Assessment of the Crossfit Games Open, and My Participation Thereof

Posted on May 1, 2011 | 1 Comment

The last six weeks I have participated in a worldwide fitness competition called the “Crossfit Games Open.”  For the uninitiated, it is the first step in qualifying for the Crossfit Games, to be held at the Home Depot Center in L.A in July.

Crossfit boasts that the winner of the Games is the “world’s fittest man/woman,” and while that might or might not be true, it’s still a pretty gnartly sport (see video below for a brief description).

I, along with somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000 other souls, decided to enter the arena this year and compete in the Open.  Since only the top 60 in each region (over 800 in my region!) make it to the next step, I harbored no illusions of being able to make it this year, yet still I competed. 

Why?  Just cuz, that’s why….to me, that’s reason enough.  For those that know me, you know I have this inexplicable drive to put myself up against the best of the best in pretty much anything that suits my fancy.  Call it a competitor’s itch, or the “boy inside” of me still trying to prove himself, it is what it is.

This year’s Open was quite a growing experience for me, both physically and mentally.  I’ve remarked several times to co-competitors that it’s as if Crossfit “knew me” when they came up with the workouts: if one were to list my top five strengths and top five weaknesses in movements, four out of the five weaknesses came up in prominent places, whereas two of the five strengths came up, and they came up in such a way that the weaknesses significantly impacted my ability to take advantage of the strengths.

I have therefore been exposed…easily.  This has pushed me to “wrestle with the goats” like never before (“goat”=crossfit term for extreme weaknesses), and I don’t count on letting up on that any time soon.  It’s all a character building process, and I embrace it willingly.

Given the way my weaknesses came up, though I did want to finish higher in the standings, I didn’t end up too bad: 185 out of over 800 in my region.  Coulda been better, but coulda been worse…a good starting point, lets put it that way.  This isn’t a balm to calm the pain of defeat by any means–I’m still gonna train just as hard and I’m still just as driven–it’s simply a balanced acknowledgement of reality.

Secondly, the camaraderie between my fellow teammates has been “legit.”  There’s something about suffering together that brings you close.  Reminds me of wrestling a lot.  The social aspect of this is actually one of the better elements of the whole experience, one that is essential to Crossfit.

Thirdly, ever since the beginning of the competition, there’s been a huge kerfuffle around the question of the formatting: has the online nature of the competition encouraged too much cheating?  I listened intently to the whole debate, and I think the good part is that it brought awareness and communal pressure to maintain integrity.  At points I even expressed my own doubts about the legitimacy of some of the results. 

However, folks kept on and on and on about it.  After a few weeks, my own doubts started to give way to belief when confronted with some of the evidence….it looks like a lot of  the crazy scores were legit afterall.  While it’s not a crazy thought to believe that some cheating has occured, and that it has affected the standings some, there came a point at which I said, “ok guys, that’s enough.”

The fact is that after a while, it all became noise, simple complaining.  Stop typing your blog post, pick up your barbell, lift the friggin weight, and put a cork in it. 

After a while, what started out as a legitimate point of concern devolved into a considerable amount of finger pointing.  Some people just couldn’t fathom that athletes other than themselves were doing as good as was stated on the leaderboard.  One such competitor expressed disbelief that some of those that usually compete in the intermediate division (a division lower than the division he competes at…the intermediate division, many times, features lower weights and standards than the “Rx,” or advanced, division) defeated him in some of the events.

Consider: 1) I saw video proof of some of those amazing scores, 2) other than the fact that those scores were crazy high, I have no other reason to doubt.  This, to me, doesn’t seem a substantial reason to call foul.  In absence of evidence, give the benefit of the doubt. 3) Elite guys whom I positively knew weren’t cheating put up many of those crazy scores.  It was therefore very humanly possible, and they’re not unbeatable.  It’s not that much of a stretch to think there’s someone undiscovered–even a few people–out there in the world that can beat them, and 4) as far as the intermediate-beating-the advanced guy, I’ve seen that happen too.  It’s reality.  In fact, in the last local competition, I myself defeated the above competitor in question once, and came within a hair of doing it almost twice…both tasks employed the same standards across divisions.

That doesn’t make me a better competitor or more fit.  He’s one helluva athlete, and I respect him lots.  He’s a competitor par excellance.  All the above means is that on that particular day and that particular task, I did better. 

Hey, it happens.  No big deal. 

In fact, the shoe was on the other foot with me a time or two during this current competition. Brand new crossfitters beat me.  It was hard for me to believe, except that they were right next to me doing it.  I’ve seen rooks take down big dogs enough in my other sporting careers to see that it’s paltry evidence of cheating.

All I’m trying to say is that average athletes beating elite ones does not stretch credulity.  It can be very humbling to admit that, but the fact that it happens is not evidence of widespread cheating.

