Sunday, October 4, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Ideal Republic
What is the ideal republic of the Hebrew Bible? Or of the Bible as a whole?
1. Sodom and Gomorrah. Definitely not the ideal, the opposite of the ideal. Cities full of unrighteousness--and God destroys them. So the ideal republic will be full of righteousness. And this perhaps will be the goal of it. But how to achieve that?
2. Empire. The end point of the prophets is an Israel that conquers and subdues its neighbors, its enemies, the enemies of the LORD, and establishes an empire on earth. In this empire, people worship the LORD, the law of the LORD is known, and obeyed, and there is righteousness on earth.
3. Are there any of the features of liberal government? Self-government? Constitutionally limited government--enforced by courts? Personal liberties? How do you keep government from harming? Independence? (This is the only one I can see.) Large area of personal responsibility? (Perhaps) Government that protects person and property? (Yes)
1. Sodom and Gomorrah. Definitely not the ideal, the opposite of the ideal. Cities full of unrighteousness--and God destroys them. So the ideal republic will be full of righteousness. And this perhaps will be the goal of it. But how to achieve that?
2. Empire. The end point of the prophets is an Israel that conquers and subdues its neighbors, its enemies, the enemies of the LORD, and establishes an empire on earth. In this empire, people worship the LORD, the law of the LORD is known, and obeyed, and there is righteousness on earth.
3. Are there any of the features of liberal government? Self-government? Constitutionally limited government--enforced by courts? Personal liberties? How do you keep government from harming? Independence? (This is the only one I can see.) Large area of personal responsibility? (Perhaps) Government that protects person and property? (Yes)
Friday, May 1, 2009
Christians and Harry Potter
I am a bit taken aback by the scorn that S.M. Hutchens and, to a lesser extent, John Granger direct at Christians who do not share their enthusiasm for the Harry Potter series. My problem with the series is not the imperfection of the characters or a failure to appreciate the great works of western civilization. My problem is that the books are about magic, a practice that the Bible always describes as demonic. It is surprising to me that neither Mr. Hutchens nor Mr. Granger address this objection. The Ephesians burned their magic books after their conversion to Christ. Would they encourage us to read books that celebrate magic? Moses told the people of Israel that the penalty for sorcery is death. Would he encourage us to let our children read books that celebrate sorcery? Would Paul, after rebuking Elymas and striking him blind, rebuke Christians for having a problem with books that celebrate the practices of Elymas? I do not mean these to be rhetorical questions. Perhaps the answer is a resounding yes, but I would like to hear Mr. Hutchens and Mr. Granger explain why. I would also ask them, if they wish to persuade us naysayers, to "gently teach those who oppose the truth," as Paul recommends, if we are in fact the ones who are opposing the truth.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Occam's Razor and Evolution
Some other professor and I spoke today about the question of evolution and whether or not it is logical to believe in it.
A couple of the philosophy professors said that Occam's razor requires us to conclude that God had nothing to do with the origin of species. (As one of them put it, if you lose one of your socks when you do laundry, you don't have to resort to the "sock monster" to explain it.)
As is so often the case in such conversations, this begs the question. She is assuming that the naturalistic explanation is adequate to explain the origin of species. But that is the very thing to be proved. In the case of the missing sock, between the dryer itself and the possibility of dropping the sock somewhere between the dryer and your dresser, there are plenty of natural explanations for how the sock disappeared.
But this is not the case with evolution. What in our experience would lead us to conclude that after making love for millions of years, the ancestors of apes finally succeeded in giving birth to a human being? What is the evidence that natural processes are capable of producing a diversity of species? She did not say.
Until someone can demonstrate that, Occam's razor does not apply.
A couple of the philosophy professors said that Occam's razor requires us to conclude that God had nothing to do with the origin of species. (As one of them put it, if you lose one of your socks when you do laundry, you don't have to resort to the "sock monster" to explain it.)
As is so often the case in such conversations, this begs the question. She is assuming that the naturalistic explanation is adequate to explain the origin of species. But that is the very thing to be proved. In the case of the missing sock, between the dryer itself and the possibility of dropping the sock somewhere between the dryer and your dresser, there are plenty of natural explanations for how the sock disappeared.
But this is not the case with evolution. What in our experience would lead us to conclude that after making love for millions of years, the ancestors of apes finally succeeded in giving birth to a human being? What is the evidence that natural processes are capable of producing a diversity of species? She did not say.
Until someone can demonstrate that, Occam's razor does not apply.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
