Hyper-skepticism and Hyper-credulity

What is the connection between: Bart Ehrman (athiest), Paul Tsoukalos (guy from the History channel), and certain Catholic apologists on Facebook?

Their reasoning is all along the lines of:
"I can't trust the Bible, therefore X"

Where X is:

1. Mud+time equals man
2. Aliens are responsible for everything in history
3. I can only trust the Catholic Church

It's really a variant on "Anything but God" (anything but the Bible)

The Perspicuity of Scripture

It saddens me when people who call themselves Christians go on to doubt that we can understand the Bible (what is sometimes called "The Perspicuity of Scripture").

Understanding this principle is really quite simple:

1. God has chosen to reveal Himself.  This has included many different methods (Heb 1:1-2), but for us, is in the Bible.
2. God is always successful in His plans and purposes

To deny #2 is effective atheism.

But what about #1?

Some will say that God can only be known through a mediator.

However, this runs into the problem of "why can we communicate".

That is, we can only communicate clearly because we are in the image and likeness of God, and God communicates clearly.

If God does not communicate clearly, then we have no reason to believe that we can communicate clearly (or we are greater than God in this regard - and God is not God, back to effective atheism).

So, if God cannot communicate clearly, we cannot communicate clearly - and thus you cannot communicate your argument.

Father Hunger

"Father Hunger" (Doug Wilson) - I read a lot of what Doug Wilson writes (second only to John Macarthur and related things from the Pyromaniacs).

Doug Wilson is a writer.

I don't just mean that he writes stuff.  He reads a lot, and writes a lot.  This shows up in his writing style.  He makes allusions to other writers, and he has a pithy way of compressing big ideas down and making them understandable and memorable.

At the same time, I disagree with Wilson on some pretty major theological points: he is a Presbyterian (a sort of uber-Presbyterian, called "Federal Vision") and post-millenial - while I am a Baptist, and pre-millenial.

If Presbyterians have any advantage, it is that their theology more naturally integrates the family - which is just the subject at hand.

This is a short book, at 207 pages (plus a short study, end notes, and an index) and Wilson starts right in.

First, he identifies our cultural problems as fundamentally theological - that bad theology leads to bad thinking and bad doing ("we become like what we worship", as he would say).

We have a father problem in our country, because we do not seek our heavenly Father.

Wilson covers this from every angle, with his usual insight and wit.  He makes a compelling case, and gives the Biblical solution - we need repentance, lots of it.

This problem affects every facet of life.  Children related to their parents, husbands and wives, even roles in the church.

He rolls the controversy of "The Shack" (where the Trinity is portrayed as two women with Jesus) into a one liner:
"You need a father?  Here, talk to your mother about it."

This book is excellent for anyone who wonders why things are so wrong, and is interested in making them better - whether it is a better father, or son, or wife, or daughter.

The appendix has an economic study on the impact of fatherless homes.  It shows clearly that divorce and abandonment by fathers is not zero, and not "better for the kids" (to avoid arguments).

Judgment and Salvation

Last month, I finished reading through the book of Isaiah (approximately) twenty times (I spent about a year in it).

Isaiah is a challenging book, for a number of reasons.

The first is length: at 66 chapters it takes a long time to get through one time (about two weeks), and you can forget the beginning by the time you get to the end.

Second, the book is mostly prophetic utterances - not a story or narrative, with clear boundaries (people did this, then they did that).  This makes it hard to break up into smaller chunks to be processed.

The third challenge is related to the second - because it is prophetic language, it is often hard to grasp, or unclear in meaning or subject.

Nevertheless, there is a clear message which comes through - that of God's judgement on sin and His provision of salvation.

I took several style of notes as I was reading; in one, I wrote a word or two to summarize a chapter.  You see: judgment; salvation; judgement and salvation.

This makes sense in context.  Israel had disobeyed God for some time, and was about to go into the Babylonian captivity.  We also see many strong messianic prophecies (God ultimate plan of salvation)

Tyndale

"Tyndale: The Man Who Gave God an English Voice" (David Teems) - This book is really excellent in every way.  If I had to sum up everything in one quote, it would be:

"In the age of Tyndale, there was very little that was laughable.  It was a rather humorless age." (p. xv)

For those who do not know, William Tyndale was a Bible translator.  He produced the first English Bible from the Greek (John Wycliffe had earlier produced an English Bible from the Latin Vulgate, but it was not widespread).