In the end, I have to give up my own complaints and acknowledge that the best of the best are the guys that rose to the top in the end.  Yeah, there were some glitches along the way, but for the first time up to bat in such a huge venture like this, Crossfit nailed it.

So hey, life is grand.  Crossfit is cool.  My teammates are beasts.  Regionals are in a month.  Let’s get it on.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

A Brief Review of Hawking and Mlodinow’s *The Grand Design*

Posted on May 1, 2011 | 10 Comments

Recently, after I heard a non-Christian colleague or two express interest in reading Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, I proposed a book discussion after work one day.  A few Christian colleagues liked the idea, and we were off.

For those who don’t know, in this book, Hawking and his co-author Mlodinow attempt to explain the origin of the universe in a completely naturalistic way, in other words, without reference to God or any other supernatural explanation.  The non-Christian colleagues who were interested in reading the book noted that very project as the reason why they wanted to read it.

What was curious to me was that once I invited (in a very non-chalant way, I add, so you can’t say my manner or tone put them off) these colleagues to the book discussion, they suddenly became very uninterested.  One of them completely blew me off.  Hmmm…odd.

At any rate, I recently finished reading the book in preparation for the book discussion.  Science really isn’t my forte’, and Hawking is a giant in the field.  I therefore know my limits and can’t really comment on the viability of the science content in the book.   I know very little of Quantum Mechanics, so when Hawking and Mlodinow are speaking about things such as the structure of an atom or the results of experiments with electrons, I’ll obviously defer to him.

Given my inexperience with the subject matter and their expertise, it would be a great act of hubris for me to debate H&M on those matters.

However, there’s a good bit of philosophy in the book.  In fact, the book turns out to be mostly philosophy, not science, which is weird, given the fact that the authors pronounce philosophy “dead” in the second paragraph.  Philosophy is my field, and there are plenty of philosophical mistakes and shoddy justifications to go around in the pages, so I can venture a few comments about that.

To put it most simply, H&M get themselves into very deep philosophical waters several times in the book, and they seem either totally unaware or totally apathetic toward that.  The reason why I say that is that time and time again, they make very controversial assertions on HUGE philosophical questions and topics, and almost every time, they venture very little if any justification for their views, and sometimes they totally miss the point.  These are questions on which very accomplished scholars have written volumes back and forth, and each time, H&M give only a slight attempt at backing up their assertions, and sometimes, there’s no attempt at all.  A few times, the justification that is offered is more strange than the assertion itself.

William Lane Craig has written in depth (again here) about most of these spots in the book, so I find no need to rehash them here, but still let me give an example or two.

**NOTE: to access the links above, use “pugnacious” as the ID and “Irishman” as the password.

Soon after they confidently pronounce philosophy dead, they launch into a few chapters about the realism vs. anti-realism controversy in the philosophy of science.  This is a second-order debate–in other words, a philosophical query about the nature of science, not a scientific question proper–about the status and reality of unobservable entities in scientific theories.  Realists think that, if a scientific theory employing use of unobservable terms (like “electron,” “quark,” and such) is predictively successful, that gives reason for thinking the terms actually refer to something real.  In other words realists believe those unobservables are real in those cases.  Anti-realists tend to stick with just observables when it comes to belief.  If a theory referring to unobservables in explanation is predictively successful, A.R’s do not think that is reason to actually believe in those things.

Since anti-realism goes against the common-sense grain, the temptation might be to write it off, but though I am not an anti-realist for the most part, I admit that there are many scholars–such as Harvard’s  Bas Van Fraasen (formerly at Princeton and Yale, now at San. Fran. St. U)–that employ sophisticated arguments on it’s behalf, and it’s highly unwise to dismiss them or act like they don’t exist.

H&M step into this debate and attempt to sidestep it with what they call “model-dependent realism.”  They say it differs from anti-realism, but it turns out that it is an extreme form of it.  They attempt no justification of it except to say that it “helps solve” a few “problems.”  They describe the view, but this is not the same as justification.

Their comments surrounding one of these problems are some of the most strange in the book.  While pondering what it means for a table in a room to “exist,” they ask how one can be sure the table continues to exist when no one is in the room observing it.  How do we know that it doesn’t disappear when no one is watching, only to reappear when someone re-enters the room?  According to H&M, the model that declares that the table continues to exist is “simpler” and it comports with observing the table upon entering and re-entering the room (a model in which the table disappears when no one is watching agrees with observation too, by the way)…and this is about as much as we can say.  We cannot say, though, that such a model accurately describes reality.

This realism vs. anti-realism is a topic on which volumes have been written, and this is all they can offer?

I am not saying they should interact in depth with every scholarly voice out there on these questions…but is it not too much to ask that they at least interact with some, and that, where they do not, they temper their confident assertions by simply noting that there are legitimate counter arguments out there?

