennet and Matthew McFayden as the stoic yet virtuous Mr. Darcy. To be honest, I wasn’t sure Knightley could pull of the roll of Elizabeth Bennet because she had not yet starred in a “serious” movie (sorry, Pirates of the Carribean), but she does a respectable job in this period piece.
I say period piece because the settings, music and clothing are realistic. At least the characters don’t shine with the cleaness and neatness we are accustomed to in 21st century film. I think the directors were going for reaslism because 1) it distanced this film from the world-famous A&E version and 2) it increased the sense of the distance between the classes. Mr. Darcy’s mansion really does seem like a gigantic step up from the country cottage of the Bennet’s with pigs and chickens running around in the backyard.
The music and dancing scenes were absolutely fantastic. I honestly do like rock music a great deal, but the classical music they had in the early 19th century was so refined, intelligent and moving. These qualities do not only describe the music, but also the culture. What makes this movie fun is the way Victorian Englishmen and women followed a rigid set of protocol and yet find ways to poke fun at one another, find out information, and get a point across in an indirect way. This movie does not have much action in the “normal” sense of the word, but the clashing of intellects and hearts provides more than enough drama and humor to rapt one’s attention.
The scene that grabs one’s attention the most is that in which Elizabeth refuses Mr. Darcy’s proposal. The movie as a whole I would say is good, though not great. However, this one scene achieves cinamatic glory. The rain is falling as Elizabeth runs off because she is upset Darcy convinced his friend to leave Elizabeth’s sister alone. She makes her way to this beautiful stone structure with tremendous pillars overlooking a lake with an island full of trees below. Darcy appears, and the interaction between them is riveting.
One word of caution: be careful not to compare the film to the book. That’s not good sport, since they are works in two very distinct genres. Enjoy the film for what it is and, gentlemen, take that girl you’ve been trying to impress to this movie and score 2 million points! While you’re at it, you might even enjoy yourself!
Every now and then, ESPN.Com comes through with an interesting, edifying, and entertaining article that justifies my 1000 visits per day.
With the release today of Madden 06 (student note: an X-Box 360 and Madden 06 will do just fine as compensation for the countless hours I’ve spent reading your term papers. Thank you.), ESPN.com writer Patrick Hruby described the “uncanny valley” that the game evokes.
Put simply, the theory states that as a nonhuman entity becomes more like us in its appearance and motion, our reactions become increasingly positive and empathetic — until it becomes “almost human,” at which point our feelings give way to revulsion.
Why do we get creeped out? Easy. So long as an entity is sufficiently nonhuman — think C-3P0, or the crude players in earlier Madden games — we tend to notice its human qualities. An effeminate English accent stands out; a blurry touchdown dance delights us. But when that same entity gets close to seeming human, the opposite effect takes place. Every flaw becomes huge, every nonhuman quality impossible to ignore. The old Madden players were charmingly unsophisticated. The newest digital Vick brings to mind one of George Romero’s zombies, only without the blood and bad teeth.
I’m far too tired to think of any, but there must be profound implications on artificial intelligence (like, perhaps, cutting off funding?). Stuck in my head are scenes from That Hideous Strength. Chasing Hruby’s link to Wikipedia’s article on the “uncanny valley” didn’t help me get them out:
David Hanson, a roboticist who developed a realistic robotic copy of his girlfriend’s head, said the idea of the Uncanny Valley was “really pseudoscientific, but people treat it like it is science.”
Sara Kiesler, a human-robot interaction researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, questioned Uncanny Valley’s scientific status, noting that “we have evidence that it’s true, and evidence that it’s not.”
1) A robotic copy of your girlfriend’s head? Charming. And romantic.
2) Notice who’s doubting? That’s right–the AI folk. No wonder. Profound implications, I tell you.
At least I have a new addition to the list of conundrums: How do we close the mind/body gap? Can we leap Lessing’s ditch? Will we transverse the “uncanny valley?”
A document from the Vatican was leaked today–it outlined the Vatican’s guidelines on homosexuals and the priesthood. Full text of the document is here.
Conservative Catholics seem unsurprised.
RomanCatholicBlog: It exudes clarity, certainty and fidelity to Tradition and Truth.
It therefore will drive the usual suspects crazy.
Mark Shea: Sounds about right, and so it will make everybody on the fringes angry.
Amy Welborn: Will this make no one happy? Probably.
My brother writes:
I read this,
“…[T]hose who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted
homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture… find themselves, in
fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship
with men and women.”and immediately think, isn’t that what celibacy is all about?
The full text of the quote is:
In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, show profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.
The above persons find themselves, in fact, in a situation that gravely obstructs a right way of relating with men and women. The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of persons with profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies are by no means to by ignored.
The issue is celibacy, but not as my brother understands it. Celibacy has never been a negative discipline–not having sex. Rather, it’s been a means to positive character formation. With regard to priests, the Vaticans stated it this way:
Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his entire person to the Church and by authentic pastoral charity.
The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must attain affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate properly with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him.
Later, it states:
As regards to deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are present in a certain number of men and women, these also are objectively disordered and are often a trial for such people. They must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.
In other words, the call to pastoral ministries is about more than having the ability to not engage in sexual activity–it is about having affective maturity, or correctly ordered desires, emotions, feelings, etc. Something like Augustine’s ordo amoris–correctly ordered loves–seems to get at the appropriate interpretation. Celibacy is the discipline of sexual restraint in order to build affective maturity. The Vatican (rightly) is simply requiring the latter as well as the former from its priests.
I had not heard of the Avian flu (or “bird flu”) until today.
It is interesting stuff, and looks like it might be important to know about in the future. This is therefore a heads up for those who have not yet heard the word.
(Q&A Reprinted from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
What is avian influenza (bird flu)?
