According to a fairly standard realist view of scientific explanation, a given set of phenomena is explained by postulating some unseen entity or causal process. The entity or process in question is not directly observable, but is explained by an analogy with something with which we are more familiar. Consider our conception of gas molecules. We postulate the activities of gas molecules by an appeal to commonly encountered spherical objects such as billiard balls. In same way billiard balls bounce, gas molecules are said to bounce. The analogy is necessary for the explanation because the gas molecules are not directly observable. A realist concludes from the performance of such an…
-
-
A Defense of Dispensers
I recently heard a talk about teaching in which a teacher was characterized as someone who pours out information into the minds of students. According to the speaker, this is not a good model for education. In recent years, the idea of a teacher as a dispenser of knowledge to students has become a pariah in education. This is true not only in progressivist circles but also among some classical educators. It has become so easy to dismiss the idea of a teacher-centered educational model that no argument is needed. In fact, one can dismiss it merely by describing it. So, let me offer a defense of the dispenser. Educational…
-
Without Distinction
The problem with the Pharasees was not that they were a bunch of goody-two-shoes. They weren’t merely legalists, obsessed with minutiae. Rather, they were desperate people-pleasers. John tells us that the Pharisees “loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God” (John 12:43). What they craved was distinction. Most of us crave some sort of approval from the people around us. JFK wanted it and knew that Harvard would give it to him if he could get in. So, in his entrance essay he wrote, “To be a ‘Harvard man’ is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall attain.” Ironically, some years before, the…
-
Why I Teach Logic to Children
I teach formal logic to middle schoolers. This comes as a surprise to many people since formal logic is usually first encountered at college (if it is encountered at all). However, the more I teach logic, the more convinced I am that we should be teaching formal logic to our children especially during the middle school years. Not everyone agrees with me. Some suggest that formal logic is much too advanced for children of this age. Others suggest that logic is only important for certain subjects and not necessary for everyone to learn. Let’s start with the latter objection: why should everyone learn formal logic? Surely logic is useful for…
-
Atonement: A Balance of Punishment?
The theory of penal substitutionary atonement states that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, took the punishment that we deserve. Some suggest that if Christ takes the punishment we deserve, then he must take the same (or identical) punishment we deserve. This thought generates an objection to the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. The argument is something like: If we deserve eternity in hell, then, in order to take our punishment, Christ must spend eternity in Hell. Christ does not spend eternity in Hell. Therefore, we do not deserve eternity in Hell There is good reason to reject this argument. The first thing to notice is that this argument…
-
Scrapping Over Crime: How Assumptions About Human Nature Explain Political Divisions
In clear-cut cases of crime, terror, and other instances of wicked human behavior, you’d think we’d all be on the same page. But we’re not. We argue over it, especially if we talk politics. It seems we can all call something bad, but when we talk about what we or the government should do about it, we can’t agree. Why not? The answer is fairly simple and comes down to our views of human nature. In other words, the argument is not primarily political but a question of worldview. Consider any event in which a person has done some immoral action. Now, consider why the action was taken. What is…
-
What is the Meaning of the Cry of Dereliction?
On the cross, the Messiah cries, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Matthew 27:46b). His words are a quotation of David’s prophetic psalm, psalm 22. But what can Jesus possibly mean? How could the Son be forsaken by the Father? How do we explain the Messiah’s question? Surely he of all people knows why he is on the cross. The answer lies in an understanding of Psalm 22. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, in the first verse, David gives the Messiah his script. His cry is a forlorn cry of dereliction: My God, my God, why have You forsaken…
-
Successful Prophecy: Psalm 22 (A Response to Bob Seidensticker)
Bob Seidensticker argues that Psalm 22 is not a prophetic psalm depicting the suffering of the Messiah. First, Seidensticker argues that the opening phrase, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” could not be the words of the Messiah. Instead, those words are a gnostic application of the psalmist: Does forsaking Jesus sound like part of God’s plan? This doesn’t sound like the cool-headed, in-control Jesus written about in Luke and John… What it sounds like is Gnosticism (not in the Psalm, but when transplanted into the gospels). The Gnostic Gospel of Philip (third century) explains it this way, “‘My God, My God, why, lord, have you forsaken me?’ [Jesus] spoke these words…
