I couldn't sleep earlier this week, so I decided to go back over my blog posts from a long time ago, just for larfs. Viewing my past writing was instructive because it created enough distance that I could see where I was being unclear (and where I was being obstinate and petty). I also would like to give more credit to Jordan and Andrew in particular. At the time, I thought you guys were being deliberately contrarian, and whether this was born of active malice, ignorance, or the puckish glee of arguing on the Internet, I couldn't say.
But now I'm beginning to grudgingly admit that you guys are pretty smart. I submit to you the following points that I'm guilty of and would like to either recant or delve into more fully:
1. Leftist Political Hackery
Most clearly seen in this post, but also in some others dealing with environmentalism, politics, and Sarah Palin (HAHAHAHAHAHA).
Is it a back-handed compliment to say that Sarah Palin is not a hypocrite and this is especially notable considering she's a Republican? Yes. That's a hacky thing to say. I'm recant the statement that 8 hypocritical Republicans constitutes 'many', even if those 8 include the Speaker of the House, House Majority Leader, and the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Since this apparently needs saying, there are crooked Republicans and good Democrats, and there are good Republicans and crooked Democrats, and neither governing philosophy leads to crookedness of necessity. I used to be of the opinion that this only mattered because only Republicans are guilty of making political hay out of their moral superiority, but Democrats have also sent us on plenty of guilt trips over welfare, health care, and torture.
2. My Modern-Jackass Philosophy of Science
I was a bad Bayesian. I was also an instrumentalist in the same post in which I fake-defended Sarah Palin. As a wannabe-engineer and not a scientist or philosopher, I pretty much don't know what I'm talking about most of the time. All we were ever explicitly taught was Popper, and as I understand it, the philosophy of science people have moved on. Falsifiability is a good thing for a scientific framework to have, but robustness, prediction, and explanatory power are necessary, too.
For example, I was doing some online organic chemistry reading the other day (I'm striving to be less of a crushing failure at life recently, so I'm trying to not lose my edge). And it turns out that Lewis Dot Structures are mostly incorrect and actually contribute to a misunderstanding of chemical bonding when you're not working with electron-rich atoms like oxygen. Molecular Orbital theory is more accurate, even though it takes longer to do. Both (and neither) give a picture of what happens in chemical bonding, but MO theory better predicts bond strengths AND has more explanatory power.
I'm willing to admit that Andy is pretty much always more correct than I am at philosophy of science stuff, with the notable exceptions of his recommending Daniel Dennett to me, along with calling me a science stopper. Science and religion are intensely important topics to me, and I have read lots of people calling for the compatibility of evolution and creation, but I've not yet seen a convincing argument combining both a scientifically sound theory of origin and theologically sound soteriology. Perhaps it's out there and I'm being obstinate again.
Also, I screwed up JS Mill hardcore.
3. Unclear Thoughts On Original Sin
If there is any topic that I wish I could understand and express more clearly, it is Original Sin. I can read or quote from Augustine, The Bondage of the Will, the Augsburg Confession, or St. Paul all I want, but Andrew and Jordan have never agreed with my views of Original Sin, and I suspect that this is because I do not present them clearly. Also, the only way of making my point is to quote scripture, the sufficiency of which Andrew and Jordan both deny. But frankly I'd be happy if they agreed I was interpreting the Bible correctly.
Consider this post on Romans 3, wherein Andrew says that people can choose to do good or evil and therefore have no innate proclivity towards one or the other. It does me (and him) no good to say that the deeds he considers good, if they are done without faith in God, are considered to be 'filthy rags' because surely this begs the question: if it truly is impossible without faith to please God, then no non-Christian can perform a Good Work. Because Andrew thinks that non-Christians can (and hence, do) perform actions that satisfy God, this is completely unconvincing to him. Jordan expresses the same thought here, and I respond similarly: the condemnation of sin is deserved, men are capable of outside obedience and works but incapable of inner or spiritual things, yadda yadda.
My discussions of ethics, morality, supererogation, justification, sanctification, and original sin are all tightly woven together and need to be clearer. I might spend some more time on them specifically in the future if I ever get around to more of Romans.
