I’ve spent a good chunk of Saturday night cleaning up bad code. When I built the Beretta site I knew a little about web design, but I still managed to leave a lot of ugly code lying around. I know a little more now than I did then, so tonight I went through the pages and did some tidying. You might not notice any difference visually, but believe me it’s way better.
I also re-vamped my CV to look all pretty earlier today.
I’m not really all that familiar with who’s who in American politics, nor do I really wish to be. When I saw somebody post a video clip on Facebook of a woman with a name I didn’t recognise saying that Mao Tse Tung is one of her favourite political philosophers, I initially thought “So what? Some people admire crazy communists who were responsible for millions of deaths. Who is Anita Dunn that anybody should care?”
Boy do I have a red face now. Anita Dunn was (is? I’m not even sure) the interim White House Communications Director. That’s right, the White House. Yes, the one in America.
The rumour is that Ms Dunn has now said that she was just joking – that she did not actually mean to say anything positive about mao at all, but was mimicking an old Lee Atwater schtick. Nuh uh. Nobody’s buying. Mao was clearly referred to as a favourite political philosopher so that Dunn could go on to explain how good some of his advice was. Likewise, she wasn’t joking about Mother Teresa.
Some light viewing on Chairman Mao:
It’s not often that I’m likely to agree with the late Bertrand Russell on a subject like religion. In most ways he was simply dead wrong. However there is one claim he makes that I can happily echo. He said:
I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.
Funny, I feel the same way! The level of certainty that I have that religion, in and of itself, is harmful, exactly matches my certainty that all religion is false. Well said, Dr Russell.
Mike Tyson - To know him is to love him?
I came across a pretty bizarre claim today, courtesy of one Mr John Loftus. That claim is that omniscience is incompatible with the idea of a God who would inflict wrath. What inspired this unusual claim? Why, Oprah Winfrey interviewing Mike Tyson – naturally, what else?
Apparently Mr Loftus thought Mike was just a big jerk before watching the interview, but after watching the interview that jerked a few tears (OK I exaggerate), since he now understood where he had come from, John’s tune had been changed. And how exactly does this translate into the somewhat left field theological claim made above? Like so:
Once we understand someone and what made that person who he is, we can love him. If I only understood everything about a person and every experience he has ever had that made him who he is, then I could love him completely. An omniscient God supposedly has that understanding of all of us. Hence an omniscient God can never be angry with us. Q.E.D.
Q.E.D.? Seriously? That’s supposed to be a logical proof? How exactly does JL know that if God knew us completely he would also love us completely? This is only true if we are completely worthy of divine love. Are we? Maybe a proof of a similar form actually disproves the argument as follows: If I knew everything about a person, I would know whether or not they are worthy of complete and unqualified love (since this is something about a person). We have considerable flaws that make us unworthy of completely unqualified love. To borrow JL’s turn of phrase, “an omniscient God supposedly has that understanding of all of us.” Consequently an omniscient God knows whether we are worthy of such love and as such would not give us complete and unqualified love, leaving room for the possibility of divine wrath.
Is turnabout fair play?
Glenn Peoples
Justin Taylor over at the Gospel Coalition blog today drew my attention to the fact that it has been thirty years since John Piper left his teaching post at Bethel College and took up his pastoral role at Bethlehem Baptist Church.
After his first sermon preached there, and before he had ben selected as Pastor, John gave the following as his three aims if he were to begin serving as their pastor:
In this layperson’s opinion, all signs are currently pointing to the aims being met. But time will tell. 🙂
Today, The twelfth of October, marks the anniversary of the battle for Passchendaele, France, in 1917.
That battle has become representative of the horrors of World War I, thousands of young men scrambling though mud and barbed wire, mown down by German machine gun and mortar fire. The battle was an attempt to capture Passchendaele Ridge as part of a larger effort to push north to take the German submarine bases on the Belgian coast. It was without a doubt (setting aside mass destruction like Dresden or Hiroshima) one of the most bloody days in the history of Western warfare. On October 12 over the space of no more than two hours, more than 2,800 New Zealand soldiers were either killed, seriously injured, or became missing in action.
Recovering the New Zealand wounded from the battlefield took two and a half days days even with 3,000 extra men from the Fourth Brigade, artillery and other units plus a battalion from the British 49th Division. The conditions were horrendous and six men were needed to carry each stretcher because of the mud and water. The Germans suffered the same problems and an informal truce for stretcher-bearers came into force, although anyone without a stretcher was fired on. By the evening of October 14 there simply was no one left alive on the battlefield.
Under most circumstances, homeschooling is the best form of schooling/education for children that exists in the world. I say most to allow for extreme or unusual cases where things don’t work as they should – severe disabilities or disorders, long term illness, I don’t know, there are probably other cases too, but you get the idea. Having said that though, homeschooling provides scope for a much more individualised approach for your child’s education, meaning that there will be plenty of people for whom a special needs child will make them better suited to a homeschooling environment.
