Buzzer Beater

Well, not really...

I'm working on my papers, so far I've turned in one, have comments on another paper w/ a completed draft. My third paper I have a completed draft. So all I have to do is turn these papers in, after I finish my comments on them.

Anyway, I'll post again when I finish w/ my papers.

End O' the semester

Why is it so difficult for me to remain calm and get my work done the closer it gets to the due date? It seems that I cannot relax and procrastinate even more when deadlines get closer and closer. Perhaps I am so tired I cannot focus so my mind wanders. Regardless, I am getting a good nights sleep tonight and making sure that I at least get 7 1/2 hours. I think that getting some rest will allow me to better focuse when I next study and attempt to write papers.

...At least I think it will.

Quiz Time

I took this quiz about a year and a half ago, this time I have different results.

You scored as John Calvin. Much of what is now called Calvinism had more to do with his followers than Calvin himself, and so you may or may not be committed to TULIP, though God's sovereignty is all important. John Calvin 93% Anselm 87% Karl Barth 53% Friedrich Schleiermacher 53% Martin Luther 47% Jonathan Edwards 47% J?Moltmann 27% Paul Tillich 27% Augustine 20% Charles Finney 20% Which theologian are you? created with QuizFarm.com

Writer's Bloc

Well, right now I'm working on a rough draft that is due on Monday. The rough draft is supposed to be a polished rough draft when I turn it in, but nonetheless it's a rough draft. My biggest problem and frustration when writing papers is writer's bloc. I was very frustrated by it yesterday when I was working on my paper. However, I think that I have developed a solution to dealing with writer's bloc... ready... here we go - keep reading what I have written. What? You ask me what kind of solution is this? A good solution says I. When I can't write anymore I go back over what I have previously written, and edit that. This gives me more ideas for writing and helps tighten my argument also. This is actually a really good solution for me to cure my writer's bloc. I must confess that it is stressful when one encounters writer's bloc. This stress then produces more stress, which makes it even more difficult to overcome writer's bloc. So, then I just re-read aloud what I have previously written.

Now, I shall return to my paper. Reading my paper outloud.

Johnny Cash - Hurt

At the end of his life Johnny Cash got together with producer Rick Rubin and they covered a lot of different styles of songs. Some of the bands that were covered by Johnny Cash included, Soundgarden, Depeche Mode, and Nine Inch Nails. I think one of the most powerful songs was his cover of Nine Inch Nails hurt. Very powerful religious imagery. He basically speaks of the regrets in his life. There is one point in the video when he sings "I will let you down" and it flashes a picture of Christ. Then another line is "I will make you hurt," and it shows a picture of the nails being hammered into Christ's hands. He also sings of "[his] empire of dirt" then the video flashes to all the awards that Cash has won. Very powerful video. In some ways it seems to be a New Testament interpretation of Eccesiastes.

13 The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person. 14 For God will bring every act to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil.
Eccl 12:13-14 (NASB95)

Practicality of Doctrine

One of the things that vanHoozer is emphasizing in his hermeneutics book is the practical nature of doctrine. Doctrine is designed to help us live our lives as Chriistians. I can't think of any particular examples that he gives, but the main emphasis is that doctrine is not merely a propositional belief, but a belief that changes one's actions.

Another point of emphasis of vanHoozer's is that we are in a drama, the Bible is a dramatic book, a divine play so to speak. However, we are actors in this play. God calls us to act, not just sit passively. This definitely is a new approach to hermeneutics but an interesting one nonetheless. Too often people in churches believe that the Bible is a book to be read and quoted and venerated but it stops there. However, the Bible is a DIVINE book that calls us to act. It tells us how to act. It calls us to a relationship with God and to participate in God's works.

Hermeneutics & Theology

I've been reading Kevin vanHoozer's new book, The Drama of Doctrine. It is definitely causing me to think about how I read the Bible. Often I think that we read the Bible without thinking about how it should affect our actions - but all too often we read it as a book that gives us information. Then, the pastor will make the information relevant for our lives. However, in The Drama of Doctrine, the idea is that the Bible the way it is calls us to action. We are called and asked and commanded to respond to God's words.

I'll post more on this later, as I continue to read through it...

All is well that ends well.

I got a call today from the food and housing office telling me that they would release me from my lease when I brought a copy of my marriage liscense in.

Breaking the Lease

So in about 5 weeks I'll be leaving for IL to get married to Jessica. After our honeymoon we will get back to OK around December 18. Jessica's apartment lease is up on the 22, mine, sometime in May. Now, I live in the University of Oklahoma student apartments. I signed a lease for one year, from May to May. I thought that I would be able to get out of this lease for my wedding. However, today, I went to the apartment manager and to give her a form for me to break my lease and she very coldly informed me that I couldn't. I was so taken aback I didn't even respond to her, I didn't know what to say. To be honest, I was really upset and still am about this situation. Jessica would have to drive to work about 45 minutes to an hour with traffic, one way. However, I did put in an application to break my lease with the university food & housing department. Jessica's theory is that the lady I spoke with today has no power - she is the apartment manager. According to Jessica, this lady probably has a domineering husband and then takes things out on people during the day. Hopefully I will be able to get out of my lease. I think the thing that upset me the most today was that the lady didn't even try to compromise or help me out, she basically signed the form 'no' and showed me the door. She wasn't even sympathetic. ...I'll try and study tonight, but I'm still pretty upset.

Peace and God's Soverignty

This past week I have had a peace about my future that I haven't had since the semester started. I think this is because I have realized that despite what has happened in the past, God is still in control. And regardless of what happens in the future, God will be in control. This is something that is difficult to comprehend because we don't know where we are going, but God does. This is why it is so important to trust God. If we cannot trust God with our future then we will never have peace. This seems to be an antithesis to the American way of life, where you pick yourself up by the bootstraps and work your way to success. God's way to success is to trust Him. So, this is the current spiritual discipline that I am working on - to trust in God and His plans for my life.

Old Skool Music

As I was working out last night I was thinking of some songs that I used to listen to by a band called NIN - actually recorded in the studio by one man, Trent Renzor, but hires a band when he plays live. Some of the lyrics I was thinking of are from a song called "Head Like a Hole":

God money I'll do anything for you
God money just tell me what you want me to do
God-money goes dancing on the backs of the bruised,
God-money's not one to choose

Another song was "Wish":

Wish there was something real wish there was something true

The last one is probably the most offensive "Slavery":

Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see,
the devils of truth steal the souls of the free
Don't open your eyes, take it from me,
I have found you can find happiness in slavery

It just made me realize how many Christians in the church actually do what NIN is singing about. How many megachurches worship big buildings and programs? How many churches are only concerned about how much they can build?

It seems like the song "Wish" is what the gospel is an answer to. The gospel points us to the work that Christ did on the cross. It is REALITY with all caps. If we don't aknowledge the life, death, and resurrection of Christ as the Reality of this world that has altered reality, we will never reach or change our culture. Too many people in the church think that a big building is what makes a good church. However, the church is no different from big businesses when all they are concerned about is buildings.

We need to preach what is real and true!

What do you Believe????

For so long I have claimed that God is soverign, that is, God is in control. Nothing happens that God doesn't cause to happen or that God doesn't allow to happen. So everything that happens is due to God acting, or refraining from action. I believe this and I tell this to other people with extreme frequency, problem is, I forget to tell myself. When I struggle the most I forget that God is soverign, God is in control, God is not suprised. I know it's true, but I don't let my attitude and emotions reflect this knowledge. That is, I don't practice that God is soverign. It seems to me that if you really believe something your actions will reflect your beliefs.

I believe that emotions are similar to perceptions. So, when I am depressed or stressed, it is because I am blinding myself to the greater reality of God. The Bible declares that children of God possess eternal life - I am a child of God. What more could I ask for? Sometimes it is so easy to get caught up in everyday deadlines or past events where I could have done better, I miss the big picture. The big picture is eternity, how important is this week compared to eternity? It's insignificant.

I have a tendency to only care about the paper that is due next week or the reading assignment that I have. When I do this I neglect the significance of this live. Life is too short to be spent worrying about paper assignments or whether one will get an 'A'. Instead, every moment of life should be spend rejoicing at the opportunities that we have and embrace these opportunities. If you stop to reflect on failure, you allow the failure to effect your future. Learn from your failures and move on. Remember that God's Grace is more powerful than any failure that you may ever have.

Grace

One of the things my old roommate used to give me a hard time about was being so hard on myself. He once told me that I beat myself up too much and need to stop it. One thing that is difficult for me to comprehend is grace, not just any ol' grace but the Grace of God. It is difficult to realize that you ARE forgiven. God is big enough, and powerful enough to offer forgiveness to His children. Instead of worrying about the past or the future, I need to remember that regardless of what happens, God will continue to dispense His grace upon me. I get easily stressed out and most of that stress is the result of past mistakes and concerns that I will make the same mistakes in the future. Tonight I have a peace that God's Grace is the important thing right now. If I fail school (which I won't) if I let myself down, God's Grace will still be given to me - it's alright. As a movie once claimed - God understands.

