Between a trip to Covenant College (Chattanooga,TN) for graduation, and a 12 hour a day work schedule, blogging has been and will be light.
There are some interesting articles to read while Mr. Dawntreader is otherwise occupied.
First, for the mathematically inclined, you may want to check out An Intuitive Explanation of Bayesian Reasoning. I was taught Bayes Theorem in my graduate studies at Duke (in statistics). It is used in market research and financial research. Little did I know then, that Bayes theorem is hotly contested and highly controversial. Little did I know that it had anything at all to do with epistemology. Little did I know statistics and probability had so much to do with apologetics -- especially cosmological ID. Does Bayesian epistemology shed any light or cast any doubt on the anthropic argument? That may turn into a future post.
Second, speaking of epistemology, reformed professor Dr. John Frame weighs in with this article called Certainty. I know David Opderbeck will want to read that article. While on the topic of certainty, here is a secularist viewpoint : Believe It Or Not: The Battle Over Certainty.
Third, for you missional types who are asking, "what is church?" ... you might want to read Dr. George Grant's Distinctives of A Biblical Church. You can follow it up perusing Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. It was written by the 9Marks Ministries folks, who want to help local churches re-establish their Biblical bearings and re-think their ministry methods. Both present an apologetic that would argue against the view of many in the emerging church.
Fourth, if you missed the 4 part series on Islam on Breakpoint, you need to hear it (or read it). Don't tell me worldviews don't matter.
Fifth, Kevin forwarded me an interesting article in Salon which argues that is wrong for professional athletes to put religion "in your face" on Sunday morning. Are public displays for faith in Jesus wrong? Read it and let's discuss.
Good to hear from you, Jeff. I am also working long days and traveling.
Godspeed!
Posted by: B.A. | May 10, 2006 at 11:01
Yes that article on "Certainty" is certainly :-) interesting. I've heard of Frame but don't know much about him. From this article, I'm gathering that he's a Van Tillian presuppositionalist? His argument is coherent within that framework, but I don't know how it fares if that framework isn't assumed.
For example, he says: "Our certainty of the truth of God comes ultimately, not through rational demonstration or empirical verification, useful as these may often be, but from the authority of God’s own word." This is obviously circular: we can be certain of God because of his word, and we can be certain of his word because he is God. So, Frame says, along with other presuppositionalists, that the only way to apprehend and have "psychological certainty" of the truth of God is through divine grace.
I hadn't really thought of it this way before, but some of our discussion of "certainty" is really a discussion of evidentialism and presuppositionalism. If you are a presuppositionalist, you can be "absolutely certain" of your beliefs in a sense by fiat. If you are an evidentialist, you ultimately have to acknowledge that the evidence can only go so far -- it can show that belief in God is "probable" or "reasonable," but not "absolutely certain" in the ordinary usage of "absolute." You can also define "absolute" as modest foundationalists do to mean something less than truly "absolute," such as "properly warranted".
In any of these three cases, the use of the word "certainty" seems potentially misleading. The presuppositionalist can say "I feel certain" and the evidientialist can at best say "I am 'certain' in the sense that my beliefs have adequate warrant given the limitations of my perception and knowledge."
Since I'm becoming more and more of a "natural law" theorist (studying Thomistic thought for a paper I'm now writing on virtue ethics and patent law), I'd have to say that I wouldn't place myself squarely in the presuppositionalist camp. I particularly don't like Frame's emphasis on "psychological certainty," since it seems to leave little room for grace to work in those who suffer periodically (like me) from depression and anxiety. There are days when I'm quite certain psychologically, and days when I'm at the bottom of the pit, and days in between. I don't think those variable emotions define my faith.
I do agree, though, that there is ontological "certainty" -- a reality beyond our social and linguistic constructions -- and that we can have varying degrees of "certainty" that our beliefs correspond to that reality. But I don't think there's any way a human being can possess any such thing as complete, "absolute" epistemic "certainty" in this life. Uncertainty is part of being human; faith entails commitment despite uncertainty.
Posted by: dopderbeck | May 10, 2006 at 13:08
"...an interesting article in Salon which argues that is wrong for professional athletes to put religion "in your face" on Sunday morning."
Is it wrong? I don't know. It is annoying, though. The athlete pointing at the sky presumes that God wanted him to score that touchdown, as if God is some armchair micromanager of the fates of athletes. If there is a god, I doubt he/she/it cares much about professional sports and the ephemeral, day-to-day triumphs and tragedies of the athletes. Such displays seem a bit arrogant, and I don't think arrogance is a particularly Christian characteristic. It shouldn't be, anyway, in my opinion.
"Are public displays for faith in Jesus wrong?"
I don't see why they would be, unless non-Christians are having them shoved down their throats. For instance, the Christian (always Christian!) prayers boomed over the P.A., probably illegal, at all the football games at the high school where I teach are likely wrong. It is "stand or be stared at" for non-Christians, and Muslims and Pagans need not apply; the practice would end before anyone would allow that. Yet we have Muslim and pagan students. But a bunch of players holding hands and praying before a game? Let 'em. Individuals and small groups praying before a game, but not allowed to commandeer the P.A.? Let 'em.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | May 10, 2006 at 17:25
"The athlete pointing at the sky presumes that God wanted him to score that touchdown"
Why do you think that? How do you know their motive?
What if they were pointing to God to give God glory?
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 10, 2006 at 22:43
"I don't see why they would be, unless non-Christians are having them shoved down their throats."
Seems highly subjective to me. Like in your prayer example. If you were being forced to recite the prayer, then perhaps you have a right to assert that it was shoved down your throat. But to listen to someone else pray? I hardly see how this is shoving ... ignore the prayer if you want.
As far as watching players hold hands and pray ... or give glory to Jesus ... or thanks to God ... these are not examples of shoving. It is people living out their worldview -- seems we have a protected right to do so in this country.
Posted by: Mr. Dawntreader | May 10, 2006 at 22:48
"As far as watching players hold hands and pray ... or give glory to Jesus ... or thanks to God ... these are not examples of shoving."
Perhaps you should re-read my comment. I said "Let 'em" about the players praying. I think that is innocuous and their business alone.
As for the commandeered P.A., however, I don't think you are seeing things from my perspective. You wouldn't like it if the prayer was always Muslim; you would feel marginalized or ignored. When I choose not to rise from my seat at such occasions, I am subjected to hostile stares, rude comments, and occasionally vague threats. My daughters are afraid not to rise and recite the Pledge with the other students at their school (TN state laws REQUIRES that the Pledge be recited in every classroom. Participation is supposed to be voluntary, but among elementary school students conformity is strictly enforced by one's peers). It seems to me that in some cases government is complicit in theistic coercion, and many Christians, apparently including you, seem to have no problem with it.
People have a right to pray, which I support, but why should one religion be given preference at a public school event? Let people pray individually or in groups, but don't give them the loudspeaker and deny it to others.
Posted by: Rob Ryan | May 11, 2006 at 08:29