As far as educational outcomes go, the worldwide evidence is simply overwhelming: Homeschooling is superior. It is a hands down victory. This cannot be stated clearly enough: If anyone suggests to you that the case is not obviously, clear cut, backed up universally by all the available evidence and beyond dispute, they need more exposure to the information. This is a settled issue: Homeschooling on average produces markedly better academic results. This, for many parents, is the main drawcard for the homeschooling option.
See here, here, here, or… you get the idea. I won’t multiply examples. Just Google it.
It is simply a falsehood that you can’t teach children well unless you’re an accredited teacher. Homeschooled children receive a superior education to children who attend the local government school. It also enables a far more customised approach to education. Children are diverse, they don’t all learn the same way, and what works for one child may not be as effective as another. While a school might be able to pump extra teaching resources and time into catching up with this diversity and moving away from an “education mill” model, for the homeschooler it is natural – why wouldn’t the education of each child be uniquely tailored to that child?
The one comment that I hear more often than any other when somebody finds out that we homeschool our children – and other homeschoolers will guess what it is before I ever say it – is, “what about the social aspect? Do they learn to interact with other children?”
Here’s how I look at it: Take animals in the wild vs animals in farms. Do animals in the wild get to interact in a normal, healthy way with other animals? Of course. What about animals in a farm, or maybe a zoo? Do they interact naturally with each other? To some extent, yes. Children in homeschooling are like animals in the wild. They, with their families, form natural communities: Families, neighbourhoods, churches, sports clubs, social organisations, you get the idea. What’s more, because it’s not a forced environment like a zoo or a farm, you don’t have the serious social problems associated with schools: bullying and being forced to belong to the same social group as the bully, being forced to associate with groups that are frankly bad for them (gangs, antisocial behaviour, violence, smoking/drugs, fill in the blanks). Picking up a line from my sister (they also homeschool their children), when people ask me whether our children are “missing out” socially I tell them: “Oh no, we make sure they don’t miss out. We beat them up, steal their lunch, teach them bad habits, encourage them to be promiscuous, all that stuff.” The other person usually sees the point! Do we shelter our children? Of course. We’re their parents, and they’re all younger than twelve years old. What kind of irresponsible people would we be if we didn’t shelter them?
I want to reiterate this is clearly as I can: In virtually every way, homeschooling is superior to other kinds of education. Schools just cannot compete with it. It’s barely even a close race. I say all this in advance in bold terms because I don’t want anyone to think that what I say next reflects in any way a lower view of homeschooling. I continue to hold the above view of homeschooling.
Now for the next part: In a couple of days time, our children will start attending a school. It’s not a public school, but it’s a school. Five days a week, from 9am until 3pm (I think). It’s not a decision we relish for their sake, but it’s one we’ve had to make. My wife is a wonderful mother and has been doing a really outstanding job with our children. But something had to change. As I’ve been saying from time to time, I have virtually no time to do the things that I really need to do if I am ever going to move into the area of employment that I spent all those years getting degrees for: academia in theology or philosophy (or both).
What’s more, I currently work a pretty low paying job, and our financial situation could be a lot stronger (actually, it needs to be. I don’t think the employer envisages someone on this salary supporting a family). I figured it would only be a temporary measure while also work at home, I get material published and boost my profile to improve my chances in academia, but the trouble is, working full time actually prevents me from doing that to the extent to which I need to do it, so I end up just staying in that low paid role, supporting our family. Financially, something does need to change.
So we need a little more cash, and I need a little more time, even just a free day each week. So the children are going to school – a less than ideal situation education-wise, but the best school that we are able to make use of, a small local Christian school with a very flexible approach to education. Ruth is going to be looking for some work, maybe just a few days a week, and when that happens, I will see if I can work fewer hours.
If that all goes to plan, I will be much better placed to work towards landing an academic job, and if/when that happens, we will be in a position to revisit Ruth’s employment situation and the children’s education options. The long term plan is about what’s best for the whole family. We’d like to be in a position to homeschool again.
Glenn Peoples
Over at the blog, “the Christ Seminar,” a common but plainly fallacious argument about the Bible and abortion has reared its head. At the time of writing this post, wordpress.com is having technical problems and I can’t post a comment in reply just now, so I’ll make the point here instead.
The claim made in the blog entry “The (lack of) biblical arguments again abortion” is, you guessed it, that the Bible says nothing that amounts to a condemnation of abortion – killing the unborn. In the post and the comments, the author makes two specific claims: 1) That the Bible does not directly mention killing the unborn and in doing so condemn the practice, and in reply to a commenter, the author adds, 2) While the Bible condemns homicide in general, it is silent on whether or not the unborn count as human beings, so we cannot say that they are included in the biblical prohibition on homicide.
To think that the biblical condemnation of homicide applies to those who are not yet born, the author says, is to drag in extra-biblical claims.
Firstly, I think the Bible actually does have something directly to say about the status of the unborn and the morality of killing them, but I’m actually going to address what is a fallacious argument from silence in the author’s blog and comments.The fallacious argument is that since the Bible does not expressly state that the unborn are included in the prohibition on homicide, we should conclude that they are not included in the biblical prohibition on homicide.
