Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Barack Obama’s Income Redistribution Plan

    In a recent ad we hear the following:

    “A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand-dollar rebate,” an announcer in the ad says.

    (Source: MSNBC.com.)

    The entire energy debate seems to have become a pandering game, with each candidate dulling any responsible suggestions he might make with various bribes to the public. McCain, who used to oppose off-shore drilling now supports it, and though he admits it’s more long term, he still brings it up in connection with current high gas prices. (I actually regard it as a short-term non-fix, because I believe “long term” should mean at least a century when we’re talking energy policy.)

    Obama seemed to resist this particular idea, though he will now allow it as part of a compromise. Which leads me to a digression. In reality, any candidate is going to have to compromise on the actual laws he will propose. Little of what is promised by either candidate in the campaign will actually happen. Why are we so shocked when a candidate suggests he would accept something he opposes generally as part of a compromise package? What should annoy us is that the candidates pretend they will be able to somehow govern without significant policy compromises.

    The problem here is that the debate is being framed in terms of managing gas prices. The capitalists among us should object to this, no matter how it is done. The way to reduce the price is to either increase supply or reduce demand, and the best means to accomplish that is the natural market forces. There are those who will object that foreign cartels change this equation. But in actuality capitalism does not call for people to be required to sell. That is simply one aspect of supply.

    We can artificially push down the price of gas temporarily, but that will not solve our problems, because all of the factors that push gas prices up will still be present. The oil-drilling idea has the advantage that it will eventually increase supply. It will be useless (except psychologically) in the very short term, provide some value in the longer term, but will not provide a truly long term solution in my opinion. Nonetheless I would support limited drilling provided reasonable environmental concerns are dealt with.

    High gas prices are the best possible thing for the long term because they will push us to change the way in which we consume and produce energy. There are many technologies becoming available, and as gas prices increase, they will become more and more economical. This is a good thing. If we artificially hold the prices down now, such an adjustment will have to be made sometime, and the longer we wait, the more painful it will be. It’s time now to do more than talk about breaking our addiction to oil.

    But back to Obama’s redistribution plan. This is classic redistribution of wealth. Take the money away from the oil companies that are making profits, and give it to people who are having to buy the high-priced gas. This has many of the hazards of price controls, only it actually won’t work. The oil companies will find a way to get the money back, and a couple of years from now we’ll realize that the rebates did nothing more than attempt to buy our votes. (Buying my vote was unnecessary for Obama. Despite my strong opposition for his gas tax/rebate plan, McCain still annoys me even more.)

    The whole notion of “windfall profits” is fairly ridiculous in any case. Just what is the windfall? The price of energy has gone up. I remember this discussion in a public policy toward business class when I was in college relating to excess profits. (Looking at the current situation, I suspect “excess profits” would be the better economic description for the situation. I fail to see the windfall, but perhaps I’m just not looking at it right.)

    Excess profits appear to be fairly well defined (see Wikipedia for a decent, if rather abbreviated discussion). The problem is that while the definition is clear, calculating what would be an excess profit is much less clear, and in practice the term “excess profit” becomes synonymous with “windfall profit” and simply refers to any profit the person speaking doesn’t think the one making the profit should have.

    Note in addition that very few people talk about the oil company profits in terms of percentages (see this report to congress for some numbers, though I haven’t checked them), because those would sound much less overwhelming. It’s easy to make any large company’s profits sound obscene, even when the return is not really all that far out of line with other industries. This is not to say the oil companies are not profiting. It’s just that I don’t think it’s bad for them to do so.

    In the case of oil we have a choice similar to what we have in other industries–don’t buy their product. In this case I have to add “as much”, and in addition note that reducing our consumption will take time. And lest anyone think I’m suggesting something that I will not do myself, let me note that fuel costs have cut into my business severely. I have had to change the way I plan my days to avoid certain driving in order to handle the higher gas prices.

    I believe we need to feel this pain now in order to change the way we produce and consume energy. I am disappointed with congress and with both our presidential candidates, though I’m not surprised at their action. We, the voters, are demanding that they behave irresponsibly, and they’re just doing what we ask. No, not what we say we want. What our actions show we want.

    Unfortunately, what many of us want is lower gas prices tomorrow. What we’ll get is an even worse problem a few years in the future.

  • Fallible Bible

    I also Thank God for Blessing us with a Fallible Bible.

  • Quick Note on The Golden Compass

    I ended up with a copy of this almost by accident, and have written some notes. While I’m not overly impressed by it, I see no reason for the controversy. Notes are here.

  • New Creation-Evolution Site

    Laura links to a new site on creation and evolution written by someone she knows, and I wanted to promote the link to an actual post. I must say that I have substantial areas of disagreement with the post she directly links on thermodynamics, but I’m so involved on the theological side right now, which is after all closer to my area of expertise, that I think I’ll lay off it for the moment.

