To varying degrees, I have learned Greek, Latin, German, French, and English, but dogish lies out of my reach. My grandmother spoke to her dog, but the snuffly little pug’s responses never sounded anything like what my grandmother said to him. She said things like, “I do before to be a hudra hud,” which meant “good dog.” To request a photograph of the dog one would ask if it minded having its “wotytook.” As a boy, I was sure it was a real language, but it wasn’t – twas fun, but not dogish. Con Slobodchikoff says he has learnt the real thing, at least some of it, and only prairie…
-
-
The Humiliation of the King
When most people get close to people of power and influence, they feel something. I’m not entirely sure what it is, but the best answer I can come up with is that powerful people are compelling because their power promotes our status. The closer we are to them, the higher our status is. This morning we are going to look at Jesus’ teaching on status in the kingdom in Matthew 20:17-34. In this text, Jesus receives two very different requests–one for status and the other for mercy. He teaches his disciples that he has come not to be the powerful status-elevator, but the humiliated servant who lays down his life…
-
Is Communication Compatible with Disagreement: Not without Beer and Capitulation
Heineken’s new ad couples up three pairs of strangers who disagree over feminism, climate change, and transgenderism. After the pairs construct a bar together they are given a dilemma: leave or stay for a drink to discuss their differences. So far, the ad tells us something trivially true: getting on with people is compatible with disagreeing with them. We agree! It is not entirely clear that Heineken does. The add closes with the pairs sitting down for a chat and a cold one. However, the promised ‘discussion’ never materializes. Instead, comments made earlier by one of each pair are replayed to them and, upon drinking beer, one side capitulates –…
-
The Bottle-Kicker: Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Beginners
Here is a kind of statement: If A, then C. The statement is called a hypothetical statement and it has two parts joined together by “if…,then…” In the statement above, A is called the Antecedent and C is called the Consequent. We use these kinds of statements all the time: “If I don’t get a move on, I’m going to be late” “If there’s milk in the fridge, then you can have it.” The antecedent is sometimes called the sufficient condition and the consequent is sometimes called the necessary condition. So, how does this kind of statement work in arguments and how can we understand what the difference between those…
-
Atonement and Punishment: A Defense of Retribution
Here is a common argument against the penal substitutionary view of the atonement: The penal substitutionary view of the atonement entails a retributive view of punishment, but retribution is insufficient moral justification for punishment. Therefore, the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement is false. In response, I shall argue that the retributive justification of punishment is well supported by the Bible and by commonly held intuitions about meritorious actions. The penal substitution view of the atonement holds that sinful human beings deserve divine punishment and that Jesus Christ was punished in their place. According to this view, punishment is deserved by a sinner but can be absorbed by someone other…
-
The Rise of the Pseudo-Cause: A Distraction From What’s Really Wrong
I remember taking part in a massive protest at my boarding school. Almost all of us refused to eat in the school canteen. It worked – we won. Our cause? To change the catering company of the school. That was it. We did not defeat communism, institute civil rights, or remove a dictator. We merely changed our menu (and, as far as I can recall, not by much). Many people feel like they should have a big cause, some great evil to overturn, but can’t seem to find one. So they choose something that isn’t really a cause at all. They protest over nothing. Or, finding no evil of particular…
-
Earth Day: When Earth and Rationality Part Company
In honor of earth day, here are three fallacious earth day arguments: The first one suggests that scientific research strongly entails some particular government policy. It is used to suggest that any disagreement over government policy is directly related to one’s attitude toward science. Here is a formal version: If you accept science, then you accept policy P.You reject policy PTherefore, you reject science A good example of this sort of fallacy is provided by Bill Nye (a good source of silly fallacies, by the way). “All science is political” he said. And then he proceeded to bash the highly qualified scientist who disagreed with Nye’s position on the role…
-
Atonement: Knowledge of His Wrath
And I heard the angel of the waters saying, “Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, because You judged these things; for they poured out the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. They deserve it.” And I heard the altar saying, “Yes, O Lord God, the Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.” In Revelation 16:4-7, John records the proclamation of the angel who affirms the just punishment of those who “poured out the blood of saints and prophets” (v. 6). The angel tells us that the persecutors of God’s people deserve their punishment and that punishment displays the…