Here is the comment I was unable to post (but will try later, when it will hopefully be up and running again). It illustrates just how misguided the argument is:
Good point, Max
While we’re at it, let’s apply your reasoning to a similar situation: The killing of those between the ages of 8 years old and 8 1/2 years old.
The fact (or lack thereof ) that they are fully human is an extra-biblical fact. The Bible is silent about it. We cannot just beg the question and assume that the biblical prohibition on homicide applies to them without begging the question.
I was shocked to realise this given the dogmatic views of some people that such killing is “unbiblical” or “condemned by the Bible,” but like I you I follow an argument to its conclusion, like it or not. In spite of what child protection reactionists might think, The Bible says absolutely nothing specifically about it being wrong to kill homo sapiens between the ages of 8 and 8 1/2. Damn any extra-biblical claims to the contrary.
This may seem like an absurd way to interpret biblical texts. It is, of course. That’s because nobody should read the Bible while intentionally suppressing their own knowledge of the world. We know that nobody ceases to be human at eight years old, only to resume their humanity at eight and a half. Does the Bible need to say this?
The Bible “says nothing” about shooting people with automatic weapons. It does condemn murder, and we, like sensible people, are supposed to combine biblical instructions with our knowledge of the world, like so:
We would think a person to be just silly if he said that we were “begging the question” by just assuming that shooting people with automatic weapons is a species of what the Bible condemns.
Take another example: The Bible says in Luke 24:13 that some of Jesus’ friends, after Jesus had been crucified, were traveling from Jerusalem to Emmaus. But does the text say that they were traveling toward the West? No. So should we reject the claim that “the Bible says they were traveling West”? Is it begging the question to say that they were traveling West? Clearly not. The Bible says they were traveling from Jerusalem to Emmaus, and our knowledge of the world includes the knowledge that Emmaus is West of Jerusalem. It is quite proper, therefore, to say that the Bible indicates that these friends of Jesus were traveling toward the West.
Likewise, it is just silly to accuse people of begging the question when reasoning from the Bible when they say:
If a person wishes to take issue with 2) and rebut it, that is fine. Go ahead and do that. This would change the conclusion about what biblical instructions do or do not require. But as it stands, the objection to the pro-life reading of the Bible is frankly ridiculous.
I just added this as my Facebook status, but it’s worth mentioning here too: How is it that a black President can get a Nobel for no reason other than potential for future events, yet that same potential doesn’t even count when considering whether or not an unborn child should be allowed to continue LIVING?*
Whether anybody knew it or not, any potential that Obama has now, he also had before he was born. What’s ironic is that if Obama does not renounce this prize, and if he continues to hold his pro-choice stance on abortion, it suggests that he thinks potential counts for him but not for others.
* I mention the fact that Obama is black because I think that unfortunately, this was a big part of the reason for his popularity and why people pin so much hope to him for “change.”
Glenn Peoples
A few US Presidents have been awarded the Nobel peace prize because of their past achievements.
Do you notice a pattern here? They successfully did something of great significance, and in recognition of what they achieved, they were awarded the Nobel prize after completing that achievement. The same is true in Nobel awards for literature and science. Who, for example, would get a literary award for being really clever, just the sort of person who would probably write a great book? Nobody. You have to write the book first, and it had better be good.
Today the Nobel peace prize became less prestigious, and all those former US Presidents who won the award have been slapped in the face. President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for not achieving anything yet.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. “In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”
Notice: Obama has been awarded for what he hopes to achieve in the future. Will he bring about global nuclear disarmament? We have no idea. Will he bring about greater unity between the US and Muslim states? We do not know. But hey, he wants to!
I hate to sound like the rain on Obama’s celebration, but I have to throw my lot in with Michael Russnow – an Obama supporter – who writes in the Huffington Post:
It is traditional for Nobel honorees to be named a long time after their achievements in the sciences and literature. Indeed, the winners announced this week in other categories performed their amazing work and discoveries decades ago. Obama’s designation is akin to giving an Oscar to a young director for films we hope that he or she will produce or for a first-time published author getting a Pulitzer for a book he is destined to write some day.
The time has not yet arrived and circumstances have not yet evolved where Barack Obama is anywhere near the point where he has earned this prize. I don’t blame him for this capricious action; it was the Nobel Peace Committee which committed the offense, which no doubt has Alfred Nobel thumping his head against his casket.
The president took office less than two weeks before Feburary the 1st, the final day of nominations. He earned the award in two weeks? I’m sorry, the whole thing demeans the Prize itself and smacks of political partisanship. From the Associated Press coverage:
The Nobel committee praised Obama’s creation of “a new climate in international politics” and said he had returned multilateral diplomacy and institutions like the U.N. to the center of the world stage. The plaudit appeared to be a slap at President George W. Bush from a committee that harshly criticized Obama’s predecessor for resorting to largely unilateral military action in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
I feel sorry for the other recipents of Nobel prizes this year. Their honour has been lessened.
Glenn Peoples
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén