What Should Be Expected of Phil Robertson?

In response to the previous post JT Tweets:  Robertson was unwise, didn't reflect the gospel & lacked any nuance in that interview...and I don't think I'm a "leftie."

I agree, JT is not a "leftie."  But I don't agree that his interview had no nuance. For instance, he does say at one point that he'd prefer to sit down with people and have a Bible study and lead them to Jesus than go in guns blazin'.  Clearly his idea of conversion is not conversion by the sword.

Was what he said unwise?  Well, it was certainly not prudent if one of his goals was not to create a media firestorm in response to "convert or kill."  It was unwise insofar as Robertson is not a learned theologian, lacks significant nuance in his approach, and so forth.  But why should we expect Robertson to talk like a theologian?  Why should we expect someone who has been afforded the education and upbringing that Robertson has been afforded to talk like an educated scholar?  I think people have a right to make a fuss over what comes out of Phil Robertson's mouth only if it's reasonable that he's being willfully ignorant or saying things that are obviously false which are being taken seriously by the general public so as to lead them astray.  And I doubt any of that is the case.  If you want to blast Hannity or Fox News for taking someone like Robertson seriously in a news interview, go for it.  If Fox News wants to be taken seriously for journalism, it's fair game to criticize them for interviewing a Phil Robertson.

Does what he said not reflect the Gospel?  Well, he doesn't make reference to I Corinthians 15 (though he does mention leading people to Jesus).  Is going to war inconsistent with the Gospel?  In a certain sense, yes, since there will be no war in heaven.  In a certain sense, no.

 

 

Convert Them or Kill Them

Here we are again, listening to the media and social media blowhards fuss about Phil Robertson's latest PC-heresy.  The lefties are coming out in droves to make sure we realize that Christianity is no different than Islam, Islam is a religion of peace, and conservative kooks are so dumb that they are basically like ISIS/L.  So what DID Robertson say?  Here it is:

"In this case, you either have to convert them—which I think would be next to impossible—I'm not giving up on them, I'm just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other."

Sins of Omission and Commission

A Critique of Roger Olson's Critique of Scholastic Evangelical Theology

Baylor's Truett Theological Seminary professor, Roger Olson, has a blog post here with his objections to "Scholastic Evangelical Theology" and support for his alternative "Intuitive Evangelical Theology."  More on that in a moment.  But first, what kind of animal is Scholastic Evangelical Theology and its intuitive counterpart?

As I would define Scholastic Evangelical Theology it is simply theology by an Evangelical which tries to take into account all  the available evidence when rendering a judgment about the nature of God, God's actions in the world, and the relations of the world with God.  It's the most systematic theology one can imagine. Described in that way, I find the discipline hard to resist.

Did Ray Rice's Girlfriend Deserve to be Punched in the Face?

That was the first question that I asked aloud in the room of people watching PC_SPN this summer when I first heard the story.  Does that question shock you?  It shouldn't.  Allow me to explain.

Now Playing

The Key to Success

Is Booing at a Sporting Event Wrong?

*UPDATE*
A colleague asks (rhetorically?): "So it's OK to boo, if it gets you want you want?"

Answer: No.  I'm not a leftist (that the ends justify the means is false).  Nonetheless, if what one wants is not immoral, then it is morally OK to boo (provided that there are no evil effects caused by the booing which outweigh the good, such as causing the Steelers to lose).

According to this recent item in the news, some colleges are encouraging their fans not to boo at soccer matches, insinuating that booing is always (or at least often) unsportsmanlike.  Are these colleges right?

Leftist University Silliness: A Grad Student Testimonial

A grad student teaching a university writing class writes in with the following:

I'm sitting in the writing program's yearly (dis)orientation seminar (which is a waste of my time). But anyway, I'm currently sitting listening to the Title IX and disability people. They asked us to define "disability." The table of philosophers I'm sitting with basically did a collective eye roll.

So, how do the disability office people define disability?

 "We define disability as difference, not so much disadvantage. It is people who do things differently." 

Ya got that?  If you are blind you're not disabled or at a disadvantage, you're just different!  You're differently-abled.  Lose your eyesight? You can play basketball with echolocation!  In fact, the Title IX office has a team sign-up roster online for an all echolocation league!  Did you get your nose and legs cut off like the guy in Looper?  No problem!  We're all equal, just different! Here at Lefty-U., you see, we're diversity maximalists.  We take all comers, even people who are brain dead!  After all, brain dead people are people too!

Just make sure not to a bring a dictionary with you to school.  DICtionaries--as one can plainly see--are patriarchal tools for enslaving the mind into thinking that words have meanings and that some words do not have those meanings; they belie the hegemonic, Western, Colonial, cold, dualistic logic of the either-or rather than the nurturing, Eastern logic of the both-and.  So leave your dictionary at home and come hear what we think!...(that is, unless you're deaf).

Church Sign in Town

Care to tell us what you're selling? Doves and Pigeons? Baked goods? Indulgences? (I could probably use a few of those myself).

Or have you already told us?  (In which case, where exactly does the inside end and the outside begin?)

Why I Hated the Film "Looper" (Alternative Title: "Looper the Pooper")

I'm often asked my thoughts on the Film, Looper, which involves time travel.  Whereas, I have nothing against the logical possibility of time travel (the recent Star Trek movie employs the notion thoughtfully), I do have a problem with terrible movies.  I can suspend disbelief when it comes to what may not be possible for all we know, but I cannot suspend disbelief regarding what we know to be logically impossible.

Thoughts below the fold (major spoiler alert):

Some Questions About White Privilege

The Maverick Philosopher:

There is a lot of talk these days about white privilege.  I don't believe I have discussed this topic before. 