  • An Answer for Mark: Death as a Divine Tool

    Mark responded to my post Dealing with the Theological Implications of Evolution, and in turn poses a question to me, well summarized in the last sentence of his last paragraph:

    What is the particular problem that is raised that Stegosaurus had a million or so years in the sun but now is no longer?

    Which reminds me that I get in the most trouble for the things I don’t say in a post. That question needs to be put into the context of the point I was trying to address in the post. Some Christians respond to evolution by saying that it doesn’t really make any difference. Genesis tells us that God created; evolution tells us how God created.

    Depending on your audience, that will mean substantially different things. In some ways I regret growing up and essentially completing my formal education as a young earth creationist. There are so many lines of inquiry I would have pursued. I don’t mean things that would have advanced knowledge generally, but that could have advanced my knowledge.

    At the same time, I understand how young earth creationists think, and telling them that evolution doesn’t make any difference is quite futile. You see a substantial part of the young earth creationist background involves an understanding of the fall. I’m not saying that every young earth creationist feels this way, but I personally haven’t encountered one who doesn’t.

    The fall of humanity happened at a specific historical point. There was no sin in the world before that, and there was sin afterward. The physical world suffered as a result of sin, and was, in fact, dramatically altered because physical death was introduced at that point. (Never mind how an ecology would function without death.) In the particular form in which I learned it, the deteriorating ages of the patriarchs in Genesis 5 & 11 indicates the deterioration of the very fabric of the universe, or at least of life, so that people became less and less long-lived as they separated from God.

    In that context, to say that evolution makes no difference theologically is nonsense. Evolution makes all the difference in the world. If God used evolution as his tool to create the world, not only is the chronology different, but the connection between sin and physical death is broken. There might be some deterioration of the world after sin, though no evidence of this is available, but the direct connection cannot exist.

    For people who hold the young earth creationist viewpoint, at least in the form I grew up with, evolution is a devastating blow to all they hold dear. If the fall did not cause deterioration, then how can redemption cause recreation? Remember here that they believe this does involve the physical world, all of creation (Romans 8:22). Everything from God’s personal care of everyone, to redemption, and finally to the life hereafter and the new creation falls under their system if evolution is true. The theological impact is massive.

    I would add a side note on the “gap theory” or “ruin and restoration creationism” which holds that the earth is very old, the same age as that held by mainstream science and by old earth creationists, yet that sin was brought to earth before the creation that occurred in Genesis 1. In their view sin caused death, but did so before Adam was created. Adam then participated in that death at the fall. For them successive extinction events can become successive acts of destruction by God intended to wipe out or punish evil. Evolution is still devastating to their theology and they would reject it vigorously.

    One other odd view is Bill Dembski’s view that death was introduced prospectively, i.e. God knew that evil would occur and dealt with it before the fact. Adam was thus responsible, even though he sinned much later. I blogged about it a bit here, and Dembski’s article can be found here. (Note that he has revised this several times, so quotes from it in any earlier articles may be wrong. I’ve tried to note the date, but I think I forgot a few times. I always used the version that was online as of the date I posted.)

    Old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists are in essentially the same place on this. Death must be seen as a natural part of the way the universe is designed, and death becomes God’s tool. I would say that the issue is even harder for old earth creationists. Let me digress for a moment to explain why.

    I’m not much impressed with the common argument that God didn’t create evil; God created Satan, who then rebelled. In other words, I don’t feel the separation between God taking action directly, God creating someone who has the option to take an action, or God creating a process that has that same effect. If God created Satan knowing he would do evil (a requirement if one accepts foreknowledge, which in the traditional sense I do not), then God is equally responsible. If God creates a world in which the holocaust can occur, he can’t evade responsibility. In scripture, I don’t see any great effort to avoid God’s responsibility for whatever happened. That seems to be mostly a later effort.

    Let me illustrate. Supposing I have responsibility for a group of children, and I let them loose in a room full of valuable but fragile items. I don’t set any parameters, but simply tell them to play and then I run off. I don’t come back, observe, and most importantly intervene when their play gets lively and the valuable items are broken.

    If the owner of the valuables comes to me and charges me with responsible, will he except the excuse that the children did it? I suspect not. I put the children there. I didn’t instruct them properly. I didn’t monitor them, and I didn’t intervene to stop them. I think most people would regard me as responsible for the breakage.

    In the same way I regard God as responsible for the universe. I think I have warrant to believe that God regards God as responsible for the universe.

    But the fact is that in my experience most people do not agree with me with regard to God. They do find “the devil did it” to exonerate God in some sense. In that context, I think the old earth creationists have a bit of a problem. As a theistic evolutionist I believe that God so ordered the universe that there would be processes that would bring about life and allow it to diversify. I must accept that God is thereby responsible for such things as scarcity of resources; no diversification would occur if there was no selective survival.

