Thoughts on God, family, and work

Okay, so it's been almost a month since I've posted last...oops. Things have been really crazy for me and the wife, but in a good way. In may we spent one weekend in Chicago, one in Springfield, MO, one in San Francisco and one in Sacramento. Wow! I'm now teaching an intro to philosophy class at OU and it's going to kick my butt. It meets Monday through Friday, so I have to prepare lectures every night! I hope to get a few days of lectures prepared in advance, and then can get back to blogging. Here are some neat pics from our trips.

From Travel

The pic above was taking at a really neat coffee shop on Michigan Ave in Chicago. I tried to convince the owner that he should open one up in Norman, but I'm not sure if he bought the idea.

From Travel

This is, in my opinion, the best used bookstore ever. Green Apple Books has an amazing selection of books, and they are very organized. Within their philosophy section, they had all sorts of sub-sections. It was great, I got to just jump right past all that continental stuff! Click the 'travel' link underneath either picture to go to my album with lots more pics from our trip.

Last week I took my general exam and yesterday gave a defense of my answers. Well, I passed and am now an official candidate for the doctoral degree. (That sounds so cool.) When talking with people about this exam, many weren't too sure what the exam was like and what types of answers the exam committee expected. So, I've decided to do a series of posts where I'll present one of the questions I answered and then give my response (in a truncated form). Because I still have to finish a paper for my Kant seminar by tomorrow, this post will only contain the questions that I answered. I'll start posting my responses next week.

1. Discuss one of the three traditional classes of argument for theism: The Ontological Argument, the Cosmological argument, and the Teleological Argument. In your discussion present at least two forms of the argument-- a classical form and a contemporary form. The latter may be a version of your own invention, but it should be the best version you know of. Evaluate the argument. Discuss the issue of whether the traditional arguments have any use for religion as a practice.
   
2. Present the argument that infallible foreknowledge seems to entail the non-existence of human free will. Give at least three traditional compatibilist solutions to the problem and briefly evaluate them. Present your own evaluation of the argument.
   
3. What is meant by religious exclusivism? What is meant by religious inclusivism? Distinguish inclusivism/exclusivism about truth and inclusivism/exclusivism about salvation. Explain the theory of religious diversity John Hick calls pluralism. How is it meant to circumvent the unappealing aspects of both exclusivism and inclusivism about the truth of different religions? How well does Hick succeed? Discuss some of the objections raised to Hick’s theory.
   
4. Distinguish the logical and evidential problems of evil. Carefully explain the most compelling version of the Free Will defense. Discuss the prospects for a version of this response as a plausible way out of both problems.

Well, I'm now off to start working on that last paper. I'm very excited about the thought of not having any more term papers after this one. I guess you could consider the dissertation as one big term paper, but that takes all the fun out of it.

Cheers,

I was talking with a good friend (his website) last night about the problem of evil and how it relates to Christian theology. I'm starting to think that an adequate answer (solution?) to the problem of evil has to rely on specific Christian resources. For those unfamiliar with the problem, I'll briefly state it. It seems that the following are inconsistent (either logically, or at least probably inconsistent):

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is wholly good
3. Evil exists

If God is wholly good he would want to eliminate evil and if he is omnipotent he could eliminate evil, but yet we experience (or hear of) evil all the time. I think this poses the greatest challenge to Christian theism, but also think there are good responses to the problem.

In the philosophical discussions it is often tempting to try to resolve this problem without appealing to specific Christian doctrines, but I think that is a mistake. There aren't many who believe in a God that is just omnipotent and wholly good and know nothing else of him or his plan for this world. So, it seems that the problem is directed toward Christian theists and so it should be acceptable to appeal to certain Christian understandings of justice and eschatology in giving an answer to the problem.

During our discussion last night my friend pointed out that many people are glad they exist even if they have experienced a great amount of evil. I think that is a really important thing to keep in mind. Sure, person X may have experienced a lot of evil, but if X thinks it is better for him to have existed than not, is the problem of evil still as pressing? I wonder how many people would say they really wish they were never born. (On a side note, it would be interesting to study the psychology of a suicidal person. Do they wish they were never born, or just that they don't want to go on living? I think an answer to that will play a role.) As I was reflecting about last night's conversation I began to wonder how this would fit into the Christian's understanding of hell.