An instance of this is their defense of the “multiverse” explanation of the anthropic principle.  Roger Penrose, a former collaborator with Hawking, has written a critique of the multiverse hypothesis.  Even if responding to the critique in depth is outside the purposes of the book, why didn’t H&M even give a mere mention of the critique? 

Another philosophical sticky spot is their declaration of determinism, another topic on which Craig writes.  They offer a very thin justification of their determinism, but never mind that…more problematic, it gets them into a very gnarly external conceptual problem (a logical problem in other academic disciplines that interact with science): if determinism is true, then what about the words within the pages of the book?  Those must be dertermined too, along with the reader’s assent/dissent of H&M’s arguments.  If determinism is true, H&M were determined by the chemicals to write what they wrote, and the readers are determined by the chemicals to agree or disagree.  Truth and rationality have nothing to do with it.  How can we be confident that their views are true?  They weren’t arrived at via rational thought. 

Craig puts it much better than I can when he says,

I wonder, for example, why they think that anything they’ve said in their book is true, since, on their view, they were determined to write it. Everything they say is the product of blind physical causes, like water’s gushing from a pipe or a tree’s growing a branch. What confidence can they have that anything they have said is true—including their assertion that determinism is true?

Determinism erodes any sort of rationality or justified true belief, yet H&M must write as if rationality is possible, as if it is possible to rationally persuade someone to choose to agree with a view of reality that is true.  Thus their whole project is at odds with their determinism. 

Read the links by Craig to get a sense of the other issues with the book.

There were two main reasons why I ventured into this unfamiliar territory.  First, there’s the element of engagement.  This book has been widely discussed and touted in the media and popular culture.  Hawking is one of the most influential scholars of our time.  Having read this book will hopefully open up many opportunities to engage with non-believing folks on the questions that matter, such as questions of origins and life’s meaning.  Bible friends, when you get a chance to engage with the world about spiritual things on it’s own terms, jump at the opportunity.

Secondly, when you interact with smart people that disagree with you (in this case, none other than Stephen Hawking), if they make good points and employ solid reasoning, that can lead you to question your own views.  On the flip side, if your views and beliefs have the advantage of being backed by logic, reason, and truth, putting them up against the best of the other side will reveal that, and thus confidence in your beliefs will be strengthened.  Either way, you come out ahead.  Since ideas have consequences and the truth matters immensely, whether your philosophical “opponents” are right or you are right, it sure does help to know that.  Pitting your worldview up against the viable alternatives can be a good way of coming to the truth.  It’s a win-win either way, because I want to know the truth no matter who possesses it.

→ 10 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

I Don’t Want to get Married Now; I Just Wanna Have Fun

Posted on April 28, 2011 | 1 Comment

….one of my buddies said that one, or something closely approximating it, the other day.  We were working out with a few other guys, and the topic somehow got on marriage.  Being a young guy in his early 20′s (23, I think), he expressed that he just wanted to chill out for a while.  This sentiment is incredibly common, I’ve found, both inside and outside Christian circles.

Now, those of you who know me can probably predict how I responded.  Even though I married in my 30′s (well, 2 days before my 30th birthday), I’m a big fan of not waiting around.  Being marriage minded but not meeting your wife until later is one thing; purposely putting it off simply because you don’t want that responsibility (“I just want to have fun”) when you’re young is another.

I mentioned a few things about data (23-27 seems to be a sweet spot for first marriages, satisfaction-wise), and briefly noted that there’s a downside to purposely marrying late, but I have a feeling it fell on deaf ears.  He just kinda nodded blankly, muttered a few “oh…yeah’s” and walked off, acting busy.

That all got me thinking later: why am I a big fan of marriage, and why am I such a campaigner about not putting it off?  I mean, geez, I coulda just smiled and nodded “yeah, have fun while you can” and engaged in typical gym-guy talk.  Why’d I feel compelled to say something?

The first reason are the studies and data I’ve seen, but I’d be lying if I said that was the main thing.  That does give justification to my views, IMO, but I have the feeling that the real culprits are more personal–though, I argue, still completely valid–reasons.

Sure, the whole “having fun, relishing independence” thing is an advantage of singleness.  Go where you want, do what you want, when you want to do it, blah blah blah.  I get it, I get it.  But it’s almost as if that’s become a mindless mantra among the young and single.  So many just say it as a knee jerk reaction against the word “marriage,” seems to me without thinking about it much.  Yeah, the independence that comes with singleness is an advantage of sorts, but you gotta ask a further question: “in comparison to what?”  If the other side is, really, greener, then it doesn’t mean much to blather on about how independence and fun is great.

So this begs a further question: is marriage really the greener of two pastures?  If you’re married to a shrew, I guess not…but that doesn’t mean that singleness is better on the whole; it just means you were stupid because you married a shrew.   While sometimes life really does throw you a curve ball, more often than not these shrew-ish characteristics are evident before the alter beckons…you’re just blind to them.

