Baggas’ Blog

The Dawkins Confusion - Books & Culture

- this is an excellent article by philosopher Alvin Plantinga, discussing Richard Dawkin’s recent book, The God Delusion, which has got a lot of attention in the last few months. Plantinga systematically and very effectively deconstructs many of Dawkin’s arguments. I’ll confess I haven’t read Dawkin’s book (I’ve got too many other, more interesting, books piled up waiting to be read) but this article is well worth checking out for anyone who has read it, has been involved in discussions about it, or is even vaguely aware of it.

Two guys are drinking in a bar. One guy goes, “I haven’t seen you around here before”. The other guy goes, “Yeah. I’m new in town. Just moved here.”

Guy1 :”Oh yeah? What do you do?”

Guy 2:”I’m a logician”

Guy 1:”Logician? What’s that then?”

Guy 2:”Well, I take what someone says and, based on that, make a conclusion”

Guy 1:”What do you mean?”

Guy 2:”Let me give you an example. Do you have an aquarium?”

Guy 1:”Yes, as a matter of fact I do”

Guy 2:”So, you like fish huh?”

Guy 1:”Love ‘em. I could sit and watch fish all day”

Guy 2:”So, you like fishing?”

Guy 1:”Yes, I love fishing. Gives me a chance to sit back, reflect and relax”

Guy 2:”So, you go on fishing trips?”

Guy 1:”Yeh, I do. I just took my wife and kid down south last weekend for a fishing trip”

Guy 2:”Ah. So you are a heterosexual”

Guy 1:”Wow! That’s incredible! How did you know?”

They go on chatting like this for a while and then Guy 2 leaves. Guy 1 stays drinking at the bar and one of his mates walks in.

Guy 1:”Hey man, guess what? I was just talking to this new guy in town. He’s a logician.”

“Oh yeh? What’s that then?”

Guy 1:”Let me give you an example. Do you have an aquarium?”

“Nah man”

Guy 1:”Well, you are gay”.

[don’t know if you found that funny but it appealed to my warped sense of humour - I lifted it from Ben’s blog Hello Internet so go harrass him if you didn’t like it…]

PM canes ‘rubbish’ postmodern teaching | News | The Australian

Just on my way home from work, but thought I’d make note on this interesting news piece with John Howard weighing in to some of the current debates on the “dumbing down” of education. I’m not fully up-to-speed on the issues involved but broadly from what I’ve heard this whole “Outcomes Based” education system is a major worry. Current pieces of pop-culture such as comic books, popular movies, music videos etc are studied along with (or more worringly, in place of) classic literature, questions in a physics exam ask students about the “ethics” of the problem and don’t test their actual understanding or ability in physics or maths. It’s a few years now since I was in high school but even then I thought our literature course had too much modern authors like Bruce Dawe and Randolph Stowe, and not enough classics (we did study a bit of Sophocles and Shakespeare but that was about it). I don’t know if Howard is right in claiming that this educational approach is a negative effect of more general post-modern thought - he may well be, but either way it’s a serious concern. It’ll never happen but I still think returning to a more “classical education” including classical history, literature, languages, philosophy etc like they had in the old days wouldn’t be a bad thing. I sure wish I was better educated in these things.

Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and others to be chewed and
digested.

~ Francis Bacon

Here’s a bit of light reading for you from Wikipedia - Omnipotence paradox. This is basically the question of “whether or not an omnipotent being is able to perform actions that would limit its own omnipotence, thus becoming non-omnipotent” or to use an example “could an omnipotent being create a stone that it could not lift?” To me it’s interesting reading, but the question itself seems a bit silly. I like Aquinas’ solution best I think.

But perhaps the best expression of the omnipotence paradox was given by the great philosopher Homer, who asked his neighbour “Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself could not eat it?”
The neigbour’s (Ned Flanders) reply “Well sure of course, he could, but then again… wow as melon scratchers go, that’s a honey doodle.”