I guess if I'm willing to appeal to Christian theology to respond to the problem of evil I also need to deal with difficult parts of that same Christian theology. I'm not exactly sure what the orthodox understanding of hell is, but I'm pretty sure it's not literally fire & brimstone. Either way, it's not a place that anyone would want to be (regardless of their jokes about it). No matter how much evil a person inflicts on earth, eternal punishment for that temporal evil seems to be a bit of an overkill. At some point, would it actually have been better for the person in hell to not have existed? Even if people experiencing evil on earth still are glad they exist, would the person in hell feel the same way? Is the fact that they are in hell because they rejected God and not because they committed evils relevant? My intuitions lead me to think they would not want to have existed at all instead of spending eternity in hell, but that's just my intuitions talking. This, of course, leads to the discussion about whether a wholly good being could annihilate his creation and still be wholly good. The two questions are closely connected, but I just don't know what to say about either at this point.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Maybe a better understanding of what hell is (and not just what it isn't) would help resolve the problem, but I'm not sure.

At some point we all need to learn how to evaluate that which we believe and ascertain whether or not our beliefs are worth holding. In talking with a friend a while back, we decided that many within the Church have a general distrust of reflection and critical evaluation and so never examine their own beliefs. This is quite an unfortunate phenomenon and has especially troubled me the last few months. More recently, I’ve come to believe that one of the major causes for this sad state of affairs is fear. Many people are afraid that they are wrong and that the positions they hold will be exposed as fallacious. Exacerbating the problem is the place of importance these positions typically hold. However, all is not lost. This fear of being wrong (or of argumentation in general) can be removed once people begin to understand that it is a good thing to discover the ways in falsehood has crept into our belief system.

First, we need to have a better understanding of what an argument is. When I talk of arguments or argumentation, I most certainly don’t mean the screaming and yelling matches that you had with your siblings (hopefully just when you were younger!). What I do mean is the methodical laying out and examination of one’s positions. This alone can resolve tensions between two apparently different positions. If you tell me, “God is omnipotent and so can create square circles” and I say “God is omnipotent and yet cannot create square circles” you are likely to accuse me of not really believing in God’s omnipotence. But, once I present my argument in a more structured way, you will likely see why I affirm God’s omnipotence and yet deny his ability to create square circles.

Now that we’ve seen what I’m not referring to, we can talk about some tips for considering other people’s arguments. First, it is imperative that you listen to the person state his position and remain open to the idea that you are wrong and not him. This humility is likely to create an environment where you are actually trying to understand his position and not just look for a way to squeeze in your thoughts about why he is wrong. Second, learn how to state the other position in a way that is acceptable to the other person. This forces you to ‘get’ their position. Once I understood why someone would be a Calvinist, I stopped thinking they’re just crazy. If you can only restate the position in a ridiculous or question-begging way, then you’re not actually dealing with that position but instead a caricature of something someone holds dear. I think these are simple practices that we should always try to keep in mind no matter who we are dealing with, but I think they are mandatory when discussing issues within the Church. Christ prayed for his Church to be one, and today we are far from that. As we obtain truth about God and his relationship with us, we will see denominational differences begin to fade.

You’ve no doubt noticed a lot of talk about ‘truth’. At this point you might even ask why should we bother with this outdated notion of truth. Why not just keep on marching along in what we already know? Well, because if we deny that there is truth that we can obtain, it seems we also deny that we have the ability to know God and about him. John Polkinghorne has said, “If God is the god of truth, then the more truth we have, the greater understanding we have; the more we are learning about God.” Understanding that knowing truth is knowing God will do wonders to alleviate the fear of being wrong. Why is that? Because being ‘right’ is just simply overrated. Once you know that you’re right (or think you know), you no longer need to learn any more about your own positions or about those of others. If you are humble enough to recognize that you might be wrong, then you’ll continue to seek the deeper understanding that ultimately results in a deeper knowledge of God.

Not only should we be open to the idea of being wrong, if we come to learn that we indeed are wrong, we should rejoice. False beliefs ultimately lead us astray from the God of truth, and so we should be glad when we are able to remove them from our lives. So, if in reading this you find that I’m mistaken about certain things, great! Please, take the time to point out my errors to me so I may seek to remove them and find that which may appropriately take their place. Blessings.

I don't have a terrible amount of time, but thought I would take a few minutes to give everyone some updates on past postings.

1. I have previously posted about how difficult doing philosophy can be. Well, I believe that to be true more than ever. I am currently working on what will probably turn out to be the most difficult paper of my philosophical career. Who would've thought it'd take more time to write a 6-7 paper than other papers that were 15-20 pages? In sum, Kant is not a good writer and almost impossible to figure out.
   