Musings

I don't really have any deep thoughts at the moment. Just a lot of random thoughts right now. I have a paper due in about 10 days that I need to re-read some articles for, but other than that, it looks like smooth sailing for a while. I'm actually trying to find an Oasis song, but I can't remember what it was called. ...ah, just found it Live Forever.

--take care

Who is Real?

You know that there are a lot of fake people out there. I was watching VH1 while I was working out (I was also watching ESPN) and the VH1 show was about super models. They mentioned on the show how some of the supermodels pay their hairdressers $80k a year. They also mentioned how supermodels had to have the most expensive jewelery and clothing. In fact, part of the criteria for clothing was that it looked expensive. Supermodels definitely seemed fake and superficial - they aren't real people.

Something else occurred to me while I was watching this show - politicians aren't real. Who knows who politicians really are, or the people that help out the politicians. The problem with the political process is that you have to sell your soul by making so many promises to get anywhere. Even people that help out with campaigns end up selling out. I'm sure that people get involved in politics for good reasons to begin with, but after a while they have to compromise in order to help people out. After a while, they forgot why they got into politics to begin with and now are willing to do anything to maintain their position. It's really depressing, so many people put their hope and faith into a political party or a political leader - all that will happen in the end is that the person will be let down. As much as politicians try to be real, they are just as fake as supermodels. They talk about the common man, when they are members of country clubs and have houses in Martha's Vineyard.

All I know is that God is real, and God won't let His children down. God does understand the common man (woman).

One thing about people...

That I can't stand is unreasonable people. This is something that has bugged me more than anything else my entire life. There were always certain people that rubbed me the wrong way and I never knew what it was about them that drove me nuts. Now I know - I want absolutely, nothing to do with people that are unreasonable, can't compromise, and don't listen. I understand that some people hold to a specific worldview and believe that their worldview is correct. I'm not asking them to compromise on their worldview, I'm just asking them to concede that there more be some more gray areas than they previously conceded.

For the most part in the philosophy program at OU I hang out with the other Christian philosophers with two exceptions. My first year in the program one of the people that I spent the most time with was an atheist - not an outspoken atheist but an atheist nonetheless. My other friend in the OU department that isn't a Christian is a very vocal atheist. He definitely isn't afraid to voice his opinion about his atheism to other people. The sad thing is that I get along better with these two atheists than I do with some other Christians that I know of. To me this is a very sad thing. Christians ought to have the grace of the Holy Spirit operating in their lives.

I think that it is a very hard-headed person that I can't get along with or who doesn't enjoy talking with me. I'm easy going and well-read, there are a variety of subjects that I can discuss, which include: pro-wrestling, literature, philosophy, theology, all sports, pop culture, etc. Perhaps this shows that I don't focus on grad school as much as I ought to. This is probably an astute observation on my part. However, if you ever meet anyone who can't get along with me and I find unreasonable, when you encounter this person RUN AWAY and don't look back.

Livin' the Life

Francis Schaeffer asked his readers to imagine the impact that 20% of the so-called Christians in the U.S. could have on our culture if they only lived what they supposedly believed. In other words, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves and in particular love other Christians. Christians ought to exemplify love towards each other at the minimum. Furthermore, we are to love God more than we love ourselves. One of things that I am doing right now is going through pre-marital counseling with my fiance. From this I have thought a lot about the command for husbands to love their wives like Christ loved the church. Christ died for the church and put the interests of the church above His own interests. So, husbands ought to put the interests of their wives above their own. What kind of impact would Christianity have on the U.S. if non-believers could witness this type of behavior? I think the self-sacrificial love that Christ demonstrated towards the Church is an incredible illustration for marriage, and a difficult example for me to live up to. How amazing would that be to see the love of Christians? Sadly, some of the most arrogant, and rude people I have met have claimed to be Christians. Although I must confess, many of the rude and arrogant Christians have left the church and no longer profess themselves to be Christians. Nonetheless, while they profess to be Christians they profane the name of Christ and all that He stood for. It's a shame that more people can't put into practice what they actually believe or claim to believe. However, if you don't act upon your beliefs, then maybe you never actually had those beliefs to begin with.

Is God's omnipotence compatible with His impeccability?

Omnipotence is typically defined as God's ability to do anything that is logically possible. So, it is logically impossible for God to make a square circle, or for God to make a married bachelor.

Impeccability is typically defined as God cannot sin.

So there appears to be an inconsistency here, God can do anything but sin. So, if God is impeccable it appears that He cannot be omnipotent. I think the most helpful way to think of this problem is to analyze sin as a negative action. Meaning that it is more difficult to refrain from sinning than it is to sin. In fact, if we define sin as missing the mark, or falling short of our goal, then we need omnipotence not to sin.

I would like to claim that for a being that is omnipotent and impeccable it is logically impossible to sin. To use an analogy, consider an omnipotent basball player. This baseball player can do anything he wants when he is at bat. Sometimes this baseball player chooses to strike out when he is at bat, full well knowing that he can hit a home run at any point in time. If we add a stipulation that this player must play his best at all times, then he can no longer strike out. We certainly wouldn't consider the ability to strike out something that we can do, rather we would consider it a failure. That is how we ought to conceive of God's sinning. God sinning isn't the ability to do something, rather, it is a lack of ability to refrain from sinnning.

Working the Brain Muscles

Mondays I always plan on working out after class. However, I have my philosophy of religion survey course from 3 to 6 then from 7 to 10 I have a seminar on vagueness. What's vagueness about you ask??? Well, allow me to tell you what it is about. We are attempting to ascertain whether vagueness is a semantic, ontic, or epistemic feature of the world. But those aren't the only theories of vagueness, oh no! There is also a discussion of whether there is such a thing as higher-order vagueness. Higher-order vagueness is the idea that there are borderline borderline examples - or vague vagueness. Then you have borderline borderline borderline cases. Myself I'm an epistemicist, which rejects higher-order vagueness. After that there are logical solutions to vagueness. Needless to say on Monday nights after vagueness I'm exhausted by all of the thinking.

... yet, I think it's good for me to think

The Allergy Season

My left ear is plugged up again. This is more annoying than anything else. For whatever I think that the type of pollen in the air effects my ear. Yesterday the pollen count was low - my ear was fine. But Wednesday and today the pollen count is high - my ear is stuffed. . This is what weatherbug has to say about the pollen count.

Predominant Pollen: Ragweed, Grass and Chenopods.

Today
The amount of pollen in the air for Thursday will be falling into the very low range. The cause for the falling pollen levels is falling temperatures, rising humidity and heavy rains in the morning and evening which tend to wash pollen out of the air.

Outlook
The quantity of pollen grains in the air for Friday will be greater than today's levels in the high range. This increase is due to seasonally normal weather conditions which are favorable for the production and dispersal of pollen. If you have these allergies, tomorrow will likely be more difficult outdoors.

Allergy Fact
Ragweed pollen grains are highly sculpted and have surfaces covered with large spines. Interestingly, this menacing appearance has nothing to do with its ability to cause hay fever

Emergent Church

So, my friend from Austrailia took the theology quiz and scored as emergent postmodern. This was a week or two ago so I figured that I would eventually comment on this, though a little belatedly. Simply put, the emergent church wants first century Christianity without absolute truth. That isn't very helpful (sorry). So I will try to further eloborate on my position. The emergent church wants to hold that all positions are true, so someone who is in the emergent church would say that they are a protestant and a Roman Catholic. So, all of the contradictory positions in the theological world and emergentist would hold to. The emgergent church movement is also very experiential when it comes to worship - almost touchy-feely. Instead of relying upon revelation (the Bible) to learn about God they rely upon their feelings and experiences to learn about God.

I'm sure that there are other things for me to help better explain what emergent theology is but I need to read a paper on reduction for my naturalism class. So, I'll post more thoughts on emergentism later.

Sorities Paradox

The problem of vagueness is derived from the sorities paradox. Here is a typical example of a sorities paradox:

(1) One grain of sand is not a heap.

(2) If one grain of sand is not a heap. [n + 1 is not a heap]

(3) Therefore, 100,000 grains of sand is not a heap.

The step that I reject is (2) maybe 3 or 4 grains of sand is a heap but there seems to be some point at which several (many) grains of sand becomes a heap. Another move made is the reverse march.

(4) 100,000 grains of sand is a heap.

(5) If 100,000 grains of sand is a heap, then 99,999 grains of sand is a heap [n - 1 is a heap]

(6) Therefore, one grain of sand is a heap.

I'm not quite sure where grains of sand become a heap, but there definitely seems to be some type of cutoff where sand becomes a heap.

Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

For my phil. of religion survey we began by reading a survey of the ontological arguments for the existence of God. I think that this argument is a logical proof that God exists. However, I don't think logical arguments necessarily aid one in evangelism. By the way, ontological is a study of being.

(1) God is the greatest possible being: (i) God is all-powerful; (ii) God is all-knowing; and (iii) God is morally perfect, i.e. all-loving.

