Things are a bit buys, so I have not had time to do a review of the next chapter.
I thought I would quickly share something that I thought was interesting and honest. Recently I was around a conversation about homosexuality. I did not actively partake, but something interesting was said. A person stated they had to believe being gay was via nurture and had nothing to do with persons biological makeup. This person stated this because if it was something you were born with, why would g0d condemn it? That would make g0d, or at least the Bible, immoral and something to be ignored. Seeing how this person could not believe that, then being gay can't be something you are born with.
I found it interesting, and also found the honestly refreshing. I would tend to agree too, if being gay is biological, the g0d found in much of the Bible is evil and should be ignored.
Mr Deity touches upon this in the latest episode.
Cheers,
Scott
6/24/2009
6/16/2009
The Reason For God - Chapter Three Review
The title for Chapter three is, Christianity Is A Straitjacket.
Keller goes on to expand the criticism to mean that Christianity, "...looks like an enemy of social cohesion, cultural adaptability, and even authentic person hood. However, this objection is based on mistakes about the nature of truth, community, Christianity, and of liberty itself."
These are how explains that those are mistakes:
Truth is Unavoidable
Keller explains that there must be a form of absolute truth because, if you are skeptic of everything, then you can't believe in anything. If you think everything is a "power play", then even your statement is. He's again trying to deal with relativism, this time in how it relates to truth. I don't really see why if his religion is relative, that must mean everything is. Why can't just his version of Christianity be relative? I can see the possibility for there to be an absolute truth, but the assumption that his beliefs could fall into that category is pretty huge.
Community Can't Be Completely Inclusive
I agree with his main point in this section. To have a community, you have to have a definition and a boundary for that community. If you don't have those, then you're just a bunch of people standing around. If you want to define your community to mean anyone who stands in a field, then that's your community. I would just say, we define as a culture what kind of communities we tolerate. There are lots of things as a society we have said we won't tolerate. Keller says, "but we should not criticize churches when they maintain standards for membership in accord with their beliefs. Every community must do the same". That's just silly. Yes I agree you have to have definitions for your in group, it's stupid to say everyone must be OK with your community. If your church says it's OK to have slaves and kill your children for disrespecting you because it's biblical, society is perfectly within its rights to put a stop to your community. If your 'community' continues to believe things that are patently false; IE the world underwent a global flood, the earth is six thousand years old, why should we not criticize that?? You deserve to be laughed at. If you don't bring any evidence, why can't you be criticized? If I went around claiming superpowers, and everyone in my social group claimed superpowers, why should we expect not to be mocked when said powers were never shown? Or even if it was shown we honestly thought we had powers, and there were good reasons for us thinking we did. I went on longer than I meant to, but Keller claiming that people can't criticize churches for their standards is just stupid. I agree a community can have any standard they want. Just don't expect me to refrain from pointing out if they are asinine.
Christianity Isn't Culturally Rigid
I would again agree with part of what Keller says in this section. How Christianity can adapt to every culture. How Christianity has grown in every nation and people of many different traditions believe in it. I would just like to point out that in previous generations, much of this was done through genocide. What happened after 1492 in the 'new world' is on par with, if not much greater than, the holocaust of WWII. It really helps a new religion get established if you wipe out or overpower any nation that does not convert. If you read the writings of the Puritans and how they viewed the new world, these are not the Christians of Keller's belief system. These are people far removed from his standards of morality in relation to other people. To be clear, I don't blame all the crimes in the new world on Christians, but they sure seemed to hurt a lot more then help.
I agree Christianity does not have to be culturally rigid, and in much of the world it no longer is. It was to a huge extent though, and for a very long time. Christianity is very adaptive, and can accommodate many different types of people. One would expect that in a large religion.