2. In regards to a post a couple weeks back about the ban of incandescent bulbs, I just thought it was interesting to note that there are a few countries that have taken the same step. Which countries? Cuba and Venezuela. Yes, that's right. Fidel Castro and his buddy Hugo Chavez have banned incandescent bulbs. While I don't think the California ban would be implemented the same way (government ordered teens went into people's homes and removed the bulbs themselves... I don't see a bunch of people ransacking SoCal homes to take out the incandescent bulbs), I do think our continuous progress toward socialism is a bad thing. I don't want to commit the genetic fallacy here, but it is interesting that our public policy is starting to look more and more like certain socialist countries. (Well, maybe it's not the genetic fallacy if we're talking about socialism. I can just argue against that outright.)
   
3. My wife is an amazing person. Most of you already know that, but I just thought I'd take the time to say it myself for those that don't know. She has so much on her plate and yet continues to be supportive of me and my goals. I'm often impressed.

That's all for now, my paper is due on Friday and hope to give some more substantive updates once that's over.

I’ve been listening to quite a bit of commentary following Tim Hardaway’s recent comments that he hates gay people. For those of you that haven’t heard, Hardaway was asked on a Miami area sports radio show what his thoughts were about having a teammate that is gay. He made some remarks that seemed a bit bigoted and when asked if he understood those were homophobic, bigoted remarks, he responded by saying “I hate gay people.” Much of the commentary I’ve heard on a local radio station has focused on how the Bible condemns homosexuality and even though the way Hardaway expressed his view is questionable, he is right in saying that homosexuality is wrong. Their basis for why homosexuality is wrong is that the Bible condemns it. Well, I want to argue that, in this situation, what the Bible has to say about homosexuality doesn’t matter.

First, it’s not at all clear that Hardaway based his comments on the Bible. In fact, I think it’s clear that his comments were not based on the Bible. So the biblical passages that refer to homosexuality don’t matter in this context because they were never appealed to in the first place.

Some may respond by saying that even if Hardaway didn’t appeal to the Bible in his comments, he could have made such an appeal. In fact, some have even said that he should have made an appeal to the relevant Biblical passages. This leads naturally to my second point. Even if Hardaway (or anyone for that matter) does have a case that the Bible condemns homosexuality he should not have appealed to that case. Why? Because what the Bible says about homosexuality is completely irrelevant when discussing the issue with people that don’t believe in the Bible. I understand that some may be bothered by this statement so let me explain a bit further.

When making a case for or against some issue, it is important to make that case with premises that all parties find agreeable. Please allow me to illustrate. Imagine you and a friend are playing in a field behind both your houses. You see a tree and decide to climb that tree. Tree climbing is a hobby you developed with your father and would now like to climb that tree. Your friend tells you, “Don’t climb that tree!” to which you ask “Why?” Now if your friend responds by saying “Well, my daddy said to not climb this tree, so you shouldn’t climb the tree” do you have any obligation to comply? Of course not. What reason do you have to comply with the commands given by an authority (her father) that you don’t recognize? Now if your instead friend replied by saying, “All the other children that have climbed this tree have fallen and hurt themselves very badly” then it might make sense to not climb that tree. Does the situation change if instead of a friend in the field with you it is a sibling and your sibling said “Don’t climb that tree because Dad said not to”? Yes that does change things and in a very important way. Why? Because now both people recognize the same person as a common authority.

So how does that apply to debating whether or not homosexuality is a good thing to practice? Well, if you say, “Don’t engage in homosexual activities because the Bible says it is a sin” but the person doesn’t believe in the Bible, then you are no different than the friend that expects you to obey her dad. Now if both parties agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and a guide to daily living, then it is perfectly acceptable to appeal to the Bible as your authority on the subject.

Does this mean that the Christian should remain silent about the potential or actual harms of homosexuality? Of course not. There are two things open for the Christian to do. One is to engage the other person about why he or she should accept the Bible as the standard for daily living. This would be like the friend in the example going on to say, “Well, my dad is a fireman and the last time someone got hurt climbing this tree all the firemen decided it was too dangerous for anyone to climb.” This would be an attempt to show why, in this case, you should accept the authority of her dad. The second thing you can do is make your case against homosexuality without referring to the Bible. Why do you think the Bible seems to prohibit homosexuality? (I use ‘seems’ because not everyone reading this will agree it does, but even those people would agree with what follows.) Well, certain behaviors prevent people from living the best life possible. That is true whether or not you believe in God or the Bible. If you show how those behaviors prevent the best life without appealing to the Bible, then whomever you are talking with cannot just say, “Well, I don’t believe in the Bible and so I have no reason to obey its commands.”