(2) The greatest possible being does not depend upon its existence from anything else, i.e. it self-exists or it necessarily exists.

(3) Therefore God exists.

Though this argument looks weak and simple the premises are very resillient. The move that the atheist has to make is that it is impossible for there to be a greatest possible being with the attributes in (1). This is why so much of philosophy of religion has depended upon defending God's omniscience, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.

I'll post on my vagueness class later on ;)

School is in session

ahh, school is starting in 14 1/2 hours today (it's 12:28 AM) don't know if I'm ready for it or not though...

Liturgical Baptists

I have spoken to a couple of friends about this topic. Now I am very intrigued, I would like to see a liturgical Baptist church started. Why? Because churches have become self-help resource centers. A church lives and dies based upon a pastoral staff's ability to recruit and give a sales pitch. The liturgy is based upon the Gospel and is God-centered not man-centered. Now don't get me wrong, I'm still holding to distinctive Baptist theology. However, the Baptist style of worship is becoming bankrupt and is not about God.

What are some differences between a liturgical service and a typical Baptist service. A liturgical service would have the Lord's Supper every week, recite a creed, responsive readings, perhaps incense, group prayers/confession, and would not have any musical solos.

Most Baptists claim to be non-creedal people, yet all the creeds are is a summary of what the Scriptures teach. I would suggest that if one cannot affirm the early church creeds (specifically the Nicene creed) then one is not a Christian. Creeds allow new believers to discern between heresy and biblical teaching. They are a confession of the community of believers beliefs. I don't know how creeds are any different from the sinner's prayer that all Baptists are supposed to pray before they get saved. Speaking of which...

Another reason to recite creeds during church service is to allow people to determine if they will side with the community of believers or not. We are saved through belief in Christ, not praying the sinner's prayer. Most people say, I was saved when I did X - usually X is praying a prayer. Hence putting the focus upon the individual who prayed. Yet, what if we recite a creed every Sunday and one of the lines in the creed mentions belief in Christ who died for our sins. If all the people confess this aloud and really believe it and mean it when they say it but haven't prayed the sinner's prayer are these people saved? I would suggest that they are saved. This is one more method to allow people to profess their belief in Christ. Altar calls are not the only method of having a non-believer to become a believer.

I also think that a liturgical service puts a greater emphasis on the community of believers than the preacher. There is a set order of service and people come to Church with a reverent attitude, rather than an attitude of looking to be entertained.

I'll post more on this later.

Class Schedule

As the title says =)

Mondays:

3PM - 6PM Philosophy of religion survey: topics covered - problem of evil, ontological argument, and religious ethics

7PM - 10PM vagueness: problem of the heaps, if 1 grain of sand is not a heap, and if 2 grains of sand is not a heap, and if 3 grains of sand is not a heap, etc.... then 10,000 grains of sand is not a heap


Wednesdays:
7PM - 10PM Philosophical naturalism: how can we have objective standards for art, beauty, religion, knowledge, etc. if there isn't anything that transcends the physical world?

Speaking of God

I think one of the key questions for Christians today is whether Christians and Muslims refer to the same God. Both Muslims and Christians would agree that they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. However the problem is that the Christian God is a Triune God and the Muslim God is not Triune - in fact Muslims strongly explain how God is not a Trinity.

Since Christians would claim that God is necessarily a Triune God I will use this fact to explain how Christians worship a different God than the Muslims.

One thing I have yet to resolve is natural law or General revelation. I'm not sure what to do with this subject yet.

Find the nearest book

Here's something I found on another blog. Do this:
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

(1) The Blessed Hope by George Eldon Ladd
(2 - 3) What Christ has accomplished on His cross is a finished work, but the salvation of God's people is not complete and will not be brought to consummation apart from the glorious return of Christ.

Life in General *thinks of MxPx album*

I have decided to post more mundane details about my life on my blog because all too often people comment that there are many posts on my blog that they don't read due to the philosophical nature of the post.

Anyway, today I didn't set my alarm and I slept til' 11:20 or so. I've set my alarm for the last 3 weeks even on Saturdays and last night I was so tired that I decided that I needed to sleep until my body felt like waking up - as opposed to allowing a pre-arranged time (alarm) to wake me up. Though, in the future I will continue to use my alarm clock to wake me up, regardless of what day of the week it is.

Shifting Gears

All this summer I have had things in a pretty low gear ... well now it's time for things to start shifting into a higher gear. I have one more free week before school starts. After that, it's going to be a very, very, busy semester.

Going back to Colorado

Well in about 8 hours my mom and I will drive to Breckenridge CO. I look forward to getting away and breathing the thin mountain air. I also look forward to getting lots of reading done. Hopefully I'll have many insightful comments and posts after getting back from CO.

Cell phone

So, I have caved into pressure and now own a cell phone.

Did I sell out?

Sleeping Schedule

This week I've been trying to alter my body's clock - by getting up every morning at 9:30am. So far I have been able to get up at 9:30am every morning, but I just feel out of sync. I've been getting up, previously before I began to alter my schedule, at 11:30am to 1pm. So this is a significant change for me - but nonetheless one that I needed to make.

I'm off to go read now... hopefully I'll stay awake *crosses fingers*

Who is richer?

I'm meeting (at least supposed to meet) some guys tonight for our discussion group concerning intelligent design. I need to read two articles that we are discussing tonight so I really shouldn't be procrastinating and writing on my blog, but oh well...

I just finished watching season 3 of Smallville and I have just recently watched Batman Begins. Now, here is a question: who is richer Bruce Wayne or Lex Luthor?

I think the answer is Lex Luthor and here is why. Bruce Wayne is not concerned with accumulating wealth, all Bruce Wayne needs money for is to continue to fund the projects and weapons development along with research for Batman. So insofar as Bruce Wayne needs money to help him fight crime, that is what he needs to accumulate wealth for. Whereas Lex Luthor is attempting to take over the world. The means by which he is attempting to take over the world involves monetary gain. So, Lex Luthor needs all the money and power that he can get and control - he is seeking to gain an infinite amount of wealth and power. This is why I believe Lex Luthor is richer than Bruce Wayne. Lex Luthor may not be as smart as Bruce Wayne but he is able to spend all of his time and resources accumulating wealth, while Bruce Wayne spends a majority of his time and resources fighting crime.

Posterior Analytics

This summer I have been attending a reading group for Aristotle's Posterior Anaylytics. The Posterior Analytics along with the Prior Analytics deal with formal logic. Since I am interested in logic I decided to make attending the reading group a priority of my summer. Aristotle is very difficult to understand so it is good to slowly read through the Posterior Analytics - but here is the catch - the reading group is reading through the Greek text of the Posterior Analytics. Nonetheless, reading a challenging philosophical text along with working through some Greek is helpful for me and good for me.

This is why our country is in trouble

The seriousness of traditional churches scared many parishioners away, Osteen said, but the warm hug delivered by megachurches like his is bringing them back.

One time I was praying at this big event here in town and there were several other ministers there with me and the man that went right before me--He is a very well respected leader in the community and a very fine gentleman. But, he prayed about the most depressing prayer that I think I have ever heard. He said, 'God, you know how unworthy I am to even stand up here before you. God, you know what a wretched sinner I am. I don't deserve your goodness--and God how could you even use anybody like me?' On and on--man by the time he got finished I felt like I needed to go repent. I felt like I was about that tall. I just wanted to hang my head in shame. So let me ask you, how can we expect God's blessings? How can we expect His goodness if we go around feeling wrong about ourselves? I wanted to ask him afterwards, 'Did you really mean what you prayed?' You said you were 'Weak. You were defeated. You were an old sinner. You were unworthy.' Listen, I'm not going to declare that kind of junk over my life!...Well, you say, 'Joel, we are just all old sinners saved by grace.' No, the truth is we were old sinners--but when we came to Christ we are not sinners anymore. We are sons and daughters of the Most High God...Sure, we may sin every once in awhile. You may make some mistakes--but that doesn't make you a sinner. You've got the very nature of God on the inside of you.

(Joel Osteen, "Receiving God's Mercy," Tape #262. Daystar Television, April 17, 2005)

So, Christians no longer sin once they are Christians? That is news to me, I think it's news to Paul also. What about Romans 7? So is Joel Osteen a better Christian than Paul?

Is Anakin Skywaker Darth Vader (Part 2)

After careful consideration I have decided that 'Anakin Skywalker' is a rigid designator. This means that regardless of who Anakin Skywalker is, he is identical with himself, and the term 'Anakin Skywalker' refers to Anakin Skywalker. Now, it's possible that Anakin Skywalker could have been called 'Jim Jones' but Anakin Skywalker would still have all the properties of Anakin Skywalker, even if he were named 'Jim Jones'. This is what a rigid designator is, it is a name that refers to an object itself, but a rigid designator is not a description of the object. If we try to describe Anakin Skywalker as the person who became Darth Vader, it is possible that Anakin Skywalker never turned to the dark side, so that would be a incorrect description of Anakin Skywalker. Or if we said that Anakin Skywalker is the father of Luke Skywalker it is possible for Luke to have never been born so this would be an incorrect description if Luke were never born. Thus, a rigid designator is not a description, it is a term that picks out an object. 'Anakin Skywalker' (picks out) refers to Anakin Skywalker and the term 'Anakin Skywalker' does not have any descriptive content.

