The Hedonism of Piper Questioned

John Piper’s Book Desiring God was very helpful to me at a point in my Christian Life. I have since been bothered by questions about of his “Christian Hedonism.” First, it just did not seem like proper hedonism to me. Although I did not have a detailed argument against his “hedonism,” I did have a few arguments. Recently I found a good post on this at Prosblogion.
Second, although newer additions contain a much needed chapter on the role of suffering, dying to self and repentance are two closely related themes that the book does not cover. These themes I think are critical to growth in the Christian life and need explaining in light of the prima facie contradiction of hedonism.
However, overall I find the book Desiring God to be a much needed message for the Church today. If you have not read it or have not read it in awhile, then this summer might be a great time to read Piper and put on the mind of Christ who for the joy set before him endured the cross.



Books
Religion

Do You Suffer From Subconscious Scientism?

Scientism is roughly the belief that the only knowledge that can be had is scientific. So, when a periodical wants to claim that something is true, they (if those at the magazine are acting like believers in scientism) find a scientist to say that the “fact” in question has been empirically verified by some study.

I have been exposed in the course of my Graduate training in Philosophy as a subconscious believer in scientism (henceforth known as BS). I admit that when Newsweek quotes a scientist I am more apt to believe it is true than when they ask someone else. I “know” that scientism is self-refuting. Specifically that the claim that only scientific knowledge can be know is not itself scientific. However, there has been something of the fabric of our culture woven into by belief system that has kept me from fully rejecting BS.

However, in rejecting BS one need not reject the proper authority of science with respect to scientific things. To ask “what are scientific things?” is to ask a philosophical question by nature. Philosophical inquiry has helped balance me and at least given me an stronger internal “comfort” inclining me to be more objective.

So, my encouragement is to do a bit of self reflection this weekend and ask yourself if someone quotes a scientist are you MORE likely to believe it? If you, why? Is the question the scientist answering properly scientific?

Philosophy
Education

Update on Darwin from Dangerous Idea

Dangerous Idea has a fresh post on this that is worth the read. And I fixed the links in my last post.

The “Darwinian inquisition,” Intelligent Design, and Higher Education

Dangerous Idea has a series of posts about the “Darwinian inquisition” and some interesting and relevant posts about the ID movement. When I read about what is happening to Mr. Leonard and his PhD process I was very interested in knowing exactly what is going on there. I first read about it at Inside Higher Ed, where quickly said the following things, but here I have added some things I kept out of my post there:
First, it seems to me that this scandal is created by various heated issues that have less to do with the actual dissertation than is appropriate. Isn’t this an issue of education and not science? IF the question is about learning scientific theory, then there seems to be little need for experts in science unless the students were not taught science. No theory of origins is strictly science, not even evolution. However, I don’t really care if the controversial dissertation was examining the possibility of students learning evolution better if ID was taught or Sesame Street was recently viewed, the point is about the kids learning evolution anyway right? Isn’t this an educational issue? If the kids/people in the study actually learned more science, then why are the scientists so bent out of shape? Smells like fear and irrationality to me (which science might tell an interesting story about.)
Second, I don’t understand the heat generated by this issue (especially from people who are supposed be a part of the free market of ideas). Why not teach the controversy? When I took biology spontaneous generation was considered as the strongest competitor to evolution. I guess I agree with the ID people on this one. So, far this issue seems to be more heat than light.
Third, many of the comments label ID folks in the creationist camp (of the sort who actually look for rabbits in the Precambrian layer). However, I think this is a bit misleading because most of the ID adherents seem to be “old earth creationists” that do not fully reject evolution. Also, just because God is at the end of their theory doesn’t mean that the theory is unscientific. If this were the case we would be forced to throw out much of the science from history which has only been recently secularized — even Einstein appealed to God.
In the comments section following my post “Mike” characterizes the debate as is Christians are the ignorant, but politically powerful people trying to force their way into science. He says “There is no scientific concept of “equal time".” Is that what the ID people do? I think that they are actually making some claims that need to be addressed.
Religion
Intelligent Design
Education

Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton Brad Pitt and Peeping Toms

I have recently come out of my cave (the windowless office that I work and study from) to watch the news. Generally my news sources are from various web sites, blogs, and radio; however, I was unprepared for barrage of Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and the mounting case against the Paparazzi. Ironically, the Paparazzi problems put the issues together best in the blame game. Is it the fault of the publishers who offer the big money, reckless and greedy photographers or the public who is willing to pay for it all? To some degree the bottom line must be the voyeuristic public that hungers for this stuff. The buyers are the real money source.

Why do we care who Brad Pitt goes for a walk with on the Beach? What do we hope to gain from such information? Paris Hilton is famous for being famous (allegedly). What in the world does that mean to be famous for being famous? Certainly there is some legitimate need of a human being that must be met, and maybe more than one from such a strange appetite. Are we longing for connection with other people? Maybe we chose famous people because we do not think that we will meet them, so we feel safe because we know that our own wounds will not be hurt. Maybe we chose famous people because their exposure makes us feel like we know them. Brad seems like a nice enough guy, sure we could be friends. Further, Brad is a great guy and as HIS friend people would see that I am really important.