I do think such a case can be made. If you’re interested in some books that make a case against homosexuality (among other things) without appealing to Scripture, let me know. There are also some great books that will help you know why people should believe in the Bible’s trustworthiness and reliability. Those types of books may help you with your ability to convince those that don’t trust the Bible that they should.

Well, I think the transition is finally over. Last week I found myself rooting for the OU Sooners over the OSU Cowboys in round two of this year's Bedlam series. Many of you know that I grew up an OSU fan and have always rooted for them to win. This was especially true in basketball because they were almost always pretty good (at least) in basketball. Football was always an up and down thing. They'd be good for a few years and then bad for a few. So I never got too attached to their football program, but still always rooted for them to be OU each year. Their basketball program, on the other hand, I was much more attached to.

About a year and half ago I started a Ph.D. program at OU and found myself rooting for them more and more. I decided that I had no real reason for rooting for OSU but had plenty of reasons to root for OU. Growing up I pretty much liked to annoy my older brother so I started pulling for OSU. It eventually stuck. Now that I'm getting paid by OU to get my doctoral degree and live a mile from campus, it's hard not to root for them. The first year was difficult to root for OU against OSU in football, but the national implications of the game made it a bit easier to do so. I couldn't bring myself to root against OSU in basketball though, but that all changed this year. I started watching the OU/OSU game and just found myself cheering when OU would hit a shot or make a defensive stand. It was amazing. I really don't know what happened. I guess it's just that Sooner Magic wearing of on me.

I know many of you Cowboy fans are greatly disappointed in me. Well, I'm sorry. I don't know what to say. I didn't really intend to start rooting for the Sooners, it just started happening. Maybe this is an example showing that our beliefs are not under our direct voluntary control.

Go Sooners!

Yesterday I ran across the article Might California ban the old bulb? on Yahoo! and am really ticked off about it. For those that aren't familiar with the story, let me briefly inform you. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (Dem-CA) is attempting to ban traditional incandescent light bulbs in the state of California. Levine states that incandescent bulbs use more energy and produce less light than new florescent bulbs. The bill would prohibit the sell of incandescent bulbs by the year 2012.

Why does this bother me so much? Well, because I think it's just one more example of the growing influence of the government into not just our personal lives, but into the free market system itself. It may be true that incandescent bulbs are less efficient than florescent bulbs. It may be true that in the long run florescent bulbs cost less than incandescent bulbs. That does mean that the government has the right to tell consumers what they have to buy. Let me show you buy analogy what this amounts to.

No one will question the fact hat a Honda Civic gets better gas mileage than a Chevrolet Silverado. It costs less to operate and will probably outlast the Silverado. Over a span of 10 years, the Civic is better for the environment and costs less for the consumer. Does that mean the government should be able to tell consumers they can only buy Civics? Of course not, and no sane politician would make that claim (though I believe a few have come close to it). Why does a person have the right to choose to buy a Silverado? Because we have a free-market economy that lets people spend their money on products of their choosing. A Civic just won't do the job of a Silverado and many people just think that pickup trucks are more aesthetically pleasing than small sedans.

Back to the bulbs. Florescent bulbs simply don't do the job of incandescent ones in certain situations. Often times the light has a different 'feel' to it and some people genuinely don't like how florescent bulbs light certain areas. Some don't like the fact that it takes awhile for the bulb to 'heat up'. In our kitchen we have a florescent bulb over the sink and the first 5 minutes or so, everything looks yellow. Unless I'm doing dishes, I don't usually spend more than 5 minutes over the sink, and so, the whole time I'm there, everything looks yellow. I don't mind it, but mostly because I'm cheap and want to save money. That's my decision I get to make on my own. If it really bothered me, I want to be able to go buy an incandescent bulb and get 'true' light as soon as I flip the light switch. Some people just don't like the aesthetic of the spiral light and prefer an actual bulb. These are all good reasons why someone should be able to choose to continue buying incandescent bulbs. If they want to spend the extra money and replace bulbs more often, that's their choice.

