Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Of Rules and Fairness

    When I was in my early teens I remember playing a game (I can’t remember what) with a younger cousin. I was old enough that my idea of fairness was that you followed the rules and that was fair. It didn’t matter how many wins each person had. My younger cousin, after losing a few times, told me that I was not being fair. He should win as often as I did. I was obviously not wise enough to realize that fairness might also involve my being older than he was, and that perhaps I should have introduced a handicap. But he would have been satisfied with nothing other than an even number of wins and losses.

    I was reminded of that incident when I read this poll in which there is a substantial, and perhaps significant dip in Barack Obama’s popularity against John McCain in Florida. The article suggests that his stance on Florida delegates might just be to blame.

    I live in Florida, but I’m registered independent, so I don’t have a dog in that particular hunt. Nonetheless, it’s interesting to watch. Americans have very little tolerance for procedures and rules. Like my young cousin, they like fairness (evenness?) in the results. Our court system is more interested in procedure, in following the rules. Justice has to take a back seat. On first look, that tends to offend many people. But you should consider the opposite. Supposing that the rules could be set aside so that a particular judge’s idea of justice or fairness would prevail. What would happen then? We would certainly not have much fairness in the way different people were treated before different judges.

    This kind of attitude comes into play in the issue of Florida’s Democratic delegates. We have too basic arguments that clash. The first argument is that the rules were set, everyone knew them, and Florida didn’t follow those rules. I have great sympathy with that particular argument. The second, however, is not at all like the first. It says that everyone’s vote should be counted, that people have a right to be heard, and that the process has left Florida’s Democrats without a voice in their party’s convention.

    It is not coincidental, either, that the campaign that would benefit most from Florida’s delegates is advocating their inclusion, while the other campaign, well, not so much! It might be that one or the other campaign is arguing from principle, of course, but self interest is fairly obvious. Clinton is not arguing that the delegates should be seated. It’s funny that she and her staff didn’t make that argument in Iowa or New Hampshire, where it would not be well received. In fact, we don’t hear about seating those delegates until she has won both Michigan and Florida, and is behind in the delegate count.

    But there is a large constituency for that type of fairness argument. Government campaign financing involves it. Spending limits for campaigning, which I regard as egregious violations of free speech (in principle–the Supreme Court seems to think otherwise, and for some reason people listen to them instead of me, go figure!), are also based on the idea of the getting the fairest results. The better fundraiser is limited in the benefit he can get from his better fundraising. At the last election there were people prepared to roll out arguments on both sides if someone didn’t win the popular vote and yet won the electoral college. The electoral college is one of those procedure things. It doesn’t seem “fair” to many Americans.

    Of course, we could go back behind the rule that Florida violated, and ask whether that rule itself was fair. But for that we have to ask the same question. Are we concerned with whether it was properly proposed and passed, or whether it adheres to some other standard of fairness, such as “count all the votes.”

    I don’t think these issues are very easily resolved. Despite being a Florida resident, my own feeling is that the rule that Florida violated was a bad rule, but it was the rule nonetheless. Florida’s politicians would have done well to try to get it changed, but violating it was a bad idea. I wouldn’t seat the delegation. That’s my feeling, but I can think of many arguments against my own position.

    More importantly, I think that Americans need to learn more about procedure and process, and their importance in producing reasonable fairness and justice. They may not work all the time, but their absence would result in much less fairness. We may have little patience for procedure. We laud the person who cuts through the red tape and gets the job done. But sometimes those hoops we have to jump through have a purpose. Even if the system looks troubling, consider what might happen without it.

    Let’s reform the rules and procedures wherever they apply, but let’s not just bypass them in the interest of the moment’s notion of fairness.

  • On the Processes of Science

    Dr. Tony has an excellent post on the processes of science, discussing some words like “theory” and “fact” and also talking about how one goes about doing science. This is from a general perspective, not just from biology or evolutionary theory.

    One of my favorite books on Evolution, What Evolution Is by Ernst Mayr, seems to blur this point badly by using the terms “fact” and “theory” more in the popular sense. This makes trouble for all of us, I think, though obviously Mayr is a guiding scientific light:

    “. . . Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity. . . .” (p. 12)

    It’s troubling that a biologist of his stature uses that loose of definitions. Otherwise, his book is excellent, and I heartily recommend it. But I’m sticking with this: “Theories don’t grow up to be facts. They explain facts, and they grow up to be more firmly confirmed theories.”

    I like the practical way in which Dr. Tony explains the process. Besides the meaning of “theory” he addresses the “science is what happens in the lab” error common in creationist circles. They announce that evolution cannot be science, because not every aspect can be repeated in a laboratory. His presentation deals nicely with that.