Some, despite this caveat, will still insist that singleness is better, and they’ll marshall the Apostle Paul in support.  While I can’t go into the details of his thought on marriage now, I will say I don’t think those who use Paul’s thought in that manner are really seeing the big picture of his thought on marriage accurately.

I will die on the following hill, though: singleness is better only if you a) assume your own personal happiness is the goal of life, and b) assume a very superficial definition of “happiness.”

Let me explain.

When happiness is seen as a subjective feeling that you get, and when life is looked at through the lens of your own personal happiness, then all sorts of things–most of them quite sheisty–are “greater goods.”  That affair, cheating on that exam to get ahead, lying to get that job, etc..but while you gain a whole world of warm fuzzies, you forfeit your soul.

That’s not the point of life, and that’s not what happiness is.  The definition of happiness that is currently en vogue–the “subjective feeling” definition–is a modern invention of the last 40-50 years or so.  It’s no coincidence that depression and all sorts of psychological ailments have skyrocketed in the same time span.  The ancients (Aristotle, Moses, all those guys) had a better take on it.  They saw happiness not as a subjective feeling, but as a well-ordered, integrated life of character…life well lived.  In other words, they saw it as wisdom and knowledge applied to actual life.

Similarly, the writer’s of the Westminster Catechism were onto something when they declared that the chief end of life is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.  They saw the point of life as others-centered, not as “my-own-subjective-happiness” centered (though the two coincide in a way in their declaration).  The two chief commandments uttered by Jesus in Matthew 23 is another way of stating that.

When examined with this lens, then it’s a no-brainer.  Marriage is the better of the two (excepting those who forego marriage purposefully as a life calling in order to serve God…this is something worthy of the highest honor.  The overwhelming majority of those in their 20′s who put off marriage temporarily do not have this in mind.).  Yes, there are moments when you want to tear your hair out.  Yes, there are moments when you have to put what you want to do  (ie, hang out with the guys at the local watering hole) to the side and attend to the “honey-do” list.  Yes, there are moments when you gotta put the video game controller down and go serve your wife.

I could go on, though you get the point.  But…therein lies the rub.  Therein lies the reason why marriage is better than protracted singleness: you pledge yourself and intimately bind yourself to a worthy, meaningful, and eternally consequential duty, a duty that, if attended to, is incredibly satisfying in the robust definition of happiness…to love another person as yourself.  It is an incredible responsibility, and that is good.  That responsibility brings about, not the thin version of happiness–though it does at times–but the thick version.

Have you ever attended to a very tough, ardous, and heavy task, and felt incredibly satisfied at the end of it, like building a house or starting a business?  Perhaps you were cursing yourself while in the midst of it, but at the end, the satisfaction you felt made it all worthwhile precisely because you gave all you had towards meeting a high goal.  That is analagous to marriage.  It is hard work…and that’s good.  You give yourself…all of yourself…towards shaping and raising up the character of a man/woman you love deeply, and the joy of that responsibility overshadows any temporary loss of subjective happiness.

That brings true happiness and true joy.  Of course, you don’t need to be married to do that.  You can “die to self” and serve others any time.  However, it happens in marriage in an incredibly intense, intimate, and unique way.  And again, that’s good.

You get that?  Responsibility is good.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged

I’m Alive! Now, Let’s Talk About Rob Bell

Posted on April 8, 2011 | 2 Comments

Don’t worry, the P.I blog hasn’t gone cold permanently.  Between my philosophy class this semester (philosophy of science…heady stuff!), coaching the wrestling team, teaching, preparing for my daughter’s birth, and Crossfit, I’m finding little time to blog.  I’m not giving up on the blog, just posting less frequently (waaaaayyy less) for the time being.

So, what’s on tap for today’s post?  Let’s talk about Mr. Rob Bell.  Or rather, some of the conversations surrounding his writings.

Lately I’ve been privy to some conversations surrounding his new book.  Th

Rob Bell: nerdy, but in a hip way.

ere are lots of people questioning some of the things in his book (there are always people questioning his stuff), and invariably, someone (actually, many people) respond like so:

“He’s just asking questions.  Leave him alone!”

“He’s got opinions and he’s making people think.  He’s helping people figure out what they believe, and that can’t be bad.  Beg off!”

“Why are you being so mean and divisive?  Stop the judgmental spirit.”

“He’s just starting a conversation.  He’s on a journey and shouldn’t be put down for that.”

I’ll be the first to admit that some of the critique of Bell is quite shrill and over the top.  But much of it isn’t.  Much of it is a serious attempt at evaluating his beliefs for truth and fidelity to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  If he is advocating false beliefs and/or is leading people to depart from the truth that has stood the test of time, that is a legitimate concern.

