Agnosticism and Folly

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Too Hot to Handle: A Reason Outside Ourselves

The most current version of this post is available here.

The Moment That A Human Being Encounters

A more current version of this post is available here.

The Deadliest Attack on Happiness

Author Trent Hand lists what he believes are the deadliest attacks on happiness:

1.   Comparing yourself to others

2.   Talking about your dreams instead of going to work on them

3.   Listening to people with nothing positive to say

4.   Focusing on the news

5.   Deciding someone else needs to change

6.   Thinking “happiness” is a destination you can reach

7.   Forgetting to say “thank you”

Clearing negative influences out of our lives does have a certain utility.

You Don’t Want to be ‘That Guy’

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Big Questions and the Loss of Faith

The most recent version of this post is available here.

It Ain’t Over ’til It’s Over

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Bible Contains the Word of God

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Too Hot to Handle: Why I Don’t Share My Faith

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The ‘Moral Hazard’ of Calling ISIS a ‘Cancer’

The New York Times, or at least one Michael J. Boyle, wants us to be careful about calling wickedness wicked:

“But if the ‘war on terror’ has taught us anything, it is that such moralistic language can blind its users to consequences. Describing a group as ‘inexplicable’ and ‘nihilistic,’ as Mr. Kerry did, tends to obscure the group’s strategic aims and preclude further analysis. Resorting to ritualized rhetoric can be a very costly mistake if it leads one to misunderstand an enemy and to take actions that inadvertently help its cause.”

Mr. Boyle is correct to express reserve about Mr. Kerry’s choice of epithets: the behavior of ISIS in Iraq is far from inexplicable and quite strategic, though its consequences are horrific.

But the Times’ concern about moralistic language is misplaced.

Inbox: Qman Asks the $64,000 Question

“Very interesting and relevant blog. The question I have at this point is who actually benefits from it at this site? Is there anyone else out there? There seems to be little response as far as I can tell. I did not see a mission statement for this site and if it’s only very local, then wouldn’t a wider distribution be better for getting across insights like this?”

Ask and you shall receive ...

Science Redux

David Berlinski does what I can’t (but certainly tried to) in a Peter Robinson interview appropriately entitled Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. He quotes from his book The Devil’s Delusion:

“In many respects, the word ‘naturalism’ comes closest to conveying what scientists regard as the spirit of science: the source of its superiority to religious thought. But what reason is there to conclude that everything is, to quote philosopher Alexander Byrne, ‘an aspect of the universe … revealed by the natural sciences’? There is no reason at all.”

He comments on the validity of certain scientists’ claim to authority:

“The comparable claim would be, ‘(a) I’m a scientist; (b) I’m an expert on contract law’. You’re an expert on contract law because you’ve studied particle physics? Give me a break. An expert on the existence of God because you’ve studied particle physics? I request the same break, the same suspension of belief, the same absence of commitment to whatever it is you’re saying.”

The Beginning of Wisdom

The most current version of this post is available here.

Contemplating Evil

The most current version of this post is available here.

Throwing the Old Testament Under the Science Bus [Pt 2]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Throwing the Old Testament Under the Science Bus [Pt 1]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

When Life Really Hurts

The most recent version of this post is available here.

I’ll Wait, Thanks (or, I guess this makes me a ‘Huddle Person’)

Uh oh. Apparently, I’m told (and not for the first time) biblical literalism is not healthy. Not healthy for those I would like to win to Christ, and not healthy for me. It’s (at least potentially) repressive, and possibly worse.

This particular poorly thought-out screed is drawing praise from other evangelicals. 

In it, Michael Gungor coins the term ‘huddle people’ to describe me and my ilk, then gives us a lecture about the dangers of failing to accommodate ‘science’ in our Christian worldview: 

“... you can still love God and love people and read those early Genesis stories as myth with some important things to teach us. Not all of you will be ready to do that, and that’s perfectly ok. But know that if you create these dichotomies where we force people to either fall into the camp of scientifically blind biblical literalism or a camp where they totally write off the Bible as a complete lie, you’re going to rob a lot of people of some of the richness that the Bible offers. You’re going to create a lot more jaded, cynical people that are completely anti-religion out there. And you are going to continue to repress the questions that lurk in the back of your own mind. And that’s just not healthy. That sort of thinking actually quashes and limits human thriving in the world.”

— Michael Gungor

Gifts, Choices and Aaron Hernandez

“Good burst off the line from the three-point stance into a four-yard hook route. Good pad level and leg drive.”

— from Aaron Hernandez’s Gut Check Scouting Analysis, December 2009

“His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man, but the Lord takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love.”

(Psalm 147:10-11)

We all know (or know of) people who like to go to the track and drop a few bucks on the ponies. Under such circumstances, I can easily imagine taking delight in the strength of a horse, especially one that goes wire to wire. Why wouldn’t you? But back when the psalmist wrote, I suspect a soldier in a chariot would not be merely delighted by his stallion; that horse’s strength might well save his life.

I, on the other hand, take a fair bit of pleasure in the legs of a man.

Too bad, then, about Aaron Hernandez.

Do We Get the Leaders We Deserve?

“Every nation gets the government it deserves.”

— Joseph de Maistre, 1811

A similar quote is often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, though little evidence can be offered to substantiate it. Regardless, it is certainly a meme with legs.

Political analysts have a hard time leaving the idea alone. In a post entitled “The Country of the Blind”, Andrew Klavan gives several solid reasons why Barack Obama’s reelection confirms the truth of it, concluding with this zinger:

“No, I don’t think Obama can be held wholly responsible for the nightmare darkness descending on the world in the absence of American leadership. He won the election fair and square. But he won it in the country of the blind.”