  • Florida Adopts Compromise Science Standards

    The Florida Board of Education voted 4-3 today to add the words “scientific theory of” before the word evolution in the standards. It was my understanding that the phrase would be added also before every scientific theory in the standards if this was done, but I don’t yet know if that is the case.

    The fact that this is regarded as a compromise illustrates how little some know about the use of the word “theory” in a scientific context. The meaning should not be changed at all, but obviously some people think that evolution is weakened in this way, and presumably hope to introduce religious alternatives. But evolution is a theory, and “theory” in a scientific context refers to an explanation of a variety of observations, not to a “weak” fact.

    We will have to keep watch on Florida’s educational community to see that teaching is not weakened due to some perceived meaning in the word “theory.”

  • Tension Between Tradition and Innovation in John 4

    I have used John 4 in many ways, especially in discussing various methods of teaching. But something struck me more forcefully this morning than it has before–the tension between tradition and innovation. It is not that Jesus denies all tradition and favors innovation, which one could conclude based on the living water vs. well water contrast (4:10-14). It’s clear that is not the case when he says that salvation is “of the Jews” (v. 22).

    I think the author of John could hardly have built up the tension any better than setting this story beside Jacob’s well, yet the wall is in Samaritan territory. Both Samaritans and Jews claimed to be coming from the same traditional “well.” Notice also that while Jesus affirms the Jewish position as the source, he doesn’t support their continued position as sole possessors of current truth. He points to himself for that.

    In fact, in the Johannine community, I would say it is the Samaritans of this story who are playing the Jews who are opposed to the community. Since the Johannine community was probably Jewish, but Jews who had been recently forced out of the synagogue, you can see the interesting interplay. Salvation is from the Jews, but through Jesus comes the innovation–the living water that doesn’t fail. This parallels the “spiritual worship” in which the location (synagogue, temple, or other location) no longer matters. The Samaritans, who think they are the heirs, are really not, but have to come to Jesus (represented in the Johannine community) in order to get the living water and truly quench their thirst.

    On the other hand, there is encouragement for the community, who are to look back at those who have thrust them out, and consider them ready for harvest.

    I just have to add that I find John endlessly fascinating with its layers of meaning.

  • Christian Carnival #212 Posted

    . . . at The Evangelical Ecologist. Thanks to Don for hosting a fine carnival.

  • Another Reason to be Involved with your Children

    MSNBC.com reports on a study showing that internet predators aren’t behaving the way people assumed they behaved. Instead in many cases they’re picking up teens by openly looking for sex, and there are some teens who are willing to go along.

    How can you actually protect your children? Even though I came into the parenting game a bit late (I became a stepfather in my early 40s), let me make a suggestion: Teach your children good social behavior either on the internet or off, and then be involved with their lives, on the internet or off. Without your parental guidance, your children are not safe. Automatic parental control systems are helpful. Law enforcement is necessary and helpful. But the final line for protecting children and grandchildren is being involved. It takes time, it’s not necessarily easy. Children, especially teenagers may act like they resent it, but it’s the one and only way you have to protect them.

    Studies like this suggest the possibility that we may close the door on 5% of the problem (or try!), while leaving it open on the other 95%. Involvement means that whatever the danger, there is some adult experience and hopefully wisdom there to evaluate it. You can’t be there all the time and cover everything, but the more you are there the better.

  • Florida Citizens for Science Blog on Standards

    Brandon Haught has blogged much of the discussion on the Florida Citizens for Science Blog. My previous post is here. I doubt the standards opponents would have gone to such trouble over the word “theory” if they didn’t intend some underhanded tactics based on the popular definition as curriculum is developed and textbooks are chosen.

  • Panic in the Temple of Darwin?

    A friend forwarded a link to an article on Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog titled Two Irreconcilable Worldviews. I would note, incidentally, that Dr. Mohler’s blog doesn’t allow commenting, a practice I deplore. Nonetheless, in his position I imagine it is to be expected.

    There are so many things I could comment on in this post. The first is the use of the term “worldview.” “Worldview” has become a shorthand way of referring to one’s complete view of life, the universe, and everything. It is an unnuanced approach to information. There are some appropriate and valuable uses of it, but in general I think it merely simplifies something that is complex, and thus misrepresents it. As a moderate, I tend not to like large packages. I’d prefer to pick my own viewpoints, thank you!