I have no doubt that some of the Bell defenders who use the tactics above are sincere, but they are very naive.

 There are two types of asking questions–one, to get information or to inquire, and two, to make a point (aka “socratic questioning”). Bell’s a savy guy; most of his questions are of the second type, and therefore deserve to not be treated as mere “innocent conversation starters.”

Melinda Penner of Stand To Reason puts it well:

Even if someone is asking questions, the type of questions they ask in order to frame the debate tells us a great deal about their view and how they would answer the questions they pose. Bell tries to sidestep disagreement by saying he’s only asked questions, but he’s equivocating. There are different kinds of questions. Some are meant to elicit information; others are Socratic to get people to think and also to advance ideas. Bell’s questions are the Socratic type, but he acts as thought their the first type. He’s told us through those questions a lot about what he thinks.

Tim Challies adds:

Does Rob Bell deny the existence of hell? He would say no. We would say yes. He affirms, but only after redefining. And that’s just a clever form of denial.

Pay special attention to the kind of questions he asks.  That’ll tell you a lot about his beliefs. 

I really do have to shake my head at some of his defenders.  If he’s on a journey, it’s a veerrrry suggestive one.

Folks, if he is to be a player on the stage of ideas–and….he is, whether he acknolwedges it or not–his words deserve the same treatment as everyone else’s.

In other words: he’s a big boy.  His words, whether in question form or direct statement, get evaluated and assessed. He does not get a pass.

The question of whether he is teaching false ideas or leading people astray is, of course, another question for another time. I just tire of the same old “stop being mean and judgmental! You’re being divisive!” response to sincere attempts at evaluating his ideas.  Ideas have consequences–and so do questions.

So: y’all just need to cut that out.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaign, Part IV

Posted on February 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

Read the previous parts here: I, II, and III.

Margaret: QUOTE “Best just to focus on the text itself, and your case for what you think it means.”

I disagree entirely. Dismissing scholarly input like that is simplification to the point of willful ignorance. It is downright anti-intellectual. It is not sensible to advocate laymen to do merely armchair interpretation of one English translation of one version of the Bible. Not when the document is that old, that long, that complex, and without knowledge the language or much about the cultures it comes out of.

RB: Let me clarify: of course I value consulting scholars and others who have gone before. Otherwise I wouldn’t be getting a Master’s degree. I do not dismiss scholarly input. My point, though, was that *merely* pointing to scholarly disagreement won’t get you very far, and neither will simply saying “a majority of scholars say…” Their argument about the text itself is of more value. In the end, what you need to do is make an actual argument about the text, no matter if it comes from you or a scholar, and that argument should be weighed on its own merits, not just the fact that some scholar somewhere says it…if not, you can simply amass your list of scholars who say what you want, I can do the same for me, and we can declare an impass.

Margaret: QUOTE “By the way, what biblical scholars have you read? Sounds like you have read and consulted quite a few. Can you remember any names? Just curious…”

 Not only Biblical scholars, also theologians and clergy. Some names I remember: John Boswell, Robin Scroggs, John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, Bart Ehrman. I know I’ve read books and articles by others over the past 10+ years, but can’t think of any more names.

RB: I notice all those scholars are coming from a certain, for lack of better term, far left position. Now, that doesn’t mean they are wrong (not my point here), but they are all coming from a certain narrow point of view. Don’t you think it would be beneficial and in the spirit of what you and I have said so far to balance things out w/ reading some conservative scholars? If all I read on the topic of the Bible were scholars that agreed with me, would I really be able to say I’m forming my view rationally and knowledgeably?

Margaret, I think part of the problem is that you seem to be approaching the Bible with “the Bible is contradictory and hopelessly inconsistent” as a starting point. You begin with that as a presupposition, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself. If you gave it a chance and gave it some charity (the principle of charity is a good thing to abide by when addressing opponents, at least if you want them to listen to you), you might see some ways of synthesizing those passages. But since you and others start out by looking for contradictions, there is no effort at synthesis and so you miss perfectly good ways of understanding things. Again, this is something we normally do in other situations.

Example: I’ve been reading nutritionist Rob Wolff lately. I read in one article that he recommends eating no diary due to several negative side effects of its intake, but then in another article on gaining muscle, he recommends drinking one gallon of whole milk a day! Now, if I was looking for a contradiction, I’d stop right there and throw his advice to the wind. But he’s at least a remotely intelligent guy, so what could be the synthesis?—eat no dairy, unless you are trying to gain muscle mass, then do so only temporarily.

This in fact, is what he has said when questioned on the apparent contradiction. The same approach to the Bible is warranted—when confronted with two passages that don’t jibe at first glance, rather than simply saying “aha! Contradiction!” pause and reflect past the knee-jerk reaction. Oftentimes a synthesis will present itself.