For further reading/viewing on on these topics I would suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/What-America-Short-History-World/dp/0786720972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/500_Nations
Freedom Isn't Simple
The basic premise for this is, if you want to achieve something worthwhile, it will restrict your freedom. An example Keller uses is playing piano or having a loving marriage. Your end goal requires that you practise/work/restrict what you might want to do instead. I don't disagree with this overall principle, as it makes sense. He uses this to again show how relativism is bad because to say one should restrict themselves for a greater good is taking a absolutist stance.
He uses the analogy of someone who rebels against g0d being a fish out of water. The problem with that is according to Keller's world view, g0d created the water, fish, and everything in the first place. I see this as raising a lot more problems than it solves. If you restrict yourself to practising to become good at the piano, the piano does not threaten you like a tyrant with torture for all eternity. That was just the thought that popped into my head while reading this section.
The Chapter is summed up with, Love, the Ultimate Freedom, Is More Constraining Than We Might Think.
Keller talks about how loving constrains us, and I think sums up his position well with the last paragraph: "The love of Christ constrains. Once you realize how Jesus changed for you and gave himself for you, you aren't afraid of giving up your freedom and therefore finding your freedom in him."
I totally can understand how and why Keller comes to this conclusion. I am just left feeling he has made some huge assumptions and not really explained why I should accept them. For one, if someone drops you down a well, then makes the "sacrifice" of coming down to get you, why am I suppose to be grateful? For the sake of the analogy, I am assuming there is a well to be dropped down in the first place. I would expect the person who tossed me into the well to help get me out. I would be grateful for there help, especially if they made it impossible to get me out on my own. Should I be grateful to that person? Probably not, unless of course it's in the same way an abused spouse is grateful the abuser does not leave them. That sounds kind of harsh, but I think it holds for the version of reality Keller is asking people to accept.
That wraps up the Chapter. I am actually enjoying the book, even though it may not sound like it.
Cheers,
Scott
6/10/2009
The Reason For God - Chapter Two Review
I must say, I enjoyed Chapter two more than Chapter One. I appreciate the attempt to answer a more difficult argument. The title of Chapter two is, "How Could A Good God Allow Suffering?"Keller begins by using the Tsunami of 2004 as an example of a g0d preventable tragedy. He also paraphrases Epicurus' problem, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
The first section proposes that Evil and Suffering Isn't Evidence Against God.
His basic support for this premise is the "mysterious ways" argument. We may not be able to see why these things happen, but g0d must have a plan. I view this as a cop out, a brilliant one, but a cop-out nonetheless. He says it well, but he is still saying, "my g0d and his existence is immune to all logical arguments." The story used to example this is that of Joseph. Joseph has bad things happen, then good things happen after the bad things. If you're talking about an all powerful g0d, this g0d could create us with character, with all the things that we supposedly go through suffering to get. Ockham's razor seems to also weaken this line of thinking, but maybe I am just missing something obvious.
After that Keller postulates Evil and Suffering May be (if Anything) Evidence for God.
He defends this statement by using C.S. Lewis' argument, if there was not g0d, then we would not have a concept of good and evil. He also quotes Alvin Plantiga, saying basically the same thing. What happens if you can show that our concept of right and wrong evolved with us??
I think this is a weird form of the Ontological argument: "If I can conceive of evil, there must be a g0d to give me that perception". Suffering is a problem for the believer because I am accepting their presupposition that there is a g0d. When you take away that supposition, what happens for the skeptic is the ancient philosophical idea of "shit happens". I concede that this could lead to issue of where the skeptic might get their morality from. I just don't see how the skeptic would have to go with the assumption that, if I think something is evil, I must believe in a g0d. Does that not more point to fuzzy thinking in the skeptic, rather than any proof for the theist? Again, I could be missing a deeper point here, but still think this is a unresolved problem for a protestant Christian.