    The old earth creationist, it seems to me, must see God as creating an incomplete process. Variation and natural selections works some, but appears to be defective. Thus God allows the process to work and then steps in and creates greater variations from time to time. So God is not merely using a tool that is part of the fabric of the universe; he is also getting involved on a day to day (or more likely age to age or period to period basis. I think if they were consistent the same people who accept a devil based theodicy should regard this as God with dirty hands.

    I must restate, however, that I think theistic evolutions and old earth creationists are in the same boat on this one, and that evolution does not make a theological difference on this one point. But that is only true between old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists. Young earth creationists or ruin and restoration creationists would see it somewhat differently.

  • Great Way to Call Someone a Liar

    I’m not following the controversy in question very closely, as it’s largely a UK thing (or so it appears to me), but there is a great dust-up about the management of the former SPCK bookshops in the UK by the Saint Stephen the Great Trust (I’ve seen a few variations on this). If you want the story, start here.

    Sam Norton received a cease and desist letter from Mark Brewer (of SSG), which he published, and Doug Chaplin published a blog post in support, from which I just had to quote this sentence:

    . . . Indeed, his letters as quoted by Sam, like many of his past statements, seem to bear such a complex and tenuous relationship to reality that it would be difficult to describe them as truthful without placing an inappropriate burden on the semantic resources of the English language.

    Classic! Absolutely classic!

    (HT for all links: Metacatholic.)

  • Quick Note on Applying Matthew 7:1

    (This is an exegetical and application note on Matthew 7:1 to accompany a devotional on my wife’s devotional list.)

    There are two directions that people have taken on Matthew 7:1, both of which I think are mistaken. Even Jesus cannot create a one liner that someone else can’t apply foolishly.

    The first approach to Matthew 7:1 is to broaden it excessively and try to live that way. We try to create a community in which nobody exercises critical thinking or discernment about what anyone else says and does. A number of things result. First, we have some of the moral and spiritual problems so ably discussed by Paul in 1 Corinthians. Second, we can’t really live without any form of judgment, so we find ways to judge while claiming that we aren’t. One saying is that you can’t judge, but you can “inspect fruit.” This draws on Matthew 7:15-20. But very frequently “fruit inspecting” looks very much like judging.

    The major alternative is to narrow down the command so that it can be applied universally. One option is to take the element of “judge” that means “condemn.” So “don’t condemn so you won’t be condemned.” Another is to say that we can judge people’s actions and appearances, but not the content of their hearts. That’s true, but perhaps not complete.

    I would like to suggest a third way to think about this verse in practice. With each action of testing, whether it is spiritual or physical, whether I think it’s fruit inspecting or outright judging, whether it involves criticism or approval, I need to consider how my words or actions impact the community of faith, the kingdom of God.

    I want to note here that we do not avoid Christ’s command simply by speaking only in approving terms. When we speak positively about something, and then simply say nothing about another thing, that second thing is condemned by our silence. If we speak positively of things that are not positive, speaking without judging, then we are liars.

    We should ask with each act of testing, when we decide whether something is right or wrong, how our response to that thing will impact other believers. I think Jesus points to us (lest you be judged) because that is the thing that catches our attention the most. If I point out a brother or sister’s weaknesses, I stand to have mine pointed out as well. It may not be the holiest of motivations, but it is certainly the most human.

    By either trying to make the command of Jesus a context-free absolute, or by narrowing it to one part of the command, we reduce the impact of what Jesus was trying to say. We need to keep Matthew 7:1 in mind at all times, making sure that when we exercise judgment, we are exercising good judgment.

  • Of Double Standards and Cesspools

    Steve Matheson at Quintessence of Dust notes regarding Dembski’s Uncommon Descent blog:

    Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants. . . .

    C’mon Steve! Don’t hold back! Tell us how you really feel!

    While I lead with the controversial (and I agree with him about UcD), Matheson makes some excellent points in this post, all of which may be controversial. Besides my own distinction between behavior that I regard as rude and inappropriate (that’s what I think of what both PZ Myers and one poor college student at the University of Central Florida did), and what should be illegal or worth firing someone for, there is the distinction between what one can and should say about one’s own group, and what one can and should say about others.

    Earlier, Matheson notes:

    The sickest crap at UD isn’t the usual dishonesty and shoddy pseudoscholarship. It’s the religious propaganda, a toxic mix of normal everyday bullshit (about “Darwinism”) and the pearls of our lives as Christians: scripture, our confessions, even the name of Jesus, the chief cornerstone. What’s worse, I ask: Myers’ desecration of a piece of matter that he reckons a mere cracker, or Bill Dembski’s malicious use of Christ as a lame polemical device? I’m sure you already know where I stand.