Once the cost of purchasing florescent bulbs goes down, I'm sure more people will decide to buy them. We haven't replaced every bulb with florescent ones yet because it's pretty expensive to buy a bunch of florescent bulbs. True, once we do we shouldn't have to replace them again for 10 years or so, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't have the money to spend on replacing every bulb in our house. This leads to something I find quite interesting. At Assemblyman Levine's website, he states that electric companies give away florescent bulbs because it's cheaper for them to give them away than have their plants power incandescent bulbs. (If I lived in California I would probably take the electric company up on their offer.) I'm sure that those without a lot of money are really grateful for the chance to get these bulbs for free. But, does Levine really think that will continue once it's mandated that people buy florescent bulbs? What incentive would the electric companies have to give them away if they know as soon as the incandescent bulbs burn out, people will have to buy new florescent ones?

In sum, I think it's really dangerous for the government to continue making these types of inroads into the personal decisions of the American population. The free market depends on the power of people to choose where and on what they want to spend their money. If saving energy is so vital to the electric companies, let them decide how they want to convince people to switch over. If this law went into effect 3 or 4 years ago, I can guarantee that none of the electric companies would be giving away bulbs for free.

It wasn't too long ago that the Jerry Springer Show was at the height of its success. I have only seen a few of the shows in their entirety, but without fail found each one revolting. The cause of my revulsion wasn't so much the actions of the participants (before or during the actual show) or even their willingness to emotionally prostitute themselves in front of a national audience. The main cause of my revulsion was that there was such a large amount of individuals willing to support the show by watching on a regular basis. The more horrific the actions of the participants, the more the crowd (in the audience and at home) enjoyed it. If a man left his wife for another, the audience would be pretty excited; but if he left his wife for her brother, they would be ecstatic. The crowd loved it all the more when tears turned to rage. During its heyday, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian, much less thousands of them, openly talk about how much fun it is to watch the Jerry Springer Show. It's probably true that more Christians watched the show than actually admitted it, but it's telling that most saw it fit to deny that they even watched it. Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case today.

Tonight I became deeply saddened by the state of the Church. I realized that the American Idol auditions aren't that different from the Jerry Springer Show, but scores of Christians see absolutely no problem with them. I've heard more than a few pastors mention from the pulpit that they love the show and are sure to TiVo it each week. I've heard countless Christians specifically say that they only watch it in the beginning to listen to all the really bad singers trying to make it on the show. Making fun and laughing at some of the people auditioning has become so popular in general that Fox often has 'special' shows midway through just to show more of these "awful performances." I wish I could say the Church wasn't part of that, but I know She is. I really don't see how finding humor in the judges' degrading comments much different from finding humor in the Jerry Springer Show. A bad performance gets some chuckles, but a bad performance with biting comments from the judges seems to really get people rolling. How many times have you seen an American Idol contestant's tears turn to rage? Have you noticed that's when the cameras seem most interested in following the person around? I know many won't agree with this, but I just don't see God being pleased with his Church when we not only support, but enjoy, this kind of entertainment.

To make my case more concrete, imagine with me that we went to the local high school to watch their open cheerleading tryouts (or to a local college to watch student-athletes try and walk-on to the football team). If the judges at that high school began to laugh in the faces of individuals trying out and berated them because of their effort, we would be appalled. Furthermore, if I began to laugh at the judges comments you would (or should) be even more appalled at my decidedly un-Christian attitude. I don't see that being any different from what many Christians do during American Idol. Sure, some of the people are just trying to get on TV, but others are obviously not. One of the contests tonight (they called him Red) genuinely seems to have people in his life that thought he had a great singing voice. As Red began his audition he was rudely and shockingly awoken to the fact that he doesn't have such a voice. Sadly, as the judges laughed in his face, a great number of the Church laughed right along with them. I truly believe the last thing that Christ's Church should be doing is joining in on the public humiliation that people like Red faced these last couple of days.

Please understand that I'm not saying a Christian shouldn't watch the show (it may be true that they in fact shouldn't, but that's not the point of this post). I am saying that I don't think a Christian should enjoy watching others get humiliated in front of a national audience.

For some reason I lay in bed last night thinking about the title of this blog. "MY life, MY thoughts, MY work". It appears I'm pretty wrapped up in myself. If you just looked to see the title and noticed it doesn't say that, well you're too late. I changed it. Sure, the new title conveys the same message, but it doesn't sound so self-centered.