Keller rounds off the chapter by going into the suffering of Jesus, and because he was supposedly g0d, that means g0d shares in our suffering. I did not realize that the idea of g0d suffering was fairly new. Keller uses the idea of Christ suffering with us, the terrors of this world, to mean "the ultimate defeat of evil and suffering. It will not only be ended but so radically vanquished that what has happened will only serve to make our future life and joy infinitely greater". This seems to me more of a day dream than any sort of reasonable belief. What makes him think this? The fact that people of all faiths keep promising a better world for their followers makes this highly suspect. It would be nice to think that everything will be set right, that the universe will end like a Disney movie. I just find it odd that Keller would use this argument in a book for skeptics. It does not really answer the criticism except by saying, "Trust me, this is all for the best." Reminds me of a Grumpy Old Men quote about wishing...
If you accept his beliefs, then this would probably work. He's not writing to the choir though. He's trying to answer skeptics, and so this seems an odd argument to include.
This is a tough topic for the believer to answer, especially in one chapter. Maybe if Keller had a whole book for this one topic he might be able to more fully explain his reasoning. Or maybe there just isn't an answer for 'if there's a g0d, why there is suffering'. I was recently reading the reverse of this argument, "The Evil God Challenge". I don't know if it's tenable, but it shows how much bigger this discussion could be.
Cheers,
Scott
PS - It is my understanding that in the Job era of thinking, g0d was responsible for any evil that happened. That the devil was just his 'agent'. The writers of the O.T. recognized that because g0d has final authority, g0d gets all the responsibility. Am I wrong in that understanding?
6/09/2009
The Reason For God - Chapter One Review
The criticism of Christianity being refuted in chapter one is, "There Can't Be Just Be One True Religion." Keller better clarifies this position by stating, "To insist that one faith has a better grasp of the Truth than others is intolerant." He does concede that this works against peace in our world. Once a religion can claim sole truth, it is easy to 'stereotype and caricature other ones'. He also concedes that this will most likely lead to violence. Keller then proceeds to list out three common reactions to this problem.
First reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, outlaw religion.
I would agree with him this would never work, and is counterproductive. I would concede that maybe every society needs some sort of fairy tale or narrative to function. I think it's interesting that when Keller talks about the explosive growth of religion, he fails to point out that it's in predominantly poor and uneducated countries. The fact is that the U.S. is an anomaly among wealthy nations in its belief system. This has more to do with its history of anti intellectualism than any sort of benefit of religious belief. I wonder what he thinks of the evidence that religious belief tends to leave a society worse off.
Second reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, condemn religion.
He claims that condemning religion leads to the following statements:
"All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing". Who would say this! The fact that someone would raise this as an objection makes me despair about the type of skeptics who actually challenge Keller.
The next statement that condemning religion might lead to is, "Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth." He then uses the classic blind men feeling an elephant analogy to parable this stance. His reaction to this is, "How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed none of the religions have." PZ Myers has an excellent retort to this kind of thinking. It's long, so I have posted it at the bottom.
The statement to follow that is, "Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be 'truth'". He goes to use the classic argument against relativism. I don't really see how this defeats the relativism of religion. If you were taught something from a young age by everyone you trusted and loved, you would believe that. This is why there are always fights over what gets taught in school. Belief in Santa is relative, and not discoverable outside of it's cultural context. Once everyone stops believing in Santa, he's "dead". How is religion different? I don't care if he argues against relativism, I want to know how religion is not relative? I can see how math is not relative, everyone can discover its principles. The language around math may be a construct, but the principles remain the same. How does one discover non-relative religious principles? Are there any? This is making me feel like Keller would prefer to engage in 'straw-man' arguments.
That last statement that Keller says might result from condemning religion is, "It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it". I don't dispute that certain beliefs might have more validity than others, but something Keller asks is: why do the skeptics care what other people believe? He offers no answer, but I will. What others do with their beliefs affects my life. Notice I said what people do with their beliefs. Unlike the g0d depicted in much of the Bible, I don't believe in thought crime. A line of morality could be, 'What kind of society do you want to live in.' Then behaviours of others resulting from belief would matter. I would also say that evidence gives credence, or as Hitchens puts it, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." When you claim exclusivity, but yet can't show any evidence on how you are exclusive, why should we not consider that arrogant? In fact, why should you not be laughed at? Again, I feel as if he skipped over the meat of this issue and answered the easy critics.