Here is another example where I take the tactics the ads use and employ them to twist words:

“Faith…is also necessary.” Humanist Manifesto II

“Come, let us reason together.” Isaiah 1:18

“The mind of the prudent acquires knowledge.” Proverbs 18:15

…

You might scoff and point out that I’m taking out some key words, that the manifesto affirms quite the opposite in the sentences above and below the quoted exerpt, and that there are a plethora of humanist declarations that make it clear that humanists reject “blind faith,” so I should have some more charity when reading humanist literature and not try to twist it to suit my own purposes…if that is your response, you are right, and it will make my point regarding the ads perfectly.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part III

Posted on February 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

See part I here and II here.

Sorry for not posting for so long.  The wrestling season tends to get crazy.  Anyway (where she says “QUOTE,” she is quoting me in order to give context to her words):

Margaret: QUOTE“…yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.”

I don’t think that is the intention. As you mentioned, an ad has the problem of limited space. Knowing the people who put the ads up, I think the primary goal is to get people to think about what is really in the Bible. Most self-professed Christians haven’t read the Bible, and so seeing those single lines out of it are likely to be surprised. I would hope that it would spark enough curiosity that they’d crack the book open and find out what it really says.

RB: Perhaps…but to that extent, the ads are misleading. Besides, I’ve seen the same kind of treatment several times in humanist/atheist polemics against the Bible.

Margaret: QUOTE “The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else.”

I am fully aware that different parts of the Bible should be read different ways. I consider the Bible to be a valuable book in-of-itself for several different reasons (some literary, some historical), with some parts much better than others. The problem is with people who claim that the Bible the infallible word of God that they supposedly base their ethics and whole worldview on.

QUOTE “No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians.”

Funny you mention that letter. The majority of Biblical scholars believe the letter to the Ephesians to be written by someone other than Paul. Regardless, Ephesians does not speak of “mutual submission.” It says that wives should submit to their husbands and husbands should love their wives, and the metaphor used for both is that the husband is like Christ and the wife is like the church. How the heck do you get mutual submission from that? Also, you haven’t explained the the correct interpretation of that passage is. Part of my argument is that the Bible is inconsistent and often contradicts itself. So you pointing out that some passages sound mysoginist while others contradict that doesn’t necessarily prove that the mysoginist-sounding passages are in fact pro-woman. You have to explain how and why they are pro-women in their supposed proper context.

RB: What are their reasons for thinking that it wasn’t written by Paul? By no means do I disregard the voice of scholars…its just that the most important thing isn’t the claim “scholars say,” it’s their argument, the “why” behind their claims.

I got mutual submission from the previous verse: Ephesians 5:21—“submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Your question perfectly demonstrates what I’m talking about: taking the larger context of the passage you had in mind helps hone in on what Paul meant. Submit to one another, then he explains what that means according to gender roles in the home. Wives, respect the husband’s leadership. Husbands, love, protect, and nurture wives like the gems they are. I don’t know why that is so horrible. There are certain things that husbands are suited well for and vice versa. Each is made in the image of God and is therefore equally valuable, and each contributes something to the relationship that the other lacks. By no means are the parts interchangeable. For example, my wife has an 18 inch waist…me, an 18 inch neck (ok, little exaggeration, but you get the point..:) ). If an intruder attacks our home at night, I’m not gonna say, “hey honey, I think it’s your turn to go check out that noise.” Paul isn’t saying that the husband is more valuable than the wife and can do whatever he wants, and he’s not giving the husband carte blanche to order the wife around.

Though some might thrust that meaning upon the text, its just not there…in fact, if you look at it, Paul gives the husbands much more instruction as to what he’s supposed to do than he gives the wife.

as far as the 1 Tim passage goes, let me quote another author’s argument, one that is possible (not a scholar, admittedly, but he makes sense. There are other arguments out there that might suit the passage better. This is just one possible):

“…the word man is aner and the word woman is gune . In the case of the word aner , which occurs something like 150 times in the New Testament, fully 40 times that it occurs, it is translated “husband.” In other words, “husband” is a legitimate translation of the word depending on the context. When you look at the context, virtually every single time that it wasn’t absolutely clear that the woman with the man in the context was his wife, it is almost always translated “husband” and “wife.” So this really is an unusual translation, given the pattern in the rest of the New Testament.

So, I asked myself why would they break with the pattern in this passage? I think they were influenced by tradition, that’s why they translated this passage man and woman and not husband and wife.

What happens if we translate it husband and wife? That strikes me as a legitimate translation. It seems that when you translate it husband and wife, everything falls into place. Let me read it in that way: “Let a wife quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness; but I don’t allow a wife to teach or usurp the authority of her husband, but to remain quiet.”