    Now if Dr. Mohler said merely that evolution was irreconcilable with Southern Baptist theology, I would have little problem. The Southern Baptist convention has done a good job of pushing moderates and liberals to go elsewhere, and thus it is very likely that evolution cannot be reconciled with what is left, though there are some who would differ. And it’s their denomination, not mine, so I shouldn’t try to tell them who is in and who is out.

    But Dr. Mohler feels free to make that same sort of comment with regard to mainline Christians. Now I fit into the “mainline protestant” category fairly well. I also have to confess that there is a good deal of confusion amongst mainliners with regard to just what we believe. At least there’s confusion amongst the few who think about it. I was shocked when I joined a United Methodist congregation just how few even knew what the doctrinal stands of their denomination actually were. I was asked by my pastor after I had been Methodist for only a year, to teach a class on the doctrine of Christian perfection. Now this doctrine is in the Methodist Book of Discipline. I expected people to argue about it or at least to have questions. On the first day of the class, however, I found that only the pastor and I were aware that there actually was such a thing.

    When you go further afield into things that are only in resolutions or in general consensus of opinion, it’s not surprising that people truly don’t go deep into the theological implications of what they believe. But many mainline theologians have done so, and they have found that their faith and the theory of evolution are not irreconcilable at all. I would urge mainliners to actually read up on some of the theology. There’s John Haught’s God After Darwin, Howard J. Van Till’s The Fourth Day, the evangelical Dr. Richard Colling’s Random Designer, on which I blogged here some time ago. From a scientists perspective, yet still theologically aware, we have Dr. Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. And I’ve only touched the surface. I’m sure someone will mention a really good book in the comments and I’ll think: “I should have thought of that!”

    But the part that struck me the most about this blog is the ending:

    Tellingly, Michael Zimmerman sees the public status of evolutionary theory endangered by the fact that so many Christians resist the theory. As he admits, “I believe that most people, if forced to choose between religion and evolution, will select religion.” He is right, of course — and that is why there is such panic in the temple of Darwin.

    There are so many problems with this. First, we have the inability of a religious leader to see the difference between a scientific theory and a religious institution such as a denomination. “Panic in the temple” is when a bunch of United Methodists get around and start talking membership loss statistics. The concern is for our community and how it functions and grows. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is and must be constantly under examination. Every time a scientists in a relevant field collects experimental data, whether he is digging up fossils, or culturing bacteria in the lab, the theory of evolution is there to be challenged. The fact that it keeps coming back confirmed, merely tells us how valuable it is. But note at the same time that it has been modified any number of times to meet new challenges. Unlike a denomination, however, all the scientists would remain scientists were the current theory of evolution overturned. They would merely have to adjust their theoretical framework. Yes, it would take a long time. It should take a long time for such a shift.

    Second, is there any panic involved? In the United States there is certainly a high level of concern. I’m highly concerned when I see that a narrow majority of the people in my state, 45%-43% (see poll) reject a thoroughly confirmed scientific theory, and that quite a number of those who accept it think it’s not all that well confirmed. Why is this? Would I be disturbed because a favorite theory of mine is not accepted? (Remember that I have been fascinated by the debate over creation and evolution since I was a child, even though I accepted young earth creation until I was in college.) Actually it concerns me only because we need science to solve many of our technical problems.

    So when Dr. Mohler seems to suggest that it’s a good thing when people choose religion over science, I have to question his good judgment. It sounds to me much like a carpenter rejecting his hammer in favor of his saw.

    Consider global warming. My faith and ethics tell me that while I put people first, people need a world in which to live, so I must be careful. Religion cannot tell me whether we are suffering from global warming or cooling, or how much of that effect is due to man-made emissions, or what is the best strategy to deal with whatever it is. Only science can do that.

    Consider biotechnology. Science can discover how to create various genetically engineered products, and what they might be useful for. I go to my faith to see just how I should apply these things to my real world. (I do not mean here to put down those who would prefer a humanist ethics to faith. I’m speaking for myself.)

    And biotechnology is closely tied to evolutionary theory. If we want to have a solid idea of what is going on in these areas, we will have to understand evolutionary theory. Our children will have to understand it. Despite desperate efforts to claim otherwise, evolutionary theory is foundational in biology, with an impact that extends into our everyday lives through advances in medicine. If we want to understand and continue to advance in medicine, we will need to understand this.

    There is indeed cause for concern amongst those who support science. Science education has lagged for two long in this country. It is that weakness in scientific education that has permitted the current situation to exist.

    But I think there is, perhaps, more of a panic in the halls of religion. As a Christian this concerns me substantially. More and more young people are turning away from the church and from traditional religion. There is a certain panic amongst religious leaders as they see this happening. They are afraid that morality will slip away at the same time.