Third reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, keep religion private.
He says that it's not possible, that everyone brings their beliefs and spirituality to the public sphere. Keller says everything is morally relative, unless people bring their belief in g0d around with them. He does a nice little straw man caricature of a 'anything goes' morality. The problem is, when believers make claims in the public realm, they bring a giant 'g0d' stamp: "I'm right because g0d says so!" He conveniently ignores that this is one of the reasons why religion and state mixture is deplorable. He also says we have to have religion so we know what kind of society to build. He touches on a post modern idea of dialogue and constructing a society, then completely misses the point. *sigh*
Of course his answer to the problem of exclusive religion claims is, "Christianity can save the World". These are his reasons why:
Biblical doctrine of people being created in the image of 'g0d' leads to respect for others. Other people will recognize Christians as 'good' because of Jesus' teachings.
The Christian gospel should make people feel humble in light of their 'salvation', and therefore treat others with respect.
Christians in the first two centuries were so nice, gave people more rights, in comparison with the culture around them.
He then proceeds to say that, "We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"
He just did skip lightly, and it annoyed me, though I suspect he tries to answer the injustices later in the book. As to his claims on how Christianity will save the world, there are natural explanations for all of them. Not really a whiff of anything supernatural in them. An example off the top of my head would be: if Christians were bad asses, persecuting people, in an empire with a big, well trained army, it is not a religion that will get off the ground. He seems to assume early Christianity was a cohesive belief system, which would imply he knows very little about the early church. Christianity has changed many times over, and it will continue to do so. I really enjoy how he calls Jesus' teachings good, but uses the classical argument later on that he was a bad moral teacher, which helps prove he was g0d.
To sum up, I would agree that there could be one true religion, but Keller in no way shows that it has to be Protestant Christianity. For me this book is off to a rough start. One too many straw men. I am also left with the feeling that there are tougher problems within this one chapter that Keller has chosen to ignore. I remember feeling annoyed at the weakness of the first chapter on my first run through the book, but I think it gets a little better.
Cheers,
Scott
Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.
Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!"
Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall."
Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail."
Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."
The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.
"Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe.
"Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry.
Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details."
Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."
The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!
"I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe.
Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large."
There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath."
"You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life."
"No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe.
"Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum."
The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.
Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.
Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.
Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of thebiome.
Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.
Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, theEagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian ? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets ofwingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.
When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuouswingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.
And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.
Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?
First reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, outlaw religion.
I would agree with him this would never work, and is counterproductive. I would concede that maybe every society needs some sort of fairy tale or narrative to function. I think it's interesting that when Keller talks about the explosive growth of religion, he fails to point out that it's in predominantly poor and uneducated countries. The fact is that the U.S. is an anomaly among wealthy nations in its belief system. This has more to do with its history of anti intellectualism than any sort of benefit of religious belief. I wonder what he thinks of the evidence that religious belief tends to leave a society worse off.
Second reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, condemn religion.
He claims that condemning religion leads to the following statements:
"All major religions are equally valid and basically teach the same thing". Who would say this! The fact that someone would raise this as an objection makes me despair about the type of skeptics who actually challenge Keller.
The next statement that condemning religion might lead to is, "Each religion sees part of spiritual truth, but none can see the whole truth." He then uses the classic blind men feeling an elephant analogy to parable this stance. His reaction to this is, "How could you possibly know that no religion can see the whole truth unless you yourself have the superior, comprehensive knowledge of spiritual reality you just claimed none of the religions have." PZ Myers has an excellent retort to this kind of thinking. It's long, so I have posted it at the bottom.
