With All These Things That I've Done

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.

A Peculiar People

I included 1 Peter 2:9-10 in my facebook status this afternoon as a way to remind myself and others of what we heard at the church service this morning. The ever-curious Andrew Hanson did not attend this church service and commented that he wanted to learn more of what this meant. So, that I might "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks me to give the reason for the hope that I have", let me gently and respectfully explain what this means. Then, Andy can write a long blog post about what he meant by "Do you miss me, Miss Misery like you say you do?".

There were three different readings this morning, all of them tied together by a common theme. I'll quote some other passages that help explain these, but for the time being just read them and ask what they have in common.

Hosea 1:6-2:1

Some exposition: Hosea was an Old Testament prophet who lived around 750 B.C. After being united under Saul, David, and Solomon, Israel was split into a northern part (called Israel) and a southern part (called Judah) around 930 B.C. Hosea was from this northern kingdom, and his main job was to tell everyone in the northern kingdom that they were being unfaithful to God. As a symbol of this unfaithfulness, Hosea is commanded by God to "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife [named Gomer] and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD." The northern kingdom fell to Assyria in 722 B.C.

Anyway, we read:

Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the LORD said to Hosea, "Call her Lo-Ruhamah, [which means "not loved"] for I will no longer show love to the house of Israel, that I should at all forgive them. Yet I will show love to the house of Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but by the LORD their God."

After she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, Gomer had another son. Then the LORD said, "Call him Lo-Ammi, [which means "not my people"] for you are not my people, and I am not your God.

"Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.' The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.

"Say of your brothers, 'My people,' and of your sisters, 'My loved one.'

Even though Israel turns away from God (with terrible consequences), God still promises that Israel will be restored. He will take a group who is 'not his people' and, by his grace, make them 'his people'.

Matthew 15:21-28

Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

Jesus' ministry was first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. This Gentile woman recognizes this and knows that even the gracious crumbs that Jesus offers can help her daughter. Notice how this woman addresses Jesus: as Lord (that is, as the guy "in charge" of everything), as the Son of David (that is, as the Messiah, the chosen offspring of David), and eventually as God (shown when she kneels before him- the KJV translates this as 'then came she and worshiped him').

Even though Jesus has redeemed both Jews and Gentiles, his Earthly ministry was specifically first to the Jews. After the Great Commission, Jesus sends out his apostles to 'go and make disciples of all nations'. It's exactly this story of how God makes Jews and Gentiles into 'his people' that concerns all three readings.

1 Peter 2:9-10

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Peter is speaking here to Christians in Asia Minor, both Jews and Gentiles, and he quotes Hosea. His point is that the spiritual restoration promised by Hosea finds its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. We are not looking for Jesus- we are in darkness and dead in our sins- but by his love, Jesus calls us into his wonderful light.

This isn't the only place in the New Testament where Hosea is referenced. The same motif (along with parts from 1 Peter that I didn't quote here about cornerstones and stumbling blocks) is used by Paul in his letter to the Romans:

Romans 9:22-26

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one," and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.' "

In contrast to 1 Peter, here Paul is interested in how God has made the Gentiles (who are 'not God's people') into 'God's people'. Hosea originally refers to Jews alone, Paul quotes him to talk about Gentiles, and Peter quotes Hosea to talk about both Jews and Gentiles.

The theme of the sermon this morning, based on 1 Peter 2, was "The Bug on the Windshield". The idea was taken from a story about a man driving in the Nort' Woods whose view of a beautiful sunset was obscured by a dead bug on the windshield. Even though the Christians Peter was writing to were heavily persecuted- surely there were many bugs on their windshields- they should still take comfort in the 'sunset' of God's grace in choosing them from eternity, in allowing them access to God through the priesthood of all believers, and in sending His son to die for them. We should take comfort in this, too.

So that's what I was talking about, Andrew: God's comforting grace as shown in election, in the priesthood of all believers, and in the atoning death of Christ.

Change Your Life

I continue to watch the Today show nearly every morning despite its sensationalist journalism, lazy interviews, smarmy stories, and just all-around terribleness. But this morning's promo for the next entire week of the show was especially concentrated stupidity:

"Every woman knows, changing your hair can change your life!"

I'm Trying to Understand the Tea Party

We were watching a PBS documentary a few nights ago about the history of health care reform. It was fun because it was very immediate (watch-history-as-it-happens) and also because it reminded me of events that I had forgotten about.

Remember when Obama campaigned for a public option and criticized Clinton for having an individual mandate?

Remember when Obama demanded that Congress pass the bill before the summer recess?

Remember when that summer recess went horribly, horribly wrong?

They had clips of all the people holding signs and shouting and whatever. Maybe it was a signal of the documentary's liberal bias that they only showed the krazies, but there were a lot of drawn-on Hitler mustaches and dead grandmothers involved.