Yet another quiz here that I just couldn’t resist doing (I even have a category for these quizzes now so I must be succumbing to the dark side). This one is ‘What’s Your Theological Worldview?’ and I found it via Simian’s blog. I’m pretty happy with the results, seems fairly accurate, although as always I’d like some definitions, especially of “Neo orthodox” (didn’t know Neo had his very own worldview category - lol) and “Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan.” I’m reasonably pleased that both modern liberal and fundamentalist rated quite lowly. I’m sure they could have found a better picture of McLaren though…
Anyway check it out for yourself - if nothing else the questions will make you think…

You scored as Emergent/Postmodern. You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don’t think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern		82%
Neo orthodox		64%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan		61%
Roman Catholic		54%
Charismatic/Pentecostal		50%
Classical Liberal		36%
Reformed Evangelical		36%
Modern Liberal		25%
Fundamentalist		21%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

Actually speaking of post-modernism, I saw the weirdest movie last night “I Heart Huckabees” which is a tale about a disturbed young environmental activist who signs up to have himself investigated by a pair of ‘Existential detectives’ played by Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin. This is a film that to understand you almost need a degree in Philosophy (which I wouldn’t mind actually - have been thinking recently about perhaps going back to uni to study philosophy and/or theology at some point…) - in fact it even has some philosophical in-jokes (like Kafka in the garbage bin). It’s the kind of movie that you will either love (like I did) or hate (like Jenni did) so watch it at your own risk, but if you like things a bit strange, existential and/or post-modern then this comedy might be right up your alley - “How am I not myself?”

I don’t normally buy into the evolution / creation debates, but this article is interesting coming from a member of the science community. Michael Ruse, who is a philosopher of science, argues that the proponents of evolution have actually been their own worst enemy by letting the debate be framed in religious and sociological terms.

“All told, Ruse claims, loading values onto the platform of evolutionary science constitutes ”evolutionism,” an outlook that goes far beyond the scientific acceptance of evolution as a means of explaining the origins and development of species. Provocatively, Ruse argues that evolutionism has often constituted a ”religion” itself by offering ”a world picture, a story of origins, and a special place for humans,” while its proponents have been ”trying deliberately to do better than Christianity.”

To be sure, Ruse acknowledges, some biologists are religious, while a significant portion of religious believers are willing to accept the concept of evolution at least to some extent. But, he argues, the way evolutionists have often linked their science to progressive politics has, in recent decades, become anathema to many believers, especially fundamentalist Christians whose biblical literalism leads them to believe that worldly change will only arrive with the Second Coming. The advocates of evolution, Ruse argues, have thus been ”competing for space in the hearts and minds” of many religious believers without even realizing it - much to the detriment of their cause.”

OK I admit it - I’m a sucker for these online quiz things. This one I discovered at the Livingroom this morning. As always I don’t think it’s all that accurate but the questions are interesting and “cultural creative” has a certain ring to it…

What is Your World View?
created with QuizFarm.com

Looks like Triple J has gone highbrow. This morning as I drove to work, Adam and Wil on the breakfast show had a segment featuring world renowned ethicist and philosopher Peter Singer, an Australian who is now the Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.

I vividly remember my ethics courses at medical school which strongly featured the theories of Peter Singer. Amongst other things he proposed ethical justification not only for euthanasia and abortion, but also for infanticide when a child is born with a severe disability. He also contended that a human baby is of no greater moral value than an animal. Needless to say none of us could really stomach these propositions, but it made for some lively discussions and debates in our ethics class.

Anyway Singer is an interesting guy to check out. There’s a great summary article about him here which gives a bit of a bio, synopsis of his theories and links to much more about him (and against him).
Read the rest of this entry »

This is an interesting line of thought :

“Some ancient Greeks were exercised by the old problem of the ship of Theseus: This ship, composed of many planks, sails around from port to port. When in each port, some few of its planks are replaced by highly similar planks. After they are replaced, nothing very interesting ever hap­pens with any of the old planks; they might even be allowed to rot. By the end of a year, say, after calling on many ports, all of the original planks have been replaced. . . . Even with all new planks and all new matter, it will be the same ship.

Read the rest of this entry »