The statement to follow that is, "Religious belief is too culturally and historically conditioned to be 'truth'". He goes to use the classic argument against relativism. I don't really see how this defeats the relativism of religion. If you were taught something from a young age by everyone you trusted and loved, you would believe that. This is why there are always fights over what gets taught in school. Belief in Santa is relative, and not discoverable outside of it's cultural context. Once everyone stops believing in Santa, he's "dead". How is religion different? I don't care if he argues against relativism, I want to know how religion is not relative? I can see how math is not relative, everyone can discover its principles. The language around math may be a construct, but the principles remain the same. How does one discover non-relative religious principles? Are there any? This is making me feel like Keller would prefer to engage in 'straw-man' arguments.
That last statement that Keller says might result from condemning religion is, "It is arrogant to insist your religion is right and to convert others to it". I don't dispute that certain beliefs might have more validity than others, but something Keller asks is: why do the skeptics care what other people believe? He offers no answer, but I will. What others do with their beliefs affects my life. Notice I said what people do with their beliefs. Unlike the g0d depicted in much of the Bible, I don't believe in thought crime. A line of morality could be, 'What kind of society do you want to live in.' Then behaviours of others resulting from belief would matter. I would also say that evidence gives credence, or as Hitchens puts it, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." When you claim exclusivity, but yet can't show any evidence on how you are exclusive, why should we not consider that arrogant? In fact, why should you not be laughed at? Again, I feel as if he skipped over the meat of this issue and answered the easy critics.
Third reaction to the problem of religious exclusiveness, keep religion private.
He says that it's not possible, that everyone brings their beliefs and spirituality to the public sphere. Keller says everything is morally relative, unless people bring their belief in g0d around with them. He does a nice little straw man caricature of a 'anything goes' morality. The problem is, when believers make claims in the public realm, they bring a giant 'g0d' stamp: "I'm right because g0d says so!" He conveniently ignores that this is one of the reasons why religion and state mixture is deplorable. He also says we have to have religion so we know what kind of society to build. He touches on a post modern idea of dialogue and constructing a society, then completely misses the point. *sigh*
Of course his answer to the problem of exclusive religion claims is, "Christianity can save the World". These are his reasons why:
Biblical doctrine of people being created in the image of 'g0d' leads to respect for others. Other people will recognize Christians as 'good' because of Jesus' teachings.
The Christian gospel should make people feel humble in light of their 'salvation', and therefore treat others with respect.
Christians in the first two centuries were so nice, gave people more rights, in comparison with the culture around them.
He then proceeds to say that, "We cannot skip lightly over the fact that there have been injustices done by the church in the name of Christ, yet who can deny that the force of Christians' most fundamental beliefs can be a powerful impetus for peace-making in our troubled world?"
He just did skip lightly, and it annoyed me, though I suspect he tries to answer the injustices later in the book. As to his claims on how Christianity will save the world, there are natural explanations for all of them. Not really a whiff of anything supernatural in them. An example off the top of my head would be: if Christians were bad asses, persecuting people, in an empire with a big, well trained army, it is not a religion that will get off the ground. He seems to assume early Christianity was a cohesive belief system, which would imply he knows very little about the early church. Christianity has changed many times over, and it will continue to do so. I really enjoy how he calls Jesus' teachings good, but uses the classical argument later on that he was a bad moral teacher, which helps prove he was g0d.
To sum up, I would agree that there could be one true religion, but Keller in no way shows that it has to be Protestant Christianity. For me this book is off to a rough start. One too many straw men. I am also left with the feeling that there are tougher problems within this one chapter that Keller has chosen to ignore. I remember feeling annoyed at the weakness of the first chapter on my first run through the book, but I think it gets a little better.
Cheers,
Scott
Once upon a time, four blind men were walking in the forest, and they bumped into an elephant.
Moe was in front, and found himself holding the trunk. "It has a tentacle," he said. "I think we have found a giant squid!"
Larry bumped into the side of the elephant. "It's a wall," he said, "A big, bristly wall."
Curly, at the back, touched the tail. "It's nothing to worry about, nothing but a piece of rope dangling in the trail."