The problem of voyeuristic relationships is not merely that they are one sided, but that they enhance one's disconnection from reality. Possibly these disconnections contribute to a form a de-humanization. In our "curiosity" we treat the object of our star chasing as less than a person. But the real danger is training our souls to be nourished in mere virtual relationship. This habit will also eventually impair oneÂ’s ability to receive love, which to some degree is what we all want when we start such a practice. So, go bowling with your neighbor tonight and give Brad some space. You might be surprised how much fun you can have with the people in your neighborhood. Take your "curiosity" and use it to form real relationships and you will become a better lover and be more beloved.

Current Affairs

I'm back

School is over and I'm in the midst of returning to the workforce....if only for a few months. And let me just say that it's quite an adjustment. Gone are my hours of free time, only to be spent surfing the web and publishing my thoughts to the great big internet. Now I'm working 9 to 5, or 6, or 7, or you get the idea.

But that doesn't mean I'll stop sharing my thoughts. More to come.

Jesus reveals the heart of the media

Certainly the media, like any group is a mixed population filled with a diversity of opinions. But a recent MSNBC article on Jesus very subtly suggests that we distrust the Christianity. The irony is that even accepting all the evidence presented in the article, there is no need to question Christianity at all. The lead in and title of the story give the impression that common beliefs about Jesus (or at least one belief) are over turned by science. The lead in goes as follows: “Jesus died of blood clot, Israeli researcher says…Expert: Crucifixion caused pulmonary embolism, not fatal blood loss.” The article begins with

“An Israeli researcher has challenged the popular belief that Jesus died of blood loss on the cross, saying he probably succumbed to a sometimes fatal disorder now associated with long-haul air travel.”

Who really thinks Jesus died of blood loss? There are two difficulties about the accusation that it is a “common” belief that Jesus died of blood loss. First, although the MSNBC article sites a Journal of American Medical Association’s 1986 article, there are too few households with JAMA under the coffee tables to consider what they say to be the “common” view. The common view on the cause of death by crucifixion in general seems to be suffocation, at least among Christians. The evidence of this is the practice of breaking the legs of the person so he (or she?) could not push up on his legs to breath. Jesus being dead on examination was pierced by a spear to verify his passing. So, if anything, what we have here is a case of science overturning science (unless you consider medicine something else) not the "common" view.

Second, the death of Jesus in particular is frequently taught in Christian churches as the result of a heart attack or a similar condition. The evidence of this claim is often inferred from the flow of blood and “water” from the spear wound. In a church setting Pastors and Priest’s connect the parallels of purpose and the physical facts of Jesus’ death. Namely, Jesus lovingly died to reconcile all the alienated people of the world to God and His great love; thus, Jesus dies of a broken heart in more than one way. This seems to be reasonably closer to “common” belief, whatever it might be.

Does this really matter? What if it turns out that the scourging gave Jesus some kind of bacterial infection that builds in his system and then caused sudden death? Whether Jesus died of a condition that is now associated with cramped seats on air planes, a heart attack that makes for nice illustrations in sermons, or some unknown condition, he still died on the cross. The biblical account is not threatened by these details.

It would seem that this article is motivated by one of the following reasons: 1) Jesus did not die from the cause that is commonly believed. To have a certified scientific fact disproving a common belief important to an event undermines the credibility of the event. Therefore, we should question the account of Jesus’ death (and the Resurrection even more). 2) Jesus did not die from the cause that is commonly believed, but died of the same condition that threatens the economy class passengers flying on the wickedly designed seats evil empire of aircraft industry. Such conditions are so bad that only the picture of the most holy man to walk the earth dies from this same horrible condition. 3) Although possibly wrong with respect to “common” beliefs, here is an insight into the actual death of Jesus. This is simply a fact, and this evidence is neutral toward all other claims about Jesus, Christianity and the aircraft industry. 4) Some combination of the above motivations.

Since, motives of any sort are rarely pure; some combination of motives is most likely. But the chief motivation would seem to be option 1. Option 2 is simply too weird of a connection, even if one tones down my exaggerated account. Option 3 seems to be not really newsworthy, unless one considers any news about Jesus newsworthy (if this is the case I would agree). So, my vote leans toward one, such that any news that is against Jesus is newsworthy. IF, I am right about this, we should all grieve the loss of reporting based on objectivity and the pursuit of the FACTS and TRUTH. Our cultural preference for entertainment over reality is revealed in our acceptance of this kind of reporting. IF I am wrong, how can we explain the general impression of selective intolerance against aspects of Christianity or at least Theism? Further, I regularly see news reports I know for a fact are wrong. Will America rise up and demand more from the media or will WE simply roll over and enjoy the siren song until it is too late?

The media is not the Devil. Everyone has a bias. I can accept this, but what I cannot accept is the media increasingly distant from the world they are reporting on. What was most striking about this article was not that it was totally slanted or wrong, but that it was simply so thin.

(How much are people talking about Religion?)