1. White privilege is presumably a type of privilege.  What is a privilege?  This is the logically prior question. To know what white privilege is we must first know what privilege is.  Let's consider some definitions.

D1.  A privilege is a special  entitlement or immunity granted to a particular person or group of persons by the government or some other corporate entity such as a university or a church on a conditional basis.

Driving on public roads is a privilege by this definition.  It is not a right one has  just in virtue of being a human being or a citizen.  It is a privilege the state grants on condition that one satisfy and continue to satisfy certain requirements pertaining to age, eyesight, driving skill, etc.  Being a privilege, the license to drive can be revoked.  By contrast, the right to life and the right to free speech are neither conditional nor granted by the government.  They can't be revoked.  Please don't confuse a constitutionally protected right such as the right to free speech with a right granted by the government. 

Faculty members have various privileges, a franking privilege, a library privilege, along with such perquisites as an office, a carrel, secretarial help, access to an an exclusive dining facility, etc.  Immunities are also privileges, e.g., the immunity to prosecution granted  to a miscreant who agrees to inform on his cohorts.

Now if (D1) captures what we mean by 'privilege,' then it it is hard to see how there could be white privilege.    Are there certain special entitlements and immunities that all and only whites have in virtue of being white, entitlements and immunities granted on a conditional basis by the government and revocable by said government?  No.  But there is black privilege by (D1).  It is called affirmative action. 

So if we adopt (D1) we get the curious result that there is no white privilege, but there is black privilege!  Those who speak of white privilege as of something real and something to be aware of and opposed must therefore have a different definition of privilege in mind, perhaps the following:

D2. A privilege is any unearned benefit or advantage that only some people have in virtue of their identity.  It needn't be granted by any corporate entity, nor need it be conditional.  Aspects of identity that can afford privilege in this sense include race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, class, wealth, ability, or citizenship status.

People who speak of white privilege probably have something like (D2) in mind.  The idea is that there are certain unearned advantages that accrue to whites just in virtue of their race, advantages that do not accrue to members of other races.

One question arises right here.  What justifies the broadening of the term 'privilege' to cover any unearned benefit?  If the term is used strictly, there is no white privilege.  To speak of white privlege one has to engage in a semantic stretch.  What justifies this stretch?  Is it a legitimate stretch or a example of linguistic distortion?  And what is the agenda behind it? 

What is Wrong About the Film "Fight Club"

I admit: There is part of me that has always liked, "Fight Club."  And for a long time I thought the movie had a redemptive ending, and ultimately ends up denying the Nietzschean premises it seems to espouse for most of the movie.  That was, until a friend of mine made the following points which I reproduce below (spoilers to follow):

Falsifiability and Creation Science

It is often claimed that a necessary condition of a scientific hypothesis, or statement, or theory is that it be falsifiable and that creation "science" is not science because it's claims are not falsifiable. But what does "falsifiable" mean?

Let's try out some definitions randomly pulled off the internet:

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false.

What is an inherent possibility?  I have no idea. Perhaps the idea is that the statement (etc.) is one that is contingently true.  Let's try another....

A falsifiable claim is one for which there is some observation (or set of observations) we could make that would show us that the claim is false. 

"The earth travels around the sun."  That's true.  Is there some observation we could make that would show us that the claim is false?  How could a true statement be shown to be false?

Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.

This definition seems too strict.  Some theories can't be shown false by a particular observation or experiment but only by many.  Nonetheless it's an improvement on the previous definitions.  "The earth travels around the sun."  That's a contingently true statement (there are possible worlds where the earth doesn't travel around the sun).  But if the statement were false, the falsehood could be demonstrated by observations or experiments.

Still there are problems.  Theories in physics are heavily dependent on math and mathematical propositions are either necessarily true or necessarily false. Part of scientific theories include mathematical propositions. But (most) mathematical propositions can't be falsified by observation or experiments (save things like Euclid's parallel postulate).

Perhaps, though, mathematical propositions aren't scientific.  And perhaps theories are scientific just so long as they have SOME falsifiable propositions in the sense above.

But creation science has some falsifiable propositions, some propositions which scientists think ARE false and can be shown to be false. Such scientists shouldn't think creation science isn't science because of the falsifiability criterion, but should think it's bad science.

Dealing with "Who's to say?itis"

[...]
Unenlightened Product of the "Enlightenment": "But who's to say?"
Theist: "God."
U: "Who's to say God says?!"
T: "God."
U: "But who's to say that?!"
T: "Me."
U: "Huh?"
T: "Look, do you have any interesting questions?"
U: "Those were interesting questions!"
T: "Who's to say?"

Church Sign in Town: Holy Spirit Takes the Hindmost Edition

Did I read that right?  Is that the King James spelling?!  (Guess I'd always taken "quench" as figurative).

The Shame of PBS: Are Abortionists Serial Killers?

According to these authors, the answer is (at least), "sometimes."

Excerpt:

Speaking of the horrific slaughter of infants, and the depravity of mind necessary to tolerate it, it appears that PBS will go ahead with broadcasting fiendish propaganda designed to “humanize” late-term abortionists. [Could this broadcast be more offensive than this Slate article favorably comparing late term abortionists with brave veterans of foreign wars]. 

Now “late-term abortionist” is just a feeble, unmanly euphemism for “legally-sanctioned serial killer.” [GREAT sentence]  His wicked business consists in nothing less than this: by direct impalement, precision throttling, dismemberment, or poisoning, to snuff out the life of wholly viable, and often fully mature, infant human beings. It is an undisguised assault upon all innocence superadded to an exploitation of the vulnerable, easily-led, and desperate. Torments and agonies that we would hardly countenance for the most pitiless sociopaths, convicted of ghastly murders and rotting on death row, we suffer to be inflicted on helpless babes maturing in the womb.