You know what else I was thinking about in bed last night? Curling. Yes that's right, curling--the game that most Americans didn't know existed until tuning in the Winter Olympics some late night. Have I ever participated in this game? No. Have I ever watched an actual match? No. Have I seen anything over and above clips on an Olympics recap show? No. So what exactly was I thinking about last night? Well, here's where the narcissistic tendency comes back into play. I was laying in bed thinking about how I would approach each delivery of the stone and how my approach would probably be superior to other approaches. I figured the key to doing well in this game I've never played would be to have sweeping brooms with 3 different levels of 'grip'. The person furthest from the stone would have the broom with the most bite and then the next player would have one intermediate in bite, and the person closes would have a broom that leaves the ice the smoothest. It's kind of like sanding something. Start with the lowest grit (most bite) and then move up in grit (and down in bite). What's so surprising to me is that I don't even know if you can do that. To tell the truth, I don't even know if you have 3 sweepers or not. For some reason I thought I had the key to the game. Why did I think that's the best way to go? I have no idea but I have a feeling it's because I thought of it.

What can I do about these narcissistic tendencies? I'm not sure, but if past experience is any indication, I'm sure I'll think of the correct thing to do pretty quickly.

We are officially getting a dog! We're going to call him Aquinas (it's been Orlando which is just a little soft for me) and he's currently 8 months old. If everything goes as planned he'll come home with us next weekend. Oh yeah, in case you're wondering, he's a Cardigan Welsh Corgi.

Another exciting thing is that this week I had my advisory conference. This is a meeting with what will likely be my dissertation committee (there could be one two members that get changed out, but that's not very common) about my future courses and the scheduling of my general exam. It looks like this Spring I'll take the last exam of my educational career. If that goes well and I pass the exam, I'll be considered ABD (All But Dissertation). From there I'll have 2 to 3 years of funding to write my dissertation and teach one class per semester. It's still kind of weird to think that I'm this close to finishing the program. Wow.

-------------

Have you ever wondered what happened to common, run-of-the-mill decency towards one another? I'm shocked at people that just don't give a damn about anyone else. Think about it... Go to the grocery store parking lot and there are stray carts left all over the place, 20 ft from the cart return. How long do you think it'd take to walk that cart over? 20 seconds? 30? Drive through a construction zone and everyone thinks they have to drive in the soon-to-be-closed lane all the way until the cones force them over. Don't they understand that if everyone just merged over as they had time that everyone would get through it faster? No, of course not because they're to concerned that those 5 other people are going to get through the zone faster. When was the last time you've gone out to eat dinner and didn't see someone (at your table or otherwise) interrupt a dinner to answer a phone call?

Just an ounce of common decency would drastically change any of these situations. I'm almost certain that the cause of the lack of decency is an increase in self-centeredness. In this culture it's terribly easy for us all to become more and more self-absorbed and forget that the world doesn't revolve around us. Throughout the next couple of days, ask yourself how you may have allowed the me-centered culture to change your attitude toward others in a negative way.

Grace and peace,

It's been awhile since I've last posted, but after finishing Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, I thought I'd come out of hibernation and give you some thoughts. So, here are my thoughts:

1. The book is a good read, but the amount of copies it has sold is surprising (it's not that good).
   
2. The Church has a lot more to worry about than this book; let's focus on people coming to Christ and not on some piece of fiction.
   
3. If you're a conspiracy theorist, then this book will really get you going (just remember that Harvard has no professor of symbology, no one does because it's a made up profession).

Okay, in regards to 1. I think I know why it has sold so many books. People like controversy. That's it, nothing more needs to be said (but will be said anyways). If Dan Brown concludes at the end of the book that the Church had it right all along and isn't hiding the truth about Jesus and his family, then I'm certain it wouldn't have sold as many books as it did. Heck, it probably wouldn't even have gotten published because the writing just isn't that good. In the future I plan to post about the writing itself, some of it just doesn't make sense.

As far as 2 goes, too many people in the Church today have gotten very worried and upset about this book. Guess what, people have been writing this type of stuff for awhile now, just this time it's much better than before. If you're curious about what makes people so upset, go to your local bookstore and read Chapter 55. This is the chapter that causes all the problems with many people in the Church and sets the stage for the rest of the book. Don't worry, reading this before everything else won't ruin it; you won't understand some of the plot but the plot isn't why I want you to read the chapter. It's also the chapter that made the book much less interesting for me. It's like when a movie takes such a terribly unrealistic turn that it's hard to watch anymore, that's what chapter 55 does for me. Some may be convinced that something like what happened in chapter 55 could happen; if that's you, go buy Darrell Bock's Breaking the Da Vinci Code or for something not related to Brown's book, get J.P. Moreland and Michael Wilkins's Jesus Under Fire. (The latter is a very good book, the former I haven't read yet but Bock is one of the foremost New Testament scholars and is sure to be helpful).