Now if two different rigid designators refer to the same object then the rigid designators are identical. Here is an example: Mark Twain is identical with Samuel Clemons. Two objects are identical if they share all of the same properties. Here is the problem with Anakin Skywalker being identical with Darth Vader. It is not a necessary property of Anakin Skywalker to have turned to the dark side of the force. Yet, by definition Darth Vader is a sith and all sith necessarily have turned to the dark side of the force. So, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker do not share all the same necessary properties. Using the dark side of the force is a contingent property of Anakin Skywalker. It appears that 'Anakin Skywalker' is a rigid designator, but 'Darth Vader' is not.

I propose that 'Darth Vader' is a partially descriptive desginator. 'Darth' implies that something is a sith lord. So, this is how Darth Vader can be identical with Anakin Skywalker because 'Darth Vader' is not a rigid designator but a partially descriptive designator.

Reading

So, I have gotten a lot of reading done today - hooray for me!!!

Quizz

Well, I'm not sure what to think about the quiz results:

You scored as Neo orthodox. You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God's most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth. Neo orthodox 89% Reformed Evangelical 75% Fundamentalist 75% Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 61% Emergent/Postmodern 54% Roman Catholic 39% Classical Liberal 36% Charismatic/Pentecostal 29% Modern Liberal 11% What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com

Quitter

So, for a long time I've been playing an online text-based game: ogame.org.

I've finally quit, which is good b/c ogame is very addicting. Hopefully I'll have more time to blog again which is very important. I feel free now that I've given my accounts away. One account I was ranked #208 and the other account I was ranked #103. I can't remember how many people played but in both universes there were over 8,000 people. Perhaps both universes had over 9, 000 people (each universe). So, I was ranked pretty high, the people that now have my former *sniff* accounts are very happy. AND, I'm happy too, cuz I don't have to worry about getting fleet crashed or raided anymore, that is now someone elses concern. WOO-HOO!!!

Not paying attention

So obviously by the lack of comments on my blog not many people have visited it in the last month.

I kinda feel outta sync right now. My fiance has moved to the same area as me and now I'm having to adjust to a different schedule than the one that I've had for the past 5 years.

I'll post some thoughts on philosophy/theology in a couple of days *crosses fingers*

An Update

I've slacked off on writing my thoughts on my blog. It's good for me to post what I am thinking especially when I read a lot of philosophy and theology. Blogging helps me to sort my thoughts out, even if most of my readers don't understand my thoughts. Usually after writing something out, I understand it better than before.

This summer I have been attending a Greek reading group - we are reading Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. Not that I am great at reading Greek, but it is helpful. Anyway, usually after we are finished reading we go out to a restrarant and hang out. This last Tuesday a professor showed up who is from India and happens to be a punjabi. If any if my readers have seen the greatness of Bend It Like Beckham, you would know that Jess is punjabi. Well, the prof said that BILB accurately portrays the punjabi families. Absolute greatness!!! Next time I watch BILB I'll know that it is an accurate movie and that will make it even funnier.

So, I have started working out again after a month hiatus from the gym. It's always tough to get back in the groove but I'll manage.

Currently I'm reviewing my symbolic logic, then I will move on to modal logic. Logic is something that you can never be too good at in philosophy. So, my fiance may get frustrated because at times I may revert to making statements in predicate logical forms. But I'm sure she won't get too frustrated. Speaking of fiances - she's driving down this Wednesday, so I am flying Southwest Airlines to St. Louis. Then, from St. Louis we will drive to her apartment in Oklahoma City.

Gnosticism & Works Salvation

As a result of my summer reading I've become more and more convinced that the so-called evangelicals in North America really are semi-gnostic and hold to a works salvation. Let me explain.

First off the gnosticism. Most Christians if you asked them what happens when you die they would claim that we go to heaven. I'm not really sure what happens immediately upon death other than we go to be with Jesus. So, technically if Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, and the Father's dwelling place is heaven, then we go to heaven. Yet, most Christians would also assert that our body is just a shell and when we die the real person the soul/spirit goes to heaven. This is false and is not a biblical teaching. The Bible teaches that it is the whole person that is important. So, only a part of us goes to be with the Lord and we wait with our Lord to be reunited with our glorified bodies for the resurrection day. Most Christians are really Platonic in their view of death, i.e. bodies are bad and souls are good.

Second works salvation. Faith is a gift from God. Salvation comes through believing in Jesus Christ. Yet, people often brag about their faith. They will mock theologians claiming that they need more faith. Fair enough, we all need more faith. Yet, if faith is a gift from God (Eph. 2: 8-11) we should never put down others who don't have more of it. Instead we ought to pray for them. Salvation is often seen as something where you need faith to believe. So someone is not saved because they choose not to believe or their faith isn't strong enough. Sounds like faith is the work in this instance. One might say, my faith is stronger than yours, that is why I became a Christian. If we view faith as a gift from God, as we ought to, we would never make this claim. Instead we would be much more humble about the faith that we do have. Instead faith is preached as the medium to achieve salvation and faith is the result of an individual's effort to produce it.

Is Anakin Skywalker Darth Vader?

So, the main question is, is Anakin Skywalker identical with Darth Vader. In other words, for every property that Darth Vader possesses does Anakin Skywalker possess? (I owe this question to my friend LJ.)

The primary puzzlement about this question is a statement by Obi Wan Kenobi - Darth Vader is more machine than man. Anakin Skywalker was a man, and then was dubbed Darth Vader by Emperor Palpatine upon Anakin Skywalker's conversion to the darkside of the force. Now, if we follow Saul Kripke on names then both 'Darth Vader' and 'Anakin Skywalker' are rigid designators. That is, names are not descriptions of an object. Here is the problem though, if two rigid designators are identical then they are necessarily identical. Therefore, if Anakin Skywalker is identical with Darth Vader, then he is necessarily identical to Darth Vader. Yet, it seems possible that Anakin Skywalker may have never converted to the darkside. I don't know where to take this question. Darth Vader is a sith, and sith are necessarily converts to the darkside of the force, so that is a necessary property of Darth Vader. Anakin Skywalker does not have the property of necessarily using the darkside, therefore Anakin Skywalker is not identical to Darth Vader. Hence Obi Wan Kenobi was correct when he declared Luke's father and Darth Vader to be two separate persons.

Truth

Is the truth important?

Most people would answer 'yes' but by their actions the answer would be 'no'. A lot of times in Christianity, in order to avoid conflict we don't call people out on false doctrines. I had a prof. at SWBTS who was convinced that everyone on TBN was a legitimate Christian - despite heresies that may be declared by some of those tv preachers. Right now I am reading a biography about Jonathan Edwards - the greatest American theologian, and perhaps the greatest American thinker. It is amazing how much opposition he faced by people who wanted him to maintain the status quo. Edwards was voted out of his church that he pastored because he only wanted Christians to receive communion. He argued that there ought to be visable signs of conversion. Now, Edwards loosely interpreted visable signs. His purpose was to show the community how serious the Lord's Supper is, however, people who didn't claim Christianity believed that it was their right to receive the Lord's Supper. I don't know why people who aren't Christians would want to participate in communion, this baffles me. Yet, knowing that he would lose his position as pastor Edwards maintained his biblical stance in the face of opposition. It saddens me today in the church that truth is not as significant as unity or growth. Unity is only important in so far as God is glorified, the same with growth. God is not glorified through unbiblical unity. Nor is God glorified with false teaching. However, unity in many ways is the easy road to take - just ignore someone's false doctrine or gossip about it. The Bible is explicit, we are to confront others 1 on 1, then if that individual doesn't repent we ought to confront them with 2 or 3. It is hard to confront people, most of us don't like confrontation - myself included. Yet, in order to honor God, we must honor and preserve the truths that He has given and revealed to us.

Official Story

Ok, my internet friend has requested that I tell the official proposal story, so here it is:

I proposed to my friend from IL on Thursday, so here are the events of Thursday. We drove to Chicago to go to lunch at Frontera Grill. Which is Rick Bayless's restraurant. Rick Bayless has a cooking show on PBS and specializes in authentic Mexican food. When my friend was in TX last we made some of the recipes together for her b-day dinner and for dessert made flan. So, we decided that it would be a good idea to try out Frontera Grill - it is ranked #2 casual dining in the United States. The prices are about the same as On the Border or Don Pablos. Lunch was great.

After lunch we drove about 45 minutes to the sand dunes in Indiana on the beaches of Lake Michigan. The waves on Lake Michigan were picturesque and beautiful. It was about 50 degrees so we kept warm w/ some blankets and watched the waves. Then the sun came out and it warmed up I asked my friend if she would spend the rest of her life w/ me. Then I asked her if she would marry me. She was totally surprised, because I hid the ring in my wallet. She had looked for a ring box, but didn't see one. Then my friend spent the rest of the day looking at the ring.