    There is a time to take a moral stand, but when you do so, you have to do so on the right side. To take a stand against the theory of evolution right now as a moral issue is to take a stand on the wrong side of history. Religion can be severely impaired should we choose at this moment to try to force people either to avoid education in this topic, or to ignore the evidence in front of them. I believe that evidence is strong, and that to force this issue over the next decade or so will result in more and more brilliant young people leaving the church. They will do so not because they cannot accept Christian morality. In fact, many of them will have firmer moral principles than us older folks. They will do so because they will refuse to regard it as right to ignore clear and overwhelming evidence.

    I hope that Dr. Mohler’s choice is not the one presented, because I think if we present this as two worldviews, then no matter which one chooses he or she will be terribly impoverished. My firm choice is both.

  • What Have They Done with Jesus? – III

    I continue blogging through What Have They Done with Jesus by Ben Witherington with chapter 2. In the first chapter we were introduced to two women, Joanna, whom Witherington connects with Junia (Acts 16:7) and Mary Magdalene. This second chapter focuses on Mary Magdalene and what we can know about her, not to mention things we can know are not so.

    This is a long chapter, beginning on page 27 and ending on page 51. The reason for this is that Witherington has to provide the background of the documents that are used in fashioning various stories of Mary Magdalene. Few characters in literature have received the type of attention that she has. She is seen as everything from a prostitute to the wife of Jesus.

    It’s interesting that I just read Bart Ehrman’s book on Judas, and he also says that pretty much everything said about Mary Magdalene in literature is false. Note that on other points Ehrman and Witherington would disagree substantially.

    So what is Witherington’s approach? First he goes over the background of the gnostic documents and makes his case that they are largely later than the canonical materials. He also contends that they are much too different from the canonical gospels to come generally from the same source. I think he is on fairly solid ground in maintaining that the gnostic materials are late and have little claim to be good sources for the historical Jesus. The one exception here is the Gospel of Thomas, which I think has some value.

    Second, Witherington presents a highly negative view of gnosticism in general and asks why so many modern scholars, and particularly feminists tend to like it. I honestly find many negative things about gnosticism, but there are two potential problems here. First, we can just as easily judge gnosticism unfairly by modern standards. Second, most readers today will have a perspective that is more sympathetic to the orthodox viewpoint as it has been passed down. If we got the orthodox viewpoint in a more raw form, we might be less sympathetic. Asceticism and patriarchy were characteristics of both.

    There are a few pages in which it almost seems that Witherington is trying to give us a negative view of the value of the gnostic literature by means of giving us a negative view of gnosticism itself. That is not, in fact, his argument, but you have to read through the section to get to the point, which is that these folks were not primarily concerned with historical events.

    The one gnostic document that requires more discussion is the gospel of Thomas. I could wish Witherington had spent more time establishing the priority of ‘Q’ over the gospel of Thomas. As it is, the case is reasonable, even though Q is hypothetical. If Q did exist (something of which I’m not 100% convinced), then it would necessarily be quite early, and there is little likelihood that Thomas would be older.

    At the same time it is worth considering that if there were sayings collections, Thomas could also go back to an older source. That would be hypothetical, but certainly not out of the question. I personally would treat Thomas as largely independent source for sayings, though I wouldn’t accept it as sole evidence, and it certainly appears to be a 2nd century compilation.

    It’s a bit odd to discover at the end of this chapter that all this discussion results in the simple conclusion that we know remarkably little about Mary Magdalene. Witherington then makes a number of strong statements about the historicity of the canonical statements about her, and based on those statements about the historicity of the resurrection itself. On this point I think he is on less solid ground. He is right to apply a full measure of skepticism to the gnostic gospels.

    I find it remarkable that so many scholars regard them as highly as they do with reference to the historical Jesus. Yet a historian must use similar skepticism on the canonical gospels. Witherington himself says much the same thing. Yet I don’t see it in practice up to this point. (Please remember that I’m blogging through and not reviewing. I am reporting my state of mind at this point, not my final conclusions.) I will be watching for a similar level of analysis of the canonical sources as I continue to read.

  • Not Keeping Hyperbole Straight

    Some folks on the right are apparently having trouble keeping their hyperbole straight. I’ll let Ed Brayton, of Dispatches from the Culture Wars carry it on from there with OMG! Obama is a Fascist!, referencing a post on STACLU and his next post No, Wait: Obama is a Communist!, referencing a post on WorldNetDaily. Ed, those two sources give you way too much fun! And some of those folks on the right need to learn to keep their hyperbole straight.