Finally, conspiracy theories will never go away. It's why in grade school rumors get started about someone eating his boogers. It's why in high school some guy is always accused of being gay (especially if he is in drama). There is an often insatiable desire for controversy and that's exactly what conspiracy theories are supposed to cover up. Brown has written a book that fans the flames of controversy in people's hearts, especially those that have something against the Church.

Read the book so you can know what the heck is going on in our culture today (that's why I read it). Don't be afraid that your faith will be shattered or that you'll lose trust in the New Testament. If that indeed happens, please let me know and I'd be glad to help out or at least locate some resources to answer your questions.

Grace and peace,

1) My wife, Tina Marie, and I closed on a house this morning. We're pretty excited about it and can't wait to start moving into to it. The whole process has been so smooth and stress-free, it's amazing. I can't believe I'm old enough to buy a house and finally in a place to afford one (that last part is mostly due to my sugar-momma [who is not yet a momma!], remember grad students don't get paid much). I bought a really nice 2 wheel dolly from Home Depot today; the beginning to my new tool collection!

Here's one pic of the house from the realtor website we found it on. Once we take our own I'll post some more.



2) Game 1 of the NBA Finals is tonight. I'm in shock that the Mavs made it. I've been wanting this for so long I can't believe it's happening. I really don't like Shaq, Gary Payton, or Pat Riley and love Mark Cuban, Dirk-the-German-wonder, and Avery Johnson so I'm sure you know who I'm pulling for. I really hope the refs don't decide the series either way. The NBA is very susceptible to having games ruined by ticky-tack fouls (or fouls only going one way). I'm hoping for another good series with no external influences.

3) I submitted my general exam reading list today and promptly realized that I left out Leibniz's contribution to the problem of evil debate. That's a big mistake that I'm sure I'll hear about from my committee. Oh well.

4) I started painting this huge house in OKC this week and it's going to be a killer. Its a 2 1/2 story wood paneled house that has like 45 foot gables. Me and a good friend from the philosophy program are painting it together. This week we worked 7 to 5 and will probably keep that schedule most of the summer so we can actually finish it. I'll post a pic of it when I can.

Well, that's about it for now.

Doing philosophy is pretty hard work. I may not have worked up a sweat today, but I'm exhausted! I've spent the last 7 hours going through journals (online and in-hand), books, and companions trying to come up with a reading list for my general exam. I've got to get this thing completed so I can get the approval from my dissertation committee and then get busy studying. It's weird to think that I'll be studying for 1 exam for the next 10 months, but I'm really excited about it.

My general exam is going to be in the philosophy of religion with an emphasis on the problem of evil. I'm excited about this test because it's in an area that I really love learning more about. I finally have a reason (or excuse depending on how you look at it) to read a ton of material that I've wanted to read for a long time. There are so many arguments for/against God and our experience with him that I've wanted to read but had to spend my time in other areas of philosophy.

I now understand why people have told me to focus in an area that I love. If I didn't enjoy doing philosophy of religion so much, there is no way I could put this much energy into it. Once I have an approved reading list, I'll post it for anyone's perusal.

What do you think the primary role of the church is? I'm not talking about the Church (big-C), but the local church that has four walls (at least) and weekly meetings. I think I'm pretty clear with what big C-Church is about, but lately I've become less and less clear of what role the local church is supposed to play in the Kingdom.

Blessings,

Paul

Every Christian should realize that the problem(s) of evil are difficult to deal with and can stand as legitimate obstacles to someone's belief in the existence of God. For those that are not familiar with this problem, I will give you a very quick version:

1. If God exists, he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent
2. Evil exists.

So, it seems that:

1. God wanted to prevent evil, but couldn't and so is not omnipotent, or
2. God could have prevented evil but didn't want to and so is not omnibenevolent.

It seems that there is an inconsistency within the first two premises, so they both cannot be true at the same time. The non-theist says we have good reasons for believing evil exists, so we should reject (1). The theist, however, doesn't want to reject either so must figure out a way to make (1) and (2) consistent. This version of the problem of evil is one of many, but gets the general idea across.