Is that strained? Not at all. Is that difficult? Not at all. The “quiet” there is in the context of receiving instruction. I think the point is not that she never speaks, but that she is the one who is in the position of being taught as opposed to being in the position of the teacher. The word “teach” here is not in the aorist tense. In other words, an aorist tense means a single point in time action rather than a continuous action. So, it isn’t saying that a woman cannot have a moment where she can tell something to her husband, it’s that the woman should not be the teacher over her husband, but that the woman is actually under the teaching authority of her husband. He is the head of the household, spiritually speaking. That’s really what it amounts to.

Verses 1-8 is in one grouping, verses 9-15 is another. Verse 11 and following is directed at women in the context of their relationship with a man to whom they are supposed to be entirely submissive. That is a marriage relationship.

Finally, no other place in Scripture teaches that all women should be under the authority of all men in the church. If this passage is to be interpreted the traditional way, this makes a new and unusual pattern of submission. However, the New Testament consistently teaches that a wife should be under the authority of her husband. That fits the larger context of the New Testament much better.”

Margaret: QUOTE “If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.”

Again, I invite you to do the same to us as an example. Take a passage from, say, the Humanist Manifesto (or some other Humanist declaration), put it alongside a passage from the Bible, in a manner that makes Humanism look as bad as the Bible is made to look in those ads.

RB: Well, meeting that challenge wasn’t my main point, and I think I’ve given examples enough (Darwin, Einstein) to substantiate my point…but, here you go:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

And

“The life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

And

“If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.”

And

“If the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would . . . be right to kill him.”

–all by Peter Singer, 2004 Australian Humanist of the Year

Now for the Bible quotes:

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.”—Psalm 127: 3

Here’s another one:

‘The universe we observe has … no evil and no good….DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Richard Dawkins

“Do not fret because of the wicked; do not be envious of evildoers, for they will soon fade like the grass and wither like the green herb. Trust in the Lord, and do good; so you will live in the land, and enjoy security.” Psalm 37: 1-3.

Margaret: QUOTE “Same for the one about trusting in the Lord…the suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.”

Again, I argue that the Bible, being written by many different humans (not God-inspired) over a long period of time, it contradicts itself. Can you explain how and why the passage quoted in the ad isn’t actually discouraging rational/logical thinking?

RB: The proverb recommends humility about one’s finitude. Being human, we oftentimes get out of our ken. I find that principle at work frequently in my job. I am a young, inexperienced coach. Oftentimes I get angry at my wrestlers/parents/referees, etc for not responding as I’d like. In times like that, if I operate according to my feelings and what I think is good to do in the moment (aka, “my own understanding”), I often rush into things and make mistakes.

So I’ve gotten in the habit of conferring with one of my assistants, who is much older, wiser, and has “seen it all,” or I confer with other older coaches I know who have a much more circumspect perspective. They often calm me down and give me stuff to think about that I miss. The same is true on a cosmic plane. We are pretty finite, but God has “seen it all” so to speak. Consulting His wisdom through prayer, Scriptures, and the body of believers often yields understanding that is much more solid than our own feelings.

This is pretty far away from eschewing logic, reason, and evidence. In fact, if you were to keep in mind what I’ve been saying about context, you’ll see that there are a great many proverbs Solomon wrote that deal with the value of wisdom and knowledge.

You don’t have to believe that the Bible is the word of God to attribute minimal intelligence to Solomon, and that he probably wouldn’t contradict himself so many times in one book.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Humanist Ad Campaigns, Part II

Posted on January 16, 2011 | 2 Comments

Read part one here.

After a humanist friend of mine posted a comment on the ads, I responded:

“I found the ads ironic.”

To which she replied:

“You gotta explain the irony, Rich. You want to quote something from a philosophically Humanist publication that is as bad as any of those Biblical quotes? Notice I said “Humanist”, not just “atheist”.”

And we were off.  I’m going to call her “Margaret.”

RB:

A few things…first, humanists I’ve known are often pretty quick to cry foul when Christians engage in black and white thinking. Secondly, they also typically cry foul, often for good reason, when Christians handle opposing beliefs without academic responsibility…anyone can take something out of its context, without regard to the whole system, and make that worldview sound pretty silly.

I could do that to lots of things you say, most likely, and you’d consider yourself ill abused…in fact, I could probably take the very techniques inherent in the ads and make you sound like a crazed fundamentalist Christian.

Bottom line: it is very easy to take some quote, assert its stupid, and therefore assert the whole worldview is stupid.  That kind of treatment of opposing beliefs often gets Christians accused of irrationality (most of the time secular humanists are doing the accusing), and rightly so. But that is what is going on here. 

It is far more difficult to level a critique after taking pains to show what the passage (as opposed to just quoting a one liner and asserting what you think it means as self evident) actually means, understanding historical background, etc.

This is the very thing I try so hard to teach my seniors in the research methods class I have. Some of those ads on the website are laughable in the way they treat the verses.

