Search Results for: papers/490937
Illogic Primer
City of Heaven, Wilds of Hell
The biblical picture of Heaven is that of a city, of feasting and fellowship in community, and of living under the rule of a beneficent king. Thomas Hobbes proposed that in order for there to be civilization, individuals who in the state of nature were sovereign willingly surrendered themselves to others for the sake of the benefits to be had in community. Every man for himself. The affirmation of Hell, spoken of most prolifically by Jesus himself, remains exceedingly troubling to many Christians who otherwise regard the biblical narrative as a compelling appeal to our deepest hopes. The decisive When Jesus summed up all the Hebrew prophets, it was to say, to love God and to love others. If love is conceived of as an emotional state of good vibes toward another person, it is hard to regard it as the crux of one’s life. But in the biblical story, love is essentially death to oneself for the sake of others. As Jesus said, there’s no greater love than to die for another.
Hitchens on servility.
Shameless, Guiltless Morality
Is it possible?
My premises. A successful society is one in which:
- It is easiest to do good. Doing good is encouraged.
- Doing bad is discouraged.
- Discouraging, penalizing, frowning upon, or shaming an act causes pain for those who fall short of the ideal.
Psalm 85: You, LORD, showed favor to your land;
you restored the fortunes of Jacob.
2 You forgave the iniquity of your people
and covered all their sins.[b]
3 You set aside all your wrath
and turned from your fierce anger.
4 Restore us again, God our Savior,
and put away your displeasure toward us.
5 Will you be angry with us forever?
Will you prolong your anger through all generations?
6 Will you not revive us again,
that your people may rejoice in you?
7 Show us your unfailing love, LORD,
and grant us your salvation.
8 I will listen to what God the LORD says;
he promises peace to his people, his faithful servants—
but let them not turn to folly.
9 Surely his salvation is near those who fear him,
that his glory may dwell in our land.
10 Love and faithfulness meet together;
righteousness and peace kiss each other.
11 Faithfulness springs forth from the earth,
and righteousness looks down from heaven.
12 The LORD will indeed give what is good,
and our land will yield its harvest.
13 Righteousness goes before him
and prepares the way for his steps.
NKJV: 10 Mercy and truth have met together;
Righteousness and peace have kissed.
11 Truth shall spring out of the earth,
And righteousness shall look down from heaven.
NASB: 10(Q)Lovingkindness and truth have met together;
(R)Righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
11Truth (S)springs from the earth,
And righteousness looks down from heaven.
ESV: 10(Q) Steadfast love and faithfulness meet;
(R) righteousness and peace kiss each other.
That’s Just, Like, Your Opinion, Man
The Big Lebowski — The Dude — undeniably excels at rolling with the punches. His rhetorical acumen, however, could use some work, as in a classic moment (27:54) when, true to form, he resorts in frustration to the lazy rertort: “Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” I take no pleasure in taking exception to The Dude, but this rejoinder fails as a defeater no matter how you spin it. What exactly is supposed to be the point? It appears to be a non sequitur. The sun is larger than the moon. Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. On the most literal reading, his words simply fail to constitute a rejoinder. They are, perhaps, an acknowledgment, but in no wise a counterclaim. It’s like responding, “Well, those are just, like, words denoting a proposition, man.” “True. Thanks for noticing. And?” An “opinion” is, most simply, a belief or judgment. To state an opinion is to say, “I believe this to be true.” I can well imagine the claimant responding to The Dude with bewilderment: “Uh, yeah, it’s my opinion. That’s why I said it. Thanks for stating the obvious. So, it’s my opinion, and…?” Commonly, though, to call a belief or judgment an opinion is to identify it as a belief whose grounds are insufficient to warrant certainty or knowledge. Here, Lebowski’s rejoinder has a point, it’s just implicit. just enthymetic. The missing premise is, I require you to be certain of whatever you claim in order for me to entertain it. You are not certain. I dismiss your claim. Just as it was for Descartes, this is a highly demanding standard. We are truly certain of very little. is required Perhaps the Dude’s rejoinder can be granted more salience bite by attending to the emphasis. Perhaps The Dude’s point is, “Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.” On this reading, perhaps the intent is akin to that most deservedly infamous retort of all: “Well, that’s just, like, true for you (i.e. not for me).”So, we’ve got three potential reads on Lewbowski’s rejoinder: 1) It is Cartesian style skepticism. 2) It is Postmodern relativism. Fallacy of distraction?
The Jefferson Bible Remnants
Thomas Jefferson famously took a razor and glue to the New Testament, preserving moral teaching and inspiring tales from the life of Jesus and excising most everything else. His Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth is a kind of highlight reel from a particular editorial stance. The approach of many skeptics is the opposite. Their Bible seems to be only the snippets Jefferson discarded; Jefferson’s Remnants. Whatever is challenging or potentially offensive is all she wrote. In Jefferson’s case, The new atheists have a revived an oft repeated strategy in debates about God. It’s not new. I saw it used to great effect by Michael Tooley in 1993, while Sam Harris was still. Bible constructed and judged on its most difficult passages alone.
Why the Passion and Melodrama?
Why couldn’t God just forgive? Why all this melodrama of Jesus, who is nailed to a cross to suffer and die on our behalf? See Keller.
Wars, Religious and Not
In my recent response to Bill Maher’s Religulous, I made a claim that seems right to me, but of which I’m not sure. In the film, Maher makes the all too common accusation that, “More people have been killed in the name of god than for anything else.” On the face of it, this seems to me obviously incorrect, but my history is far from above reproach. I claimed, alternatively: “Because humans throughout history have been so irredeemably religious, religion has played some role in most human conflict. A small subset of wars have
been waged for distinctly religious motives.” I’m beginning a survey starting in the present and working my way back to test this impression. I’ll classify each war as either a 1) religious war, 2) a nonreligious war, or 3) a mixed war. I’m especially interested to find wars with distinctly Christian motives. I will rely, to start, on conventional wisdom with respect to causes, though conventional wisdom often does not withstand scrutiny. This is a working document and will evolve as I have time. No doubt these classifications will have to be refined.
I Want To Believe
Do No Evil!
It’s not often that a corporate ethic surfaces in the mainstream, but Google’s maxim, “Do No Evil”, is an exception, no doubt in part because, like Google.com itself, it’s short and sweet. Google’s ethic may seem so obviously self-evident as to induce a smirk, but it’s unusual for a moral imperative to be so significant in a corporation’s self-identity. It brings to mind the kernel of the Hippocratic oath, “Do No Harm”, as well as Ghandi’s applying this simple rule to the complexities of being a googleopoly is not easy. Nonetheless, these rules, as good and important as they are, are noteworthy in part because of how different they are than that other moral maxim, the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”