At the time (the Protestant Reformation, 1517 and on), this was considered an evil and rebellious act.  In England, the Bible was in Latin (even though the people - and often the parish priests - knew no Latin).  In 1519, a family of six was burned at the stake (in Coventry) for teaching and reciting the Lord's Prayer in English (p. 264).

Tyndale was initially a priest (as most educated people were).  When Erasmus' Greek New Testament was published (and things started to boil), he asked for permission to produce an English translation.  This was refused, but we see the beginnings of the drive that Tyndale had to see God's word made available to everyone.  Shortly after, Tyndale fled England, never to return.  Teems wonderfully documents his trials and tribulations as an exile.

Teems handles this weighty subject with aplomb.  You would have to have a heart of stone not to weep at times, but that is the nature of the matter.  Teems avoids sentimentality, or polemic.  He maintains objective distance, while letting the people of the time speak for themselves.  I came to feel that Tyndale was a brother I would have gotten along with very well.

There are also humorous moments, which Teems is eager to bring forth.  This is not a sad and dreary tale, I was eager to finish it - eager to get back to it when life kept me away.

I'd like to read bios of Erasmus and (Sir Thomas) More now, for comparison.

Game Theory and Evolution - pt 2

(continuing from the last post)

We've analyzed some simple (always choosing the same) populations (all silent, all squealers, mix of both).

Now, let's imagine some more complex strategies.

In a population of all silents, everything is stable.  Everyone is benefiting equally from each transaction.  We introduced a single squealer, and things got bad for all the silents.

Now, imagine some of the silents have "recognition" - either from communication or remembering some trait (either preventatively, or over time).

So, a "recognizer" will squeal against a squealer, and be silent against a fellow silent or recognizer.

Now, the population is more dynamic.  Pure silents will decrease (are "selected against"), while recognizers win all the time.  Squealers lose to recognizers, but win against silents.  If the silents disappear completely, then this will cascade into squealers disappearing completely.

Thus, a long-time stable population of "silents" will become a stable population of "recognizers" (after a fiery period of transition).


That's the "proof" for evolution (at least, as presented in "The Selfish Gene").


There's a number of things to keep in mind:

1. It assumes an operating ecology (the initial stable population)
2. It assumes a mechanism for new features
3. It assumes that because something might happen, that it necessarily did happen

The fourth point is the main one.  In logic:
if (p) then q
q, therefore p

This is an error (or logical fallacy) known as affirming the consequent.

Game Theory and Evolution

It's been several years since I read Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" (where I mentioned it is an overview of game theory).

I realized that some people might want a tl;dr version of game theory.  I think I can fit it in one or two (longish) blog posts:

First, I play a lot of games (to the point where I consider myself an amateur game designer).  Game theory has little or nothing to do with actual, fun games.  It also has nothing to do with "gaming" (the self-respecting term for gambling).

Game theory deals with logic puzzles.  Both in finding the optimal solutions for them, and dealing with "populations" (numbers of agents all involved in the puzzle).

A classic example is the "prisoner's dilemma":

Two prisoners each have two choices, (0) remain silent, or (1) squeal on the other prisoner.

This yields four outcomes:

00	(Both silent) Each receives a small benefit
01	(One squeals) The squealer receives a large benefit, the silent a large penalty
10	(As above, roles reversed)
11	(Both squeal) Each receives a small penalty

The actual numbers used can vary, and the numbers (and their ratios) will determine the outcome in the later simulations.

The optimal strategy is to remain silent (since both win).  However, if you know the other will be silent, you can "cheat" him and squeal (getting yourself a large bonus).


Now, let's apply that to populations.

Imagine a large population of "silents" (agents who always choose the silent option).  This population is stable, it always generates benefits, which allows it to continue (propagating more silents).

Now add a single "squealer" to the mix.

This squealer will reap large benefits in every transaction, and never have a penalty.

In the next generation, there will be more squealers.

However, the population will never reach all squealers.

This is because when two squealers meet, they are both penalized. The final ratio will depend on the relative values for the four outcomes.

A population of all squealers might disappear (since they are all penalized), depending on the rules of the simulation.

To be continued!