To be fair, they are ads, not graduate research papers, so perhaps I’m expecting too much. A certain amount of leeway comes w/ the territory I guess. They won’t persuade many who are in the know, however.

Margaret:

Given the details, I disagree. You say “in fact, I could probably take the very techniques inherent in the ads and make you sound like a crazed fundamentalist Christian.” Please do so. And when I say do so, I mean take quotes from Humanist declarations, resolutions, and manifestos (such as the ones quoted in the ads) and put them alongside Biblical quotes in a manner that makes Humanism ethics sound monterous and Biblical ethics sound much more in line with today’s ethical standards. I do not think this can be achieved.

Also, Rich, born again Christians typically claim to follow the Bible to the letter. Having read the Bible and read about the Bible by Biblical scholars, I find such a thing to be impossible because the Bible isn’t internally consistent. However, my point is this: there is not a wide range of interpretation that can be made of Humanist declarations and manifestos. Their meanings are intended to be as clear as possible and they are written in modern language because they are in fact modern.

The Bible is an ancient and highly confusing book. It requires all sorts of apologetics and interpretations by clergy from various sects, theologians, and Biblical scholars often disagree widely about the meaning and context of many passages. This is what has allowed the Bible to be used to both advocate for both the abolition of and defense of slavery in the United States. While Humanist manifestos and declarations specifically apply to modern day issues and say what they mean clearly, the Bible is useless as a foundation for morality.

It’s greatest use in history seems to be by power-hungry charismatic individuals who use its supposed divine authority to push their own agendas.

RB:

People do it with Einstein and Darwin all the time. They take quotes from Einstein out of context (“God doesn’t play dice with the universe” and other quotes) to make him seem like a devoted theist, when most likely he wasn’t expressing devotion to a personal God at all, and given everything else he said/believed, probably wasn’t even a theist.  Dawkins might be right on that one.

 Likewise with Darwin: people isolate things he said to make it seem like he had these grand doubts about his theories.  I doubt it, though.

Martha, what I was talking about is a commonsense approach to understanding anything, written or spoken: communication happens from the whole to the part, yet those ads treat the Bible like it is a collection of isolated sentences.

That, actually, is the locus of much of the confusion you mentioned. The Bible would be much less confusing to you if you read it like everything else. Don’t read poetry like historical narrative. Don’t read historical narrative like doctrinal instruction. Take each type of genre as it was meant to be taken–this is what is meant by “literal,” not “interpret everything the exact same way.” Don’t isolate sentences out of their context, and so forth–if you do any of that, you’ll most likely miss the boat.

Here’s an example: the ad that uses the 1 Tim passage to suggest Paul was an obvious mysogynist and that he oppressed women. If Paul was really arguing what the ad suggests, do you think he would have had women as ministry partners (as is evident in his other letters and from the book of Acts)?

There is no attempt to understand the intent of the passage as a whole and nor is there any attempt to take into account all Paul’s other statements regarding husbands loving, protecting, and providing for their wives. No mention of the mutual submission from Ephesians. It’s all as if he never said any of that. If I treated a humanist’s writing like that, I’d probably get skewered as being irrational.

Same for the one about trusting in the Lord.  The suggestion is that the Bible is obviously against using the mind to rationally think with logic and evidence. Again, no effort to understand what the proverb might actually be suggesting. If it really did say that and that was the Bible’s message (“logic/evidence/intellect=baaad. Feeelings=goood!”), the history of Christendom most likely wouldn’t include guys like Augustine, Lewis, Aquinas, and Plantinga, and passageas like Romans 12 wouldn’t be in the Bible.

And on scholars, theologians etc “disagreeing widely:” you and I both know that there are many reasons people have for holding the beliefs they do, and many times those reasons don’t have much to do with the text itself. Some defend the turf they do because they want to impress a peer group. Others because it allows them to live a certain way they want to live. Still others because they’d give up lots of grant money if they gave up the game, etc etc. The point here is that pointing to the mere fact of disagreement among theologians and others doesn’t get you far. Best just to focus on the text itself, and your case for what you think it means. A solid, well-thought out and rational argument and interpretation will hold water, regardless of others (including “scholars”) that disagree. The mere fact of disagreeing voices does not mean there is no truth of the matter to be found.

By the way, what biblical scholars have you read? Sounds like you have read and consulted quite a few. Can you remember any names? Just curious.

Anything can be abused by power hungry charismatic individuals.  This is not a mark against whatever is being abused. Again, just because I might be able to take take some stuff you say out of context and abuse your words doesn’t mean you yourself are at fault. It’s all about whether the connection is actually there.

Lastly, yes, the Bible is ancient, and yes it is from a different culture, but why is that a bad thing? Are you suggesting we have no wisdom to gain from something ancient and outside of our own modern culture?

Part III coming up!

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,