They showed one man who was asked why he was at the rally who responded, "I'm here because President Obama is trying to replace our Republic with Socialism!"

I hate to be That Guy On The Internet who quibbles with definitions and apologizes for the atrocities of Communism and stuff, but I will anyway. What the man meant was, "I'm here because President Obama is trying to replace our Capitalism with Socialism!" Republicanism is a system of government where people elect representatives. Socialism is a system of economics where that said government owns stuff. It is not-at-all contradictory to be a socialist republic: indeed the United Soviet Socialist Republic claimed to be such, as does The People's Republic of China today.

Anyway, this is supposed to be about more than just snarkily criticizing a guy I saw on TV because I am a Democrat and he is a Republican and I am much smarter than he is. I'm trying to document and understand a certain part of the political landscape, the part that went to health care rallies in late-summer 2009 and is going to Tea Party rallies today.

Are these the same people?

I think so. I think they're connected. For one thing, they seem to include angry shouting and angry signs. Proof positive right there, I say! Further proof:

1. The populist argument. The rhetoric of both the Tea Party people and the Health Care people relies on a populist message: "The voice of The People is not being heard. In a poll, less than half of the people wanted health care reform. But Barack Obama wants it. Health Insurance Companies (in backroom deals) want it. The people don't want the government to spend all this money, but Obama is doing so anyway. The people don't want terrorists tried in criminal courts, but Eric Holder is trying to do so anyway."

2. The Republican argument. Barack Obama is a Democrat. His health care reform is opposed by Republicans. His domestic priorities are opposed by Republicans. His foreign policy priorities are opposed by Republicans. Therefore, people who oppose health care reform are Republicans, and probably oppose other stuff, too.

*I should note here that I am well aware of the "All squares are rectangles" angle to this. And, in fact, there have been a few polls that say that conflating Tea Partiers with Republicans is bad- only 49% say they are Republican, while 43% identify as Independent.

But come on. This is like those 'undecided voters' who have really made up their minds but enjoy being pandered to and asked their opinions. Also, because of increased polarization (and proportional increased lamenting of polarization), some people like to think of themselves as Very Special Snowflakes who are above the political fray because they are wise and conciliatory and moderately fair to both sides. But they vote party-line literally 100% of the time. I leave this point completely unsupported by facts because I am too lazy to cherry-pick evidence that agrees with me.

3. The Sarah Palin argument. Sarah Palin famously started the death panel rumor. She also was the keynote speaker at the National Tea Party Convention.

The National Tea Party Convention should not be confused with the Tea Party Movement. It's a broad movement, it has a lot of people, it's very amorphous, yadda, yadda. But whether or not Sarah Palin is co-opting the movement, whether it's an astro-turf movement, whether she only controls a small part, I don't know.

This is an entirely-too-long, entirely-too-boring way to say that there exists a political movement that unites opposition to health care reform, socialism, Obama, taxes, bailouts, and deficit spending. Why is it prevalent, and what are the things driving it? Some possibilities in the order I think of them:

1. Economic Unrest. The unemployment rate is really high, and when this happens, people like to congregate together with signs and yell "Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!"

2. Political Crying Over Spilled Milk. Barack Obama, a Democrat, is now the President, and this upsets some people greatly. Jimmy Carter (I think) said this opposition is a little racially motivated. Maybe, but I don't think so: if Hillary Clinton had been elected, it still would have hit the fan.

3. Fear of creeping socialism. Even though I think this fear is unjustified, I can understand how someone could be stirred to political action when they see the government seizing and recapitalizing banks, car companies, and spending lots of money on health care.

4. Populist anger in general. If fears of Socialism get conservatives involved in the movement, fears of special interests and Corporations get liberals involved. Liberals can look at bailouts as just giveaways to special interests. Perhaps they would be happier with nationalizing banks instead of just recapitalizing them, but they find common cause with movements opposing these policies.

5. Financial Future concerns. Health care reform, bailouts, and stimulus packages all cost money and hurt the long-term financial options for the country. Won't someone please think of the debt burden? I tend to think of this reason as an after-the-fact rationalization, but I'm sure there are some people who just hate deficits.

All of this matters because Democrats are running scared for re-election. If the Tea Party movement is influential and can be placated by balancing the budget (somehow), then Republican gains can be avoided by cutting spending.

But, if the movement is just channeled fears about the economy, all Democrats can do is hope that the economy improves. I know that's a boring political analysis. But remember, it's the economy, stupid!

This is rambling, unhelpful, and not insightful, but I really just felt like writing something today. I'll try to write about baseball, soon, I promise!

People are Strange

I'm hesitant to devote any more attention to the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter trainwreck, but I was especially struck by the quote:

I understood what photos were being taken. It was my mistake to pose for them given I had no photo control or approval.

Ya think?

I propose this operational test for anyone posing for photographs that are intended to bolster their credibility:

Are you wearing pants?