It was a 1.22 carat ruby on a solitare white gold band. The ruby measures about 6.2 mm in diameter.

Summer Reading

It seems that the summer has officially begun... now it's time for summer reading.

Hopefully tomorrow, I can update everyone w/ some scintilating philosophical thoughts from my summer reading.

My trip to IL

Well my trip to IL was a success - I have come back engaged! The wedding will be December 10! Hooray for me!

Last papers

Just emailed my last paper - I'm too tired to properly focus on Aristotle's modal logic right now... in about 7 hours I will be on a plane headed towards Chicago. I had better get some sleep.

End of the Semester

Well, hopefully by 4am this morning, I will have emailed all of my professors my papers.

Then at 12:50 I will fly to Bloomington/Normal IL.

Screech (err Dustin Diamond) lives!!!

Check this out, it's Dustin Diamond aka Screech Powers answering questions of an online chat. The occasion was that the mascot for the Washington Nationals is named Screech.

that time of the semester

It is now officially that time of the semester...

What time would that be? The time when there is so much stress it's difficult to sleep yet the stress makes me continually tired. Ahh, the paradox of the end of the semester. Everything can be cured by a good nights sleep, that is, if you can get to sleep ;)

Pragmatics or Syntax????

So in my philosophy of language seminar today, we all stayed 50 minutes after class discussing the syntactic features of the following utterances. These are the cases that make me love philosophy of language.

(1) The chicken cooked.
(2) The chicken overcooked.
(3) My foot is on fire.
(4) My foot is in the fire.

So what are the differences between (1) & (2)? What do you think (1) & (2) mean when you utter them? What are the differences between (3) & (4)?

We were discussing whether the features of the utterances are bases ypon syntax, or usage. There seems to be something that I think is a syntactic element in the above utterances, but I don't know what it is...

It's too much Aristotelian Logic for Justin - well, not any more

So, I was very overwhelmed the other night and some of tonight with my Arisotle paper. As I recently explained the square of opposition, now apply the modal operators 'necessarily' or 'possibly' to the categorical sentences. Quick review: Aristotle has 4 categorical sentences, a e i o. I will list them out
a = All p's are q's
e = No p's are q's
i = some p's are q's
o = some p's are not q's
So now, you take the categorical sentences and add 'necessarily' or 'possibly'. So categorical sentence 'necessarily'a = necessarily all p's are q's. This is de dicto modality, because the sentence 'all p's are q's' is necessarily true, it cannot be false. Now, if I wanted de re modality I would say, 'all p's necessarily are q's'. A de re modality claims that the subject necessarily has the predicate attributed to it. So let's use the example of 'All humans are rational'. A de re expression of this sentence is: 'All humans, necessarily, are rational'. That means that if you are a human, then you are rational. (Now, whether or not rationality is a property of all humans is a different question, this is just an example.)

So the problem with Aristotle's modal logic is that he doesn't do a de re or de dicto modality. What he has is a modalized copula - and I am not really sure about what this is or how it is different from a de re modality. So, if I don't understand the difference by the time I finish writing my paper, I will argue that the author who presents the view of the modalized copula commits the logical fallacy of making a 'distinction without difference'. Otherwise, I will argue in my paper that he presents a sucessful argument.

Aristotle paper

WOO-HOO!!!!

I think that I finally narrowed the topic down for my Aristotle paper. I knew that I was going to write on Aristotelian logic, I knew it would be modal logic... AND NOW I KNOW THAT I AM GOING TO WRITE ON DE RE/DE DICTO MODALITIY!

For those of you who don't know, de dicto is loosely translate as "of what is said" and de re is loosely translated as "of the thing". I'll explain more later.

It is started

I began typing my paper for modal epistemology yesterday - finished 6 complete pages and was partway through a seventh page. It's that time of the semester when I am tired all the time due to stress. Makes it difficult to read because I am tired. Yet, it is a good feeling getting those 6 pages done, but when I think about how soon the semester will be over and how much work I still have to do, my stomach and muscles clench up. Gotta work through the stress. Now, it's time to work on my Aristotle paper.

Ahhh - Aristotelian Logic

So, I'm going to update twice in one day - well, technically it's now Thursday, but I'm still awake.

Aristotle has what is referred to as the square of opposition

A (all p is q) E (no p is q)


I (some p is q) O (some p is not q)

It's called the square of opposition due to the way the axioms are set up. If E is true, the I is false, and vice versa. If A is true, then O is false, and vice versa. If A is true, the E is false, and vice versa, but both A and E can be false. If A is true, then I is true. If E is true, then O is true. It's possible for both I and O to be true. This is the basis of Aristotelian logic.

I'm writing my paper on modal logic, which then adds a 'necessary' or 'possible' before the logic axioms. So, necessarily all p is q, and so forth. Anyway, when I learn more and think more about it, I'll write more =)

Modalities

So, I'm writing a paper on Aristotle's modal logic. I still don't know what I will say about it - only that I am writing on it.

For epistemology I am writing on modal epistemology. Specifically, the modal skepticism of Peter van Inwagen. Modalities are possibilities. In the actual world the Boston Red Sox won the most recent world series, however, it is possible that the Detroit Tigers to have won the world series. This is a particular type of modality called a "counterfactual". What van Inwagen argues is that we don't know what is possible. I am going to examine his argument and hopefully refute him. We have intuitions concernig what is actual, it seems that our intuitions for what is possible isn't different from our intuitions of what is possible.

I keep promising to update my blog more than once a day - hopefully tonight I will update my blog with what I have read and learned. My whole purpose for this blog was to organize my thoughts about what I was reading and writing on. I need to take advantage of the blog.

Not much

Just wanted to update for the sake of updating my blog. Not too much is going on here in Norman, OK. The semester is almost over, I have 2 1/2 weeks to finish writing my last two papers. I haven't really started working on them, but I'll do some reading today, tomorrow, and Monday. Hopefully I'll get a good jump on them this weekend. I'll try and update my blog later today with one of my paper topics.

Ahhh... much better =)

So, now it's off to Borders to read some Conceivability and Possibility - that is, modal epistemology. Also gonna read some Minimal Semantics.

Will it ever stop?

Now I have an ear ache... I think from the allergies, so instead of drainage down my throat or nose, the drainage is in my ear. I forgot how painful ear aches are. I am tired but it is too uncomfortable to sleep. So, I will watch a movie and hopefully, sooner, rather than later, the pressure on my right ear will begin to subside. Hopefully, I don't develop a temperature either... I'm feeling chilled again (ARGH!!)

Somewhat Sick

I couldn't sleep much last night, had the chills, I'm never cold, and last night I couldn't get warm enough. Then today, I've just felt miserable. Not throwing up, but just kinda in a daze. I suppose that it's better to feel like crap now then in a couple of weeks when all of my papers are due. Though, I'm working on a paper that is due this Friday, but it's a draft, so it doesn't have to be good. In my paper I am contrasting/comparing three different views of semantic content. Semantic modesty, semantic skepticism, and one other that hasn't been named yet, and I'm not sure why...

Anyway, I think that I am going to defend a position that is labeled, semantic minimalism and speech-act pluralism. But the great thing about philosophy papers, especially philosophy of language, is that I can write the paper, then come up with my thesis and conclusion after the paper is written. That way I can give a coherent argument.

Logical Form in language

So, for today's class in phil. language we will be discussing what a logical form of a language is. The definition that was set forth by the author of the book that we are reading is as follows:

The logical form of a language is what the grammatical structured demands of logical rules, e.g. the logical implications that result from the use of a language. (This is a loose definition and paraphrase.)

So, this seems similarly related to the problem of negative existentials. If we say that pegasusi don't exist, how can we say that? If we refer to a non-existent object it seems that the statement is frivolous. If we attempt to deny that an object exists, it seems that it must exist in some sense. I think that there is a difference between 'there is' and 'there exists'. Otherwise how can we talk about objects such as pegasusi or squared-circles? This is really a tricky topic. I just woke up, so I'll have to compose better thoughts on this after class.

It's all Semantics - right?

Or is it pragmatics? (To answer the question of this post.)

I think people often claim that something is just semantics when they don't see a distinction between two positions. Let's say there is a position x, and a position y. Both x & y are very similar, yet there is a difference. I think when people claim that it is all semantics what they are claiming for x & y, is that there is a distinction without difference. At first I thought that those who claim that something is all semantics were giving a red herring (a red herring is a distraction from an argument, making a point that isn't relevant to the discussion) but I think that what they are really claiming is that there is a distinction without difference. At least, this would be a charitable interpretation on my part.

I bring these points up, because I am writing a paper on what the semantic content of utterances are. Utterances can include spoken and written sentences. So, how do we determine the semantic content of utterances. I hold to the position that the semantic content of an utterance is determined by the syntactic structure of the utterance. However, some people claim that the semantic content of an utterance is determined by the context in which the utterance was uttered. I think that this position is incoherent. If you think about it, how many times in your life have you uttered the same sentence, with respect to the words and context? Never (this was a rhetorical question). Yet, somehow communication takes place. How can communication occur if the meanings of an utterance and the words in the utterance always change from context to context? I don't know. But don't think that I have just given a knockdown dragout argument refuting context dependent meaning. Remember, right now I am talking about the semantic context of an utterance. What is said (or asserted) is different from the semantic content, as well as what is implicated (implicature).