    Just so. My stand is the same, though the language is a bit intense for me, I think. When Christians behave inappropriately in a public way, other Christians may have the duty to call them on it. I’m not calling for every Christian to speak up in every case, but in a case like this, public Christians, such as bloggers, need to comment on other public Christians who are bringing disrepute on Christianity.

    Anyone may be wrong. I have occasionally had someone stop by here and question my vocabulary or the way I expressed something. Others have questioned my beliefs. That is a good thing. When that happens I need to do a recheck on what I’m doing and correct such actions.

    Which is my own additional point about UcD. My friend Peter Kirk is very intense about blogs that don’t allow comments, and I mostly agree with him, though I continue to read a number of blogs that do not allow comments. What I find reprehensible is a blog that appears to allow comments, but then weeds the threads in order to make themselves look better. That is the case at UcD when comments are suppressed, not because they are obscene, libelous, or spam, but rather because they annoy the writers there.

    At least one knows when a blog closes off comments. Nobody can comment, and you know that the blog is not totally open to discussion and correction. When a blog is censored other than according to precise standards, that presents a lie to the world. It says that discussion is welcome, while at the same time presenting a skewed view of the resulting discussion.

    PS: My own policy on comments is that I will remove posts with excessive language, i.e. likely to get this blog in trouble as family friendly, or when such comments are actually libelous assuming I can identify them as such, or when they are clearly spam. I have removed one comment under the first point in the history of the blog that I recall, none under the second, and of course thousands under the third. If your comment either doesn’t appear, or disappears under other circumstances, you are welcome to call me on it here publicly in a comment, and I will check it out.

  • NRSV Study Bible

    Westminster/John Knox Press is publishing a study Bible including the apocrypha, The Discipleship Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version Including Apocrypha. There are some notes on this at New Epistles. It looks like an interesting one.

  • Dealing with the Theological Implications of Evolution

    There are two extremes in how Christians respond to the possible theological implications of evolutionary theory once they are convinced that the theory of evolution is valid. The first is to claim that there are no implications whatsoever. This is represented by the statement: “The Bible tells us that God created; science tells us how he did it.” The second is to grab evolutionary theory and run with it, extracting implications about God all over the place.

    The weakness of the first option, in my view, is that evolution does have implications for theology. Mass extinctions don’t go well with the idea that God created the world, put it in the care of humanity, and expected humanity to exercise responsible dominion over it. I’m not saying the two notions can’t be reconciled, but one has to stop at thing, at the very least.

    The weakness of the second option is the same as for those who draw philosophical implications from evolutionary theory. What is may not be the same as what ought to be. What we observe may not be a sufficient sample of God’s activity to allow us to extrapolate large amounts about his character.

    My inclination, nonetheless, is to the second option. Evolutionary theory has profoundly influenced elements of my theology, including my views of death, of the directness of God’s care and intervention, of the nature of the fall, and even of redemption. I don’t say they are altered to the point of being unrecognizable, though a critic or two might say so, but I don’t think the same thing about them as I did when I was a young earth creationist.

    Is cautious iconoclasm an oxymoron? Perhaps. Some people claim my self identification as a “passionate moderate” is as well. What good is language if you can’t play with it? (Don’t answer that!)

    Steve Martin posts about the problem of death as God’s tool for Christian theology. Let me note that Steve’s blog is a great source of information on theological controversies related to evolution and a great source for theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists.

    But I have a bit of a problem with something he quotes. He’s blogging on the book Paradigms on Pilgrimage, which I must surely get my hands on. Here I’m just responding to the single point, represented by this quote, which is Martin’s summary:

    It is not primarily evolutionary mechanisms like genetic mutations, or even natural selection, which is the problem. It is in fact, the limited amount of resources available to God’s creatures.

    (You can read more extended quotes in the post cited above.)

    I’m afraid I really don’t get this one. It’s a nice way of talking around the point, but the fact is that if there wasn’t a differential in the rates of survival, new mutations would not become fixed in the population. (Perhaps some of my more scientifically inclined readers can correct me on this.) Yes, it is the variation that allows creatures to survive changing environments, but it is the limitation of resources, and the changing environments that cause one set of characteristics to persist rather than another.

    In other words, death is a tool, whether inflicted by falling logs, lack of food, or changing environment. You can name the tool something else, but the same thing still occurs. If God was as concerned with the death of creatures as I believed he was when I was a young earth creationist (sparrows falling, though note that the scriptures just say God sees, not that he prevents), then he could not use this mechanism.

    It seems dangerous to me to try to brush past the implications, and on first glance this looks like an effort to do so, or at least an attempt to frame the issue in a more favorable light. The wording sounds nicer, but the creatures are still dying, and evolution would not occur if they didn’t. Similarly, I think, one could look at a hurricane as the cause of new life, and in fact such “disasters” have a role to play in the environment. But looking at them that way doesn’t cause them to leave less death behind.