What I hope is that Christians understand the force of this problem and do not just chalk it up to the lack of faith in God in the non-believer. That probably plays a role, but even many Christians are troubled by this as well. I feel that we have good responses to this type of problem in the 'free will' defense, but it isn't likely to answer the non-theists questions on the first pass. I recently had the opportunity to lecture for two introduction to philosophy classes at the University of Oklahoma on the problem of evil and had some really good discussions with many of the students. If you would like more information on this type of objection, let me know and I'd love to direct you to some great resources.

Grace and peace,

Well, I finished my PhD qualifying exams this morning. The first one on the history of modern philosophy was yesterday and went well. I answered the three questions that I was really hoping were going to be on the exam:

1. What is the charge of circularity against Descartes in the Meditations and how could one defend Descartes against this charge?
2. Explain the view of creation as held by Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza. Be sure to include Descartes' discussion of the creation of eternal truths, Leibniz's divine calculus, and Spionza's necessitarianism.
3. What is Locke's view on the primary/secondary quality distinction? How does he argue for this distinction? How does Berkeley critique Locke's view? Does Berkeley misunderstand Locke?

This morning I took the exam on metaphysics and epistemology and, again, the questions I wanted to be on the test most were there:

1. What is the ontological argument for the existence of God and what are the objections to it? How does it stand up to those objections?
2. What is (are) the main problem(s) of free will? What is a compatibilist response to the problem(s)? How does compatibilism stand up to objections raised against it?
3. What is Gettier's objection to the traditional account of knowledge? What are the possible responses to that problem? How do the responses fair to objections?

I feel really good knowing that I answered everything that I wanted to and don't think I forgot anything that was crucial to the arguments. My only concern is that in preparing my notes and outlines, I may have overlooked or forgotten something important and because of that, it didn't end up on the exam. I don't think that is a real plausible scenario, but it is plausible at least.
So, I leave with another request. Please continue to pray for favor among the 5 professors that will be grading the exam. I need to get a 'high pass' to continue in the program. I'll keep you updated.

Grace and peace,

Well it's that time of year... I'm among about 8 other graduate students that are trying to spend their time studying for the upcoming M.A. general exam/ Ph.D. qualifying exam. This Thursday at 10:00 I'll be taking a 2 hour test on the history of modern philosophy and then Friday at 10:00 I'll take the metaphysics and epistemology exam. This is quite frightening because if I don't get a "high pass", I don't get to stay in the program.

Fortunately, I have past exams to look through to see what type of questions are usually asked and, in some cases, what the chances are of certain questions being on the exam. This second part is a tremendous help. It's not too fun to think that you have to know enough to write for about 40 minutes each on 6 questions when there are about 40-50 questions to study. My study guide is somewhere between 45-55 pages long, and that's with eliminating many of the questions that have been asked in the past. Here is a list of the questions I feel like I need to knock out of the ballpark the following questions/subjects:

1. Anselm's Ontological Argument
   
2. A compatibilist response to the free will/determinism debate with a critique of that response
   
3. The functionalist account of the mind/body problem with critique
   
4. A response to Gettier's critique of knowledge consisting of 'justified true belief'
   
5. An argument for epistemological skepticism with critique
   
6. Descartes' main purposes in writing his Meditations
   
7. The charge of circularity against Descartes and a defense of him
   
8. Leibniz's law of the 'Indiscernibility of Identicals' and what its supposed to support
   
9. Spinoza's position on the mind/body problem noting his doctrine of explanatory isolationism
   
10. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz on God's creation of the world
    
11. The discussion around Locke and Berkeley's conception of primary and secondary qualities
    
12. Berkeley's idealism with critique, noting how he thinks he avoids skepticism
    
13. Hume's view on causation and/or induction

Some of these are almost gauranteed to be on the exam, whereas others just might be. Of these 13 questions, I'll answer 6; 3 on Thursday and 3 on Friday. I'm hoping that I'll have time to at least briefly study for about 6 others just in case I get totally screwed and most of these 13 are on the test. I figure if I can really blow them away with my answers on 2 out of the 3, then it may not be so bad if I don't do as well on that final test. My prayer is that the questions on the exam will include most if not all of these questions. That way I can really just pick the ones I feel the best about and not just the ones I feel less screwed about.

I've had my break now, so it's back to studying. Well, it's actually time for dinner, but then back to studying. Please pray for me this Thursday and Friday morning. Thanks.

Grace and peace