So, anyway, I hope that my thoughts were somewhat coherent and I will post more as my argument develops.

At least I'm good at something...

I think of all the people I know I am the best at procrastinating. It's 2:40AM I have a re-write for a paper due tomorrow, and I'm finding other stuff to do. What is the matter with me? How did I ever get this far in school? ...Well, at least I like to read.

Back against the wall...

The other night when I was talking to my friend, I told her that to use a sports analogy, it's in the second half, nearing the end of the third quarter, and I'm behind. In order for me to finish well this semester I will have to perform a come from behind victory. This is possible, I had a slight come from behind victory in a class last semester, but I also lost a lead in another class.

So here are my potential paper topics later on this semester.

Truth-Conditional Pragmatics - the role of pyschological factors in semantic content

Aristotle Survey - Aristotle's use of modal logic

Epistemology Survey - modal epistemology (this is the one paper topic that I'm most vague on, hence, this weekend will be spent reading modal epistemology)

Michigan State

My Spartans are back where they belong - in the FINAL FOUR!!!

Go Spartans... though I don't have much hope that they will beat UNC, but that is ok, at least they made the final four. While beating Duke and Kentuckey in the tournament.

Wore Out!!

I've been really tired since arriving in Norman, OK after spring break. While I was on spring break I was attempting to write a paper on Aristotle and enjoy spring break... this is something that I'll never attempt again. Either work on my paper or enjoy spring break - but not both.

So, I really don't have much to say, other than I've been really tired, but now I'm repeating myself.

Back from Vail

Sorry about the AWOL without any warning. I went to Vail for Spring Break. Skied, tubed, and worked on a paper. Anyway, I'll start posting again. Sorry for not warning anyone.

Jonathan Edwards & Justification by Faith

Most baptists would affirm the reformed doctrine of justification by faith. We traditionally define this doctrine as, one doesn't have to do good works to receive salvation from God. This view is usually held against the Roman Catholic (RC) view of salvation, in which protestants claim that RCs hold to salvation by works, i.e. people have to do things to earn their salvation. This is clearly a charicature of RC theology. If you examine the RC beliefs and doctrines they actually assert that grace comes from God to allow us to do good works, but in the end, for a RC salvation comes from the grace of God.

The view that most anti-calvinist baptist pastors hold to is similar to the RC view. Baptists will claim that you have to 'accept Jesus' into your heart. Or they will claim that you need to 'choose God'. Often these pastors and preachers act as if salvation hinges upon an individual making a choice, namely that of choosing to accept Christ. I think that this would need more elaboration, but it seems true that arminian or anti-calvinist pastors have more in common with RC than they do with Calvinist protestants.

Jonathan Edwards viewed justification by faith as a calvinistic doctrine. The only way that one can avoid salvation by works is to hold to the belief that salvation is solely the act of God. If we have to choose God in order to be saved, then it seems that we must do something in which to facilitate our salvation. For Edwards and other calvinists, calvinism defends the doctrine of justification by faith.

This has always seemed to be self-evident to me from the scriptures. I'm glad to know that I stand in the same camp with the greatest American theologian - Jonathan Edwards. This is also a humbling doctrine for many to believe. If there is nothing that we have done to facilitate our salvation, then how much more do we owe thanks to God? Most often, people are just too proud to admit that they would have accepted Christ without intervention by God in the person of the Holy Spirit.

Slackin' off

Well, to all of my readers I apologize for my lax behavior with my blog. For now I have a couple of thoughts.

Jonathan Edwards life - wow, I am inspired. If I ever have a job at a seminary or a Christian evangelical college I will definitely teach a class on the philosophical/theology of Jonathan Edwards. He is definitely pietistic and revivalistic, yet he tempers both of these emotional aspects of his theology with a serious rationalism. George Marsden, the writer of Edwards biography, claims that Edwards was both a medieval and a modern, almost standing in the gap between the two. I have definitely learned a lot about how I would like to do things if I were a pastor.

I'm writing a paper on Aristotle and propositional attitudes. Here's an example of propositional attitudes

Lois Lane loves Superman
Superman = Clark Kent ('=' means identical)
Lois Lane doesn't know that Superman = Clark Kent
Therefore, Lois Lane Doesn't love Clark Kent

What Aristotle claims is that if Lois Lane loves Superman, then logically she loves Clark Kent. Aristotle makes a claim like this:

S knows that Fa
a is the same in essence as b
________________________
S knows that Fb

Aristotle's view is similar to that of John Stuart Mill, or should I say John Mill's view is similar to that of Aristotle's? Anyway, Aristotle's view seems somewhat counterintuitive. If S doesn't know that Fa = Fb then how can S know Fb? This is what confuses me, it seems to make sense, but there is something that seems wrong. If we allow this substitution in the belief of S from Fa to Fb then we can allow this. Let me give a story to explain why I don't think that Aristotle or Mill's view of names works.

Let's say that Commissioner Gordan needs to inform Batman that the Joker has kidnapped Barbara Gordan. So while Bruce Wayne and Commissioner Gordan are having dinner, Commissioner Gordan excuses himself from dinner so he can turn. on the Bat Signal to inform Batman about the kidnapping. Yet, what Commissioner Gordan doesn't know is that Bruce Wayne is identical to Batman. So, unbeknownst to Bruce Wayne the Joker has kidnapped Barbara Gordan, because he is having dinner with Commissioner Gordan and not aware that Commissioner Gordan has turned on the Bat Signal. So, even though Commissioner Gordan wants to inform Batman about the kidnapping, he doesn't inform Bruce Wayne about this while they are having dinner, because Commissioner Gordan doesn't know that Bruce Wayne is identical with Batman.

Abstract submitted...

Here's the abstract that I submitted to the Evangelical Philosophical Society, hopefully they accept it and I can present the full version at the conference in November.

In this paper I will argue that Christian worship entails intentionality and casually efficacious mental content. I will define worship as directing one’s affections towards God. There have not been any plausible materialist (excluding non-reductive materialism) theories of intentionality or mental content. Eliminativism denies intentionality and mental content altogether. The Christian philosopher/theologian must have a plausible theory with respect to how the Christian worship’s God – worship is a necessary element in the believer’s relationship with God. Since mind/body dualism can explain intentionality and causally efficacious mental content, a form of mind/body dualism (not necessarily Cartesian substance dualism) seems to be required by the Christian in order to have a plausible explanation for how worship takes place. Thus mind/body dualism is the default position for the Christian. This places the burden of proof on the Christian materialist to give a Christian explanation of worship without a plausible theory of intentionality and causally efficacious mental content.

God's Will

I had a conversation with a friend today concerning God's will. Both of referenced a book that I can't remember nor can I remember the name of the author. The premise of the book is that God is not concerned with you doing His will, but He is concerned with the type of person that you are. Contemporary Christians often construe God's will in a pagan matter when they think that they have to seek and pray for God's will. God has already revealed His will to us - we already know the type of person that God wants us to be. So when we make decisions, we can ask ourselves if a person of God would do this, but we don't have to pray for God's will. This is similar to the story of the Rich man and Lazarus in Luke, the rich man wants to go back and share the gospel with his family and God asks him, why will they listen to you if they have already ignored the prophets and Moses. This is similar to us with God's will, why will God tell us what His will is - or, to put it differently, why does God NEED to tell us His will - when He has already revealed it to us in the Bible. We know the kind of people that God's wants us to be, why do we need to ask Him again. We need to get busy living lives that bring glory to God, and when decisions arise we will make decisions based upon what brings glory to God

We know what we are supposed to do - sometimes we don't want to do what we are supposed to do so we avoid it with the pretense of seeking God's will.

Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Hermeneutics

I emailed my philosophy of language professor a similar question to the problem that I am going to propose in this post.

Speech-Act theory is a philosophy of language that attempts to describe how we use language. It consists of three main speech-acts:

(1) locution - the actually utterance itself (an utterance can be written or spoken)
(2) illocution - how the hearer understands the utterance
(3) perlocution - if the hearer performs the speech-act

Let me explain the differences between (1), (2), and (3). Take the utterance of:

Shut the door!

The locution will be the actual words of 'shut the door'. The Illocution is whether the hearer understands what the speaker wants her to do. Does the speaker actual intend the hearer to shut the door? The perlocution is if the speaker intends by uttering 'Shut the door!' for the hearer to shut the door, the the hearer will shut the door - to fulfill the perlocution.

Speech-act theory is now prevalent in evangelical theology. Kevin van Hoozer brought speech-act theory into vogue by using it as a means to refute Jacques Derrida, Stanley Fish, Paul Ricouer, and etc. Now, those guys don't deserve to be taken seriously becuase they don't obey the law of non-contradiction. Nor are they good philosophers of language - instead they obfuscate and confuse language. So, van Hoozer somewhat opened pandora's box in theology.