Bird flu is an infection caused by avian (bird) influenza (flu) viruses. These flu viruses occur naturally among birds. Wild birds worldwide carry the viruses in their intestines, but usually do not get sick from them. However, bird flu is very contagious among birds and can make some domesticated birds, including chickens, ducks, and turkeys, very sick and kill them.
Do bird flu viruses infect humans?
Bird flu viruses do not usually infect humans, but more than 100 confirmed cases of human infection with bird flu viruses have occurred since 1997. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) maintains situation updates and cumulative reports of human cases of avian influenza A (H5N1). Please visit the WHO links for additional information, as well as links to previous situation updates and cumulative reports.
How are bird flu viruses different from human flu viruses?
There are many different subtypes of type A influenza viruses. These subtypes differ because of certain proteins on the surface of the influenza A virus (hemagglutinin [HA] and neuraminidase [NA] proteins). There are 16 different HA subtypes and 9 different NA subtypes of flu A viruses. Many different combinations of HA and NA proteins are possible. Each combination is a different subtype. All known subtypes of flu A viruses can be found in birds. However, when we talk about “bird flu” viruses, we are referring to influenza A subtypes chiefly found in birds. They do not usually infect humans, even though we know they can. When we talk about “human flu viruses” we are referring to those subtypes that occur widely in humans. There are only three known A subtypes of human flu viruses (H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2); it is likely that some genetic parts of current human influenza A viruses came from birds originally. Influenza A viruses are constantly changing, and they might adapt over time to infect and spread among humans.
How does bird flu spread?
Infected birds shed flu virus in their saliva, nasal secretions, and feces. Susceptible birds become infected when they have contact with contaminated excretions or surfaces that are contaminated with excretions. It is believed that most cases of bird flu infection in humans have resulted from contact with infected poultry or contaminated surfaces. The spread of avian influenza viruses from one ill person to another has been reported very rarely, and transmission has not been observed to continue beyond one person.
How is bird flu in humans treated?
Studies done in laboratories suggest that the prescription medicines approved for human flu viruses should work in preventing bird flu infection in humans. However, flu viruses can become resistant to these drugs, so these medications may not always work. Additional studies are needed to prove the effectiveness of these medicines.
What is the risk to humans from bird flu?
The risk from bird flu is generally low to most people because the viruses occur mainly among birds and do not usually infect humans. However, during an outbreak of bird flu among poultry (domesticated chicken, ducks, turkeys), there is a possible risk to people who have contact with infected birds or surfaces that have been contaminated with excretions from infected birds. The current outbreak of avian influenza A (H5N1) among poultry in Asia and Europe (see below) is an example of a bird flu outbreak that has caused human infections and deaths. In such situations, people should avoid contact with infected birds or contaminated surfaces, and should be careful when handling and cooking poultry. For more information about avian influenza and food safety issues, visit the World Health Organization website. In rare instances, limited human-to-human spread of H5N1 virus has occurred, and transmission has not been observed to continue beyond one person.
In my seemingly endless (perhaps only circular) search for knowledge about knowledge, I have come to realize that one question more than any other continues to present itself. I think the answer to this question may turn out to be the one key that will unlock the doors to a multitude of hitherto inaccessible mysteries that keep me up all night and have been the source of a nearly perpetual ache in my soul.
My question is this,
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?
When I raise this question with friends, the answer I most often get has something to do with sensory experience and knowledge about the material world. It as though they were concerned I was on the verge of plummeting into a world of idealism, and thus never being able to enjoy the simple pleasures of life–pleasures like sitting in a chair without being plagued with anxiety over whether or not it is real enough to support my very substantial weight.
Perhaps this answer is the necessary first step towards uncovering criteria which allow for knowledge about the more interesting and life-threatening issues that are found in an individual’s worldview. If so, please help me see the connection.
While questions about the existence of the material world are interesting in there own way, the sorts of questions that exacerbate the ever-present ache in my soul are concerned with more intangible things. Questions about the nature of man, the purpose of life, the essence and existence of beings other than myself, and both my current and the proper relationship to those other beings–questions that are supposed to be answered by my worldview. These issues are intensely personal because they boil down to questions about my identity, my purpose, the world I live in, and the moral responsibilities that may be incumbent on me. These issues are also universal (at least I imagine they would be) since they are intensely personal to beings other than myself.
My current dilemma is not so much with the details of my worldview, as much as with what justifies me in holding it and how to go about tweaking it. Once certain foundational principles and criteria are accepted, the rest more or less flows out of them as they are applied to various topics. Rather, I fail to see what allows individuals to accept certain principles and criteria as foundational in the first place; especially because it seems that different people can have very different criteria.
It seems that we don’t have the leisure of choosing our foundational principles at all. Rather, from the moment our feet hit the floor, we are off and running. We make decisions about what counts as evidence long before we examine if our decision-making process was sound. We can only come at the world through our particular lenses, our interpretive grid if you will, and never have the opportunity to stand outside of it and decide if it is adequate, effective, or more importantly, correct. Each individual has his own grid, and even if he wanted to change it, it could only be done within the context of the current grid, thereby limiting him from objectively knowing the merits of the new proposition.
In a way, this dilemma seems to be a problem of interpretation. Only instead of arguing about literary theories and the best way to understand Moby Dick, I’m looking for a larger theory that will get at the best way (the correct way) to understand God, myself, and the world. All the problems that show up in literary theory (authorial intent, separation of the audience and the author from the text, subconscious and/or unnoticed effects due to society, ethnicity or psychological make-up, locus of meaning, final authority, etc.), show up in an attempt to interpret the world and our selves. Worse, I don’t see how to separate myself from these problems in the way that I can separate myself from literature–the “God’s-eye view” seems currently unavailable.
The next-best-thing and its justification still flummox me. You?