Eagletosh saw the interruption as an opportunity to sit in the shade beneath a tree and relax. "It is my considered opinion," he said, "that whatever it is has feathers. Beautiful iridescent feathers of many hues."
The first three, being of a scientifical bent, quickly collaborated and changed places, and confirmed each other's observations; they agreed that each had been correct in the results of their investigations, except that there wasn't a hint of feathers anywhere about, but clearly their interpretations required correction and more data. So they explored further, reporting to each other what they were finding, in order to establish a more complete picture of the obstacle in the path.
"Tracing the tentacle back, I find that it is attached to a large head with eyes, fan-shaped ears, and a mouth bearing tusks. It is not a squid, alas, but seems to be a large mammal of some sort," said Moe.
"Quite right, Moe — I have found four thick limbs. Definitely a large tetrapod," said Larry.
Curly seems distressed. "It's a bit complicated and delicate back here, guys, but I have probed an interesting orifice. Since this is a children's story, I will defer on reporting the details."
Eagletosh yawns and stretches in the shade of a tree. "It has wings, large wings, that it may ascend into the heavens and inspire humanity. There could be no purpose to such an animal without an ability to loft a metaphor and give us something to which we might aspire."
The other three ignore the idling philosopher, because exciting things are happening with their elephant!
"I can feel its trunk grasping the vegetation, uprooting it, and stuffing it into its mouth! It's prehensile! Amazing!", said Moe.
Larry presses his ear against the animal's flank. "I can hear rumbling noises as its digestive system processes the food! It's very loud and large."
There is a squishy plop from the back end. "Oh, no," says Curly, "I can smell that, and I think I should go take a bath."
"You are all completely missing the beauty of its unfurled wings," sneers Eagletosh, "While you tinker with pedestrian trivialities and muck about in earthy debasement, I contemplate the transcendant qualities of this noble creature. 'Tis an angel made manifest, a symbol of the deeper meaning of life."
"No wings, knucklehead, and no feathers, either," says Moe.
"Philistine," says Eagletosh. "Perhaps they are invisible, or tucked inside clever hidden pockets on the flank of the elephant, or better yet, I suspect they are quantum. You can't prove they aren't quantum."
The investigations continue, in meticulous detail by the three, and in ever broader strokes of metaphorical speculation by the one. Many years later, they have accomplished much.
Moe has studied the elephant and its behavior for years, figuring out how to communicate with it and other members of the herd, working out their diet, their diseases and health, and how to get them to work alongside people. He has profited, using elephants as heavy labor in construction work, and he has also used them, unfortunately, in war. He has not figured out how to use them as an air force, however…but he is a master of elephant biology and industry.
Larry studied the elephant, but has also used his knowledge of the animal to study the other beasts in the region: giraffes and hippos and lions and even people. He is an expert in comparative anatomy and physiology, and also has come up with an interesting theory to explain the similarities and differences between these animals. He is a famous scholar of the living world.
Curly's experiences lead him to explore the environment of the elephant, from the dung beetles that scurry after them to the leafy branches they strip from the trees. He learns how the elephant is dependent on its surroundings, and how its actions change the forest and the plains. He becomes an ecologist and conservationist, and works to protect the herds and the other elements of thebiome.
Eagletosh writes books. Very influential books. Soon, many of the people who have never encountered an elephant are convinced that they all have wings. Those who have seen photos are at least persuaded that elephants have quantum wings, which just happened to be vibrating invisibly when the picture was snapped. He convinces many people that the true virtue of the elephant lies in its splendid wings — to the point that anyone who disagrees and claims that they are only terrestrial animals is betraying the beauty of the elephant.