The problem with speech-act theory is that it is radical contextualism. In other words, by using speech-act theory to interpret the Bible may have some problems. Radical contextualism asserts that utterances have no meaning outside of context. So take the utterance used above, 'Shut the door!' We can only know what shut the door means in the context in which it is uttered, we cannot understand it in abstraction. So I don't know if this is bad for being able to worship God or not. Can we say that God is love, becuase we are removing what we know about God from context and placing it into another context. Hence, in every context an utterance means something different. Anyway, if there is something here, I thought that this might be something that I could attempt to get published in a journal. It seems to be a dangerous view for evangelicals to hold to, especially if upon uttering verses from the Bible in a different context, we are saying something different from what the Bible utters.

Definition of Orthodoxy

Something that I think about a lot is the definition of 'orthodoxy'. What does it mean for one to be an orthodox Christian? In many ways, I don't think that a person who isn't orthodox, with respect to Christian beliefs, is a Christian.

So what topics fall into the realm of orthodoxy? I think believing the Bible is the Word of God and adhering to the creeds that were accepted by the entire Church constitutes orthodoxy. I believe the creeds include, Nicene Creed, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and the Apostle's Creed. I don't believe that the creeds are inspired on the same level as the Word of God, but I do believe that the creeds were given to the Church by the Holy Spirit to aid the Church in correct biblical interpretation. The Incarnation, Trinity, return of Christ, bodily resurrection of Christ, virgin conception, salvation by grace, sinfulness of humanity are the main topics covered by the creeds. Almost all heresies in the Church have been a result of people neglecting the creeds and ignoring the whole of Scripture and paying attention to one or two passages, while neglecting others.

So orthodoxy is something that most evangelicals are, at least I hope that's true.

Definition of Evangelicalism

I was reading Millard Erikson's address to the Evangelical Theological Society titled "Evangelical Scholarship in the Twenty-First Century", you can read it here. Keeping in tune with what I said about Edward's being an evangelical, Erikson gives some guidelines on what an evangelical is, first of all saying that an evangelical can be a conservative biblical Christian. Next, he gives the following explanation of an evagelical:

four elements contributed to early twentieth-century American evangelicalism: orthodoxy, pietism, Puritanism,and revivalism.

Evangelicalism has several components. It has a doctrinal component, a web of convictions that constitute the context within which the life of the believer functions. It has a spiritual element, a form of piety that begins with an experience of regeneration and involves a continuing personal relationship with God. It has an ethical element, a commitment to a life of purity in accordance with God’s revealed will, and ultimately, of conformity to his very character. It has an evangelistic element, the fulfillment of Christ’s commission to tell others the good news of salvation and to win them to a decision to accept the savior. My point is this: evangelicalism, historically, has involved all four of these elements. If any of these elements is missing, a church may call itself evangelical, but it really is not, at least not in the sense that term has borne historically. While various streams of evangelicalism may emphasize more strongly one or two of these than does another stream, they are still members of the family, just as various members of a human family vary in certain respects, but have certain resemblances. It is these different blends of these elements that give evangelicalism its great variety.

It seems that evangelical is thrown around as a catch phrase. I like Erikson's explanation of what evagelical's are, and it makes me more likely and willing to identify myself as one.

Religious Emotions & Religious Logic

I'm reading the biography of Jonathan Edwards by George Marsden (Marsden is a professor of Church History at Notre Dame). One of the most interesting things in the book so far is the amount of emotion (religious emotion) that Edwards experienced. Everyone knows that he was a very good thinker, in fact, he might be a top-five theologian. I think the top four are pretty cemented regardless of what order you put them in, but for purposes here I list them in chronological order: St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. Now the fifth is either Jonathan Edwards, Freidrich Schliermacher, or Karl Barth (Roman Catholics might even consider John Henry Newman). Regardless, in many ways Edwards was similar to a contemporary evangelical, but in other ways he was far from one. The amount of intellectual rigor that Edwards put into his everyday life and his theology is far greater than any pastor I've ever met - but the most interesting thing is that his dad was intellectually rigorous, as were the other pastors of his day. In other words, Edwards might have worked harder and been more of an ascetic than the typical pastor of his time, but by no means was Edwards a freak compared to the other pastors. In our time he would be a freak, because he takes intellectual faith seriously. The thing that has been made clear to me from reading Edward's biography is that intellectual rigor and emotional faith are compatible.

Valentine's Weekend

I left my apartment in Norman around 10:15 headed towards Will Rogers World Airport (OKC) to make an 11:40AM flight to STL, then a connecting flight to SPI where I would be picked up by my Valentine's weekend friend. I flew on the two smallest planes I've ever flown on in my life, and I've had more than 20 flights, so I'm not an advanced flier, but I'm not necessarily a novice either. The flight from STL to SPI was on a prop plane.

So my friend picked me up and we had coffee at Panera bread then dinner at Cafe Brio. Cafe Brio was in downtown Springfield, IL which is the first mexican restraurant where first wave 80's music was played instead of Tejano music. (First wave music includes The Smiths, The Cure, Depeche Mode, and etc.) The restraurant was an intriguing blend of Mexican food with a dash of caribbean spice.

On Saturday we had french toast for breakfast, made by my friend's neighbor, where I was staying. Dinner was at The Chateau which is one of the nicer restraurants in Bloomington/Normal IL. Then after dinner we went to the Palace to watch a movie - Phantom of the Opera (thumbs down) - nonetheless the movie watching experience was good. The Palace is a dinner movie theater with couches and a full service restraurant and bar.

Sunday was church and a day of rest - what else is Sunday for, right? Monday morning I was awaken by my friend to join her for a candlelight Valentine's day breakfast of waffles and sausage - my flight was leaving at 4:47PM so our Valentine's Day dinner was Saturday night. Breakfast was wonderful and we took a couple of pictures had lunch at Cheddar's and I missed my flight. WOO-HOO!!! That meant that I could have Valentine's Day Dinner with my friend, but only after I studied and did some homework for my Aristotle seminar which I stayed up until 3AM working on to email an attachment to my professor. Yet, we had dinner inbetween me working on my homework, dinner was at Applebees, not very romantic.

Tuesday I made my flight after having lunch at Fridays and I waited in the Springfield, IL airport once I passed through security, sitting, waiting, becoming more depressed and more dejected, wondering when the next time would be that I could see my friend...

I like to Fly!!!

Well, the joke among my fellow philosophy students was that I'll have to set my alarm to wake up early tomorrow. What time am I getting up - 9AM (as opposed to my typical 11AM which is earlier than it was last semester). Why am I getting up early - because I'm flying to Springfield. Why am I flying to Springfield, because I have a red-headed friend who lives in IL. ...and I am going to leave things at that.

I'm still thinking about the pragmatics/semantics distinction and 'what is said.' For those of you who dont' know, the main debate between the meaning of an utterance is over 'what is said' i.e. what does the speaker actually mean. The semantics side argues that while context is relevant, 'what is said' is primarily determined by linguistic meaning of the utterance. Whereas the pramatics side will argue that meaning of a linguistic utterance is exhaustive, the use of the utterance determines 'what is said'. I think that so far I come down on the semantics side, to paraphrase one article that I read today, regardless of how I use 'the cow's tongue' it cannot mean 'silk purse'.

So now, the challenge comes as to how I can use this to relate to biblical hermeneutics and religious language. I still don't know specific applications of the pragmatics/semantics distinction, but I'll figure something out.

I'll update everyone on Monday how things are in IL... it's going to be warm while I visit so that's a good thing =)

Sometimes

Sometimes you just don't know what to say...

I had a dream last night that my brother, Adam, somehow lived through his diabetes instead of dying and that he came back home to live with us in TX. Then upon moving back in with my mom in TX he died there. I remember blaming somebody in my dream and thinking that there was some way that Adam's death could have been prevented.

Whenever I think that I am starting to feel better with respect to my brother's death, I have a dream like this that opens up raw wounds and pain and hurt. I have often wondered if there was something that I could have done to prevent my brother's death, but I know that there isn't. (He died in MI alone in his apartment from a lack of insulin.) I've just felt out of sorts today, I don't know when I dreamed about my brother last night, but I just remember waking up and feeling exhausted. I almost wonder if I have been having dreams like this frequently and that these dreams have disrupted my sleep patterns. Who knows....

I still ponder the problem of evil, and the goodness of God. In the face of death all I can say is that God is good because He gives us hope for a life that is eternal. Although, sometimes it's hard to see the goodness of God when things like this happen. It's frustrating, I realize that God is in control and that God is perfectly good and all-powerful. I just wish I knew what God was thinking when He allows some things to happen.