This Never Gets Old

O brave new world! O brave new world that has such people in it.

Avatar, Pantheism, and Environmentalism

Those of you emerging from a six-month coma may be unfamiliar with all of the attention being paid to the film Avatar. It has broken box office records, and as of this posting has grossed $1.6 billion worldwide, giving James Cameron the top two spots in movie history. It is a technological marvel: the movie is shown in 3D and used motion-capture techniques and computers to create the Na'Vi, the blue-skinned alien race you see on all the posters.

But with great box office power comes great responsibility, and there have been many examinations of the underlying themes of the movie. The first that comes to mind is When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?, which looks at the white guilt escapism found in the movie. I include a link to this because after seeing the first preview for Avatar, I immediately sang "Colors of the Wind" from Pocahontas and explained that I had just summarized Avatar so no one would have to see it. I was probably the very first person in America to make that joke.

But the real meat of this post has to do with the religious critiques of the movie and the connections between Pantheism and Environmentalism. Ross Douthat wrote an editorial in the New York Times about the pantheism on display in Avatar.

In Cameron’s sci-fi universe, this communion [with Nature] is embodied by the blue-skinned, enviably slender Na’Vi, an alien race whose idyllic existence on the planet Pandora is threatened by rapacious human invaders. The Na’Vi are saved by the movie’s hero, a turncoat Marine, but they’re also saved by their faith in Eywa, the “All Mother,” described variously as a network of energy and the sum total of every living thing.

If this narrative arc sounds familiar, that’s because pantheism has been Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now. It’s the truth that Kevin Costner discovered when he went dancing with wolves. It’s the metaphysic woven through Disney cartoons like “The Lion King” and “Pocahontas.” And it’s the dogma of George Lucas’s Jedi, whose mystical Force “surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.”

But after namedropping Alexis de Tocqueville and Deepak Chopra, we get this:

Today there are other forces that expand pantheism’s American appeal. We pine for what we’ve left behind, and divinizing the natural world is an obvious way to express unease about our hyper-technological society. The threat of global warming, meanwhile, has lent the cult of Nature qualities that every successful religion needs — a crusading spirit, a rigorous set of ‘thou shalt nots,” and a piping-hot apocalypse.

Since Ross Douthat disagrees with pantheism, I wonder what he thinks about global warming. Has pantheism co-opted or misappropriated the rigorous set of 'thou shalt nots' from global warming? If pantheism isn't true, is global warming guilty by association? One other post of his that gives some insight is on the Precautionary Principle but it seems to suggest that the costs of environmental regulations are too high. I was hesitant to put words into his mouth or to use him as anecdotal evidence of a Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy joining environmental skepticism and religious conservatism, so I went looking for other cases.

And I found out that the Vatican doesn't much like Avatar either: "Vatican Radio said the movie 'cleverly winks at all those pseudo-doctrines that turn ecology into the religion of the millennium'." Again, I'm not sure exactly which pseudo-doctrines the Vatican is talking about. Is Barack Obama promoting those pseudo-doctrines? Is Michael Pollan? Is James Hansen? It's hard to tell.

But as I was listening to this Issues Etc. podcast like a good Confessional Lutheran, along came the line around the 10 minute mark:

You get the impression that ecology and relating to nature is kind of connected to religion, and as G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and many other people have suggested, when you stop believing in the God of the Bible, you need some kind of God-replacement, and so that [Environmentalism] element is there. It's interesting, as I was watching the film, I was kind of listing in my mind the different major scenes, and certainly the Green Ecology-- I almost thought there was a part of the Inconvenient Truth movie in there from Al Gore.

This is a long way for me to say that other people think environmentalism and pantheism are connected. I probably could have saved myself some time and brought up Captain Planet and his Planeteers taking their eco-marching orders directly from Gaia herself. But I would like to sever this connection between pantheism and environmentalism without damaging the integrity of environmentalism. That is, just because you don't like pantheism doesn't mean that environmental issues are bogus.

For starters, there is a very strong theistic case to be made in favor of environmentalism. Man is the final cap to all of Creation, and is given the following charge by God:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

...

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Environmentalism as Stewardship- that is, God creating man and giving him a role as caretaker for the rest of Creation- is hardly new, controversial, liberal, Democratic, French, or Socialist. At this point I could do a bunch of linking to Rick Warren, Rowan Williams, and other figures on the Theological Left that Conservatives love to hate. But even that Vatican statement that I linked to above implies that Nature is a creation to defend.

Secondly, pantheism focuses on finding God in Nature, or that God is in everything, and that by communing with Nature, man can be closer to God. But many environmental issues are framed not as respecting that force that unites every living thing, but as simple human self-interest. Climate change is an important issue not because it will hurt Gaia or polar bears, but because it will hurt humans. Emission standards are not set according to a level of acceptable harm to Eywa, but how much they will hurt people.