Exasperated, Larry takes a break from writing technical treatises about mammalian anatomy, and writes a book for the lay public, The Elephant Has No Wings. While quite popular, theEagletoshians are outraged. How dare he denigrate the volant proboscidian ? Does he think it a mere mechanical mammal, mired in mud, never soaring among the stars? Has he no appreciation for the scholarship of the experts in elephant wings? Doesn't he realize that he can't possibly disprove the existence of wings on elephants, especially when they can be tucked so neatly into the quantum? (The question of how the original prophets ofwingedness came by their information never seems to come up, or is never considered very deeply.) It was offensive to cripple the poor elephants, rendering them earthbound.
When that book was quickly followed by Moe's The Elephant Walks and Curly's Land of the Elephant, the elephant wing scholars were in a panic — they were being attacked by experts in elephants, who seemed to know far more about elephants than they did! Fortunately, the scientists knew little about elephant's wings — surprising, that — and the public was steeped in favorable certainty that elephants, far away, were flapping gallantly through the sky. They also had the benefit of vast sums of money. Wealth was rarely associated with competence in matters elephantine, and tycoons were pouring cash into efforts to reconcile the virtuouswingedness of elephants with the uncomfortable reality of anatomy. Even a few scientists who ought to know better were swayed over to the side of the winged; to their credit, it was rarely because of profit, but more because they were sentimentally attached to the idea of wings. They couldn't deny the evidence, however, and were usually observed to squirm as they invoked the mystic power of the quantum, or of fleeting, invisible wings that only appeared when no one was looking.
And there the battle stands, an ongoing argument between the blind who struggle to explore the world as it is around them, and the blind who prefer to conjure phantoms in the spaces within their skulls. I have to disappoint you, because I have no ending and no resolution, only a question.
Where do you find meaning and joy and richness and beauty, O Reader? In elephants, or elephants' wings?
Mr Deity
After a year, Mr Deity has a new episode up, and it's the start of a new season. Some might not find it that funny, but I think it's hilarious.
The original can be found at http://mrdeity.com/s3ep1.html.
Cheers,
Scott
The original can be found at http://mrdeity.com/s3ep1.html.
Cheers,
Scott
6/08/2009
Intro to Review
I have finished Timothy Keller's book, and will now try to sum up each chapter individually and my reactions to it. He has his book split into two parts, the first part being a defence against the criticisms of Christianity. He endeavors to be ecumenical, but admits this extends only to the protestant form of the Christian faith. The second half of the book is more focused on the positive reasons for, rather than against, believing in protestant Christianity. This also being a summary, I might miss some things. If anyone has read the book and feels I missed something important, please comment.My overall reaction to the book is, he has written a decent apologetic book. There is a bit of circular reasoning. When reading the notes as I went along, I noticed he quoted a quote, rather than the source, which sort of bugged me. Ultimately I think he falls short, but as I go through it again, I might change my mind.
As well, I think this is a never ending discussion. I recently had a discussion on this topic, which has me thinking the back and forth between atheism and theism is about power. This would put Christianity at a disadvantage, because it's supposed to be the release of power and not the quest for it. The debate between the two positions might also be a false dichotomy, but I am trying to figure out what that would mean.
Keller did call for continuing dialogue in his introduction, which I appreciated. If we shut off dialogue, we're all screwed.
Post on Chapter one to be up soon.
Cheers,
Scott
6/01/2009
Blogging Through A Book
I am going to blog my way through Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. It was given to me by a friend over this last weekend.A shallow and inaccurate analogy of my belief in god would be a Guitar Hero rock meter. The middle being totally Agnostic, the left being Agnostic Atheist and the right being Agnostic Christian. I think everyone is an Agnostic when it come to god, but the meter being which world view you subscribe to most in your everyday life. That could be wrong if you could prove belief in god was a priori and not a posteriori.
Anyways, I think where my 'meter' is at prompted the gift. I appreciate a gift, so intend to be diligent to the givers intent. I plan to read through the book, then re-read it, posting an entry after each chapter. This should help me understand what the author intended overall, and digest that before responding in a positive or negative manner.
Comments as I go through the book are more than welcome. I am off to read, should have the first post up in a day or two.
Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)