Serious Christians

Several things that I wanted to talk about today, first of which is Christians who take their faith seriously. What do I mean by take their faith seriously? People who investigate their beliefs and the the historical tradition of the faith that they practice. Who is someone who doesn't take their faith seriously? One time at seminary I was talking with a guy from Miami who wanted to be a missionary to Spain and convert Spainish Catholics to SBC. Ok fair enough... but he made a very strange comment that Catholics worship Mary. This is true, in certain South American countries. In general, Catholics who take their faith seriously (emphasis on seriously), in the United States are very similar to evangelicals. The second and even more disappointing thing that this guy told me is that systematic theology is not practical, in fact, he believed it to be a waste of time. When he said that, I didn't want to talk with him anymore. How can you share the love of Christ with people when you don't know who Jesus is? How can you tell people about Jesus when you haven't studied the Trinity? How can you preach the gospel when you don't understand justification? We do many people a great disservice when we don't explain to them that ALL of the Bible is significant, not just passages that discuss salvation or make us feel good. Every Christian ought to be a theologian. One last point before I end this part of my musing. For the girls out there who read this blog: if you husband married you because you're hot and liked your hotness, but didn't know anything else about you, how would that make you feel? How do you think Jesus feels when we say we love Him and all we know about Him is that He loves us and "saved" us?

So, on Thursday night at a coffee house in Fort Worth (Artistic Blends) I saw Bill Mallonee play. Bill Mallonee is the lead singer for the underground Christian band, Vigilantes of Love, but on Thursday night, Bill played the acoustic guitar and harmonica (the harmonica was around his neck Bob Dylan style). It was a cool show. Bill is a conservative Christian - he used to be reformed and went to Reformed Theological Seminary, then converted to Catholicism. Why did he convert? He claimed that many evangelicals didn't have a high view of Christ and were searching for the real Jesus (many old SBC professors got sucked into this) and the Catholic Church always maintained an orthodox understanding and belief in Christ. I am very sympathetic to this line of argument. I get so beatdown by the baptist resort to the priesthood of the believer, which is often manipulated by baptists to be understood as "I can believe what I want to." My conclusion from speaking with Bill after the concert is that for the most part, people who examine their beliefs concerning their Christian faith have more in common with me than the every Sunday baptist Church goer who has no idea what he believes.

One more thing. Bill used a s-bomb in one song. In the context it was "you should pray to God one more time to get your s-bomb together." A girl from the seminary was very offended that a Christian artist would use a profane word. It didn't bother me for several reasons. One, he plays in clubs all over and is not a "youth group" band, i.e. Audio Adreneline. Second, sometimes profane words can emphasize a point. Third, it seemed to emphasize the point that he was making in his song. I don't know, I'd appreciate any and all random comments.

For the record, the number one reason why I am no longer a Catholic is due to the Catholic view of justification. Yet, not many baptists understand what the Catholic view of justification is, and so they frequently misrepresent what the Catholics actually believe.

Frustration...

Here's my biggest frustration - when I don't use my time wisely. Right now I am extremely frustrated, I wanted to read for 8 hours today, and when it's all said and done it will probably be more like 5. Here's the thing with grad school, it's all about work. Now I enjoy what I am doing because I view it as a Christian calling. Philosophy is the art of thinking well - simple definition of philosophy. (All other disciplines benefit from philosophy: law, science, biology, politics, language, math, art, and etc. There is a philosophy for anything you can think of. But to do philosophy well, requires much reading and pondering (or thinking) about what has been read.) I have not done this. The good news is that it is only the third week of the semester and papers are more than a month away. The bad news is that it is the beginning of the semester and I am already developing bad habits.

Since I view what I am doing as a calling, whenever I don't do my best I let God down. I also let myself down, as well as other people. I need to learn how to budget my time and be a good steward of the time that God has given to me.

Here's to more efficient use of my time tomorrow - just remember, tomorrow's a new day =)

Future thoughts about phil. mind & language

As I have previously mentioned in this blog, I'm working on three areas of specialization in philosophy: philosophy of religion, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind. So last night I was discussing with some of my evangelical friends the kind of philosophical research I envision myself doing in the future. Two classes that I would definitely like to teach in a Christian seminary setting include, religious language, and the philosophical theology of the soul. Every aspect of philosophy that I do, I always anticipate how this will relate to philosophy of religion, and how I ought to think about this topic as a Christian philosopher. Though I do enjoy particular aspects of mind & language. For instance, I am really intrigued by the semantics/pragmatics debate between minimalism and contextualism - this debate mainly involves 'What is said?' Is 'What is said?' closer to the meaning of the sentence meaning, or is it closer to the speaker's intentions. There are counterintuitive consequences of the former, and the latter ultimately depends upon intuitions. Yet, I always bring it back to how this pertains to Christian ideas, and where I see this application leading towards is biblical hermeneutics. Oh well, that's enough random musings for today... nothing too exciting really.

Intermediate State

So now that I've thought through the monism/dualism debate in Christian theology, I've come down on the side of the dualist. Why's this? There are a couple of reasons. First, let me explain some of the important factors in this decision that must be taken into consideration. We only experience the fullness of life upon the physical bodily resurrection. When we go to heaven, it is a partial existence; disembodied states for Christians are not a fuller better existence than a physical state - if this were true than gnosticism wouldn't be a heresy. Jesus died on the cross to show us what we had to look forward to.

(1) There does seem to be some type of existence after death, though not a full existence according to the scriptures.

(2) As far as philosophical theories go, physicalism appears to be false.

(3) Worship requires intentionality (aboutness), and there aren't any naturalistic theories of intentionality that work.

This is now why I am a dualist, notice that I am a dualist for philosophical and theological reasons. Now I just have to decide how a correct theory of dualism works.

One-night Vacation

Some people go on cruises for their vacations, I go to my uncle's ranch in Foyil, OK. Not very exciting, but there's always a lot of food to eat.

After the Patriots/Steelers game I left Foyil to head back to Norman, probably 30 minutes from Oklahoma City all the cars on the road stopped - upon getting out of my car and looking there was a semi on fire. So I was able to walk around on I-44 whose speed limit is 75 because all traffic had come to a standstill waiting for the truck to be moved. So about 3 hours later I was able to continue my journey back to Norman.

I waited longer for traffic to move than the entire trip takes from my uncle's to Norman. Not fun.

I got home about 15 mintutes ago.

Phil Language Reading

Still waiting for the book to come that I am supposed to start reading for phil of language, Literal Meaning, but I have time to read it - I need to read chapters 1 & 2 by Wednesday.

In the meantime I'm reading 4 or 5 journal articles: "Logic and Conversation", "Speech Acts and Pragmatics", "Conversational Implicature", and "The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction: What It Is and Why It Matters".

This reading will keep my occupied during my Friday day, I'll be happy if I've completed reading 3 of these articles after Friday has finished. In addition I also need to read some Aristotle and read for my epistemology class this weeekend.

First day of a new semester...

Today is over and it's now tomorrow, or is it tomorrow is now today??? Anyway, I have finished my first day of school. I think that I should profit a great deal from this semester and learn a lot from all of my classes. I am excited about that - my prayer is that everything I learn will bring greater glory to God.

I did not go to the class that I am auditing (Ancient and Medieval Religious Philosophy) today... it took me too long to find the classroom.

In my epistemology class we talked about 'Knowledge = Justified True Belief' and infinite regresses with respect to knowing that p.

In the Aristotle class we were given a brief overview of Aristotle and a the 'comic book' version of Plato's philosophy so that we could understand the influence of Plato on Aristotle.

Semantics and Pragmatics

'Semantics and Pragmatics' is the title of my philosophy of language seminar. I read two articles tonight about the semantics/pragmatics distinction and I came to the conclusion that I am very excited about this seminar, and I am somewhat in over my head. Philosophy of Language is traditionally one of the most difficult and opaque subjects in philosophy, but I am interested because there aren't many Christian philosophers who do philosophy of language. Hence, there ought to be Christians doing philosophy of language.

So what is semantics? What is pragmatics? Both articles seemed to give different descriptions of each, but broadly constued semantics is what the words uttered mean. Pragmatics are what is implied by the words uttered. So if we take the utterance: 'On your left.' Semantics would tell us that this is relatively unhelpful apart from the context in which it is uttered. Perhaps we are driving down the road and I notice a deer to the left of the car and utter, 'On your left'. So this utterance has its full meaning upon understanding the context in which the utterance occurs.

Hopefully I can give a better description of the topic that I am covering later on... especially how it is related to the speech-act theory hermeneutic of Scripture.

New Semester ... hopefully different results...

Tomorrow everything begins anew, the semester starts. This Spring, I will have classes on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday.

Tuesday: 1:30-2:45 Ancient and Medieval Religious Philosophy; 4:30-5:45 Epistemology; 7:00-9:45 Aristotle

Wednesday: 3:00-5:45 Seminar in Philosophy of Language

Thursday: 1:30-2:45 Ancient and Medieval Religious Philosophy; 4:30-5:45 Epistemology

The Ancient and Medieval Religious Philosophy course I am only auditing, hopefully I will be able to learn from that course. I need to get all A's this semester and get my GPA above 3.5. Right now it's a 3.3, needs to improve.

I'm off to Borders to read, hopefully I can explain what I read on my next blog post, because I have two articles I need to read for my philosophy of language seminar before class starts.