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!

Evangelism

"Evangelism: How to Share the Gospel Faithfully" (John MacArthur, et al) - This was a really good book.  Different chapters written by different people at Grace Community Church.  The best quote is "work like an Arminian, sleep like a Calvinist".  I also found a new appreciation for short-term missions, which must be viewed as first-most for encouraging long term missionaries.

State of Marriage

An old post from Albert Mohler I found at the bottom of my inbox...

I'm fascinated by the degree to which Postmillenialism dominates Christian thinking.  I would presume Mohler is a Premillenialist of some sort (being Baptist).  At most, amil.

We must understand that, fundamentally, the majority will always reject God ("the wide road").  The founders of America were not strong Christians, but they did operate under the assumption of a Christian worldview - and that the population would continue to hold that view.

We see now, the consequences of such a system; where the population ceases to hold that view.

Why does the State involve itself in marriage?

From a "Christian nation" point of view, it is to encourage the formation of families.  Tax breaks (in the form of tax tables, and benefits like health care) allow for one parent (originally the man) to provide for a family.  Single people complain of unfair treatment, and the "marriage penalty" is born.  Other groups seek State sanctification of what they call marriage - in order to access the benefits.

"There is no major society that exists without marriage, and those rare movements in history that sought to eliminate marriage led to disaster."

While true, we cannot operate from this motive (pragmatism, or even "the ends justify the means").

We are seeing the fallout of where a Christian derived system is reconciled with the majority rejecting Christ.  The question is: can a stable (and God-honoring) system be derived where the majority reject Him?

I don't know, but I don't know if anyone else is even asking the question.

Some are calling for the State to withdraw from involvement in the regulation of marriage - and I must agree (and disagree with Mohler's claim this "would lead to legal, moral, and cultural chaos").  There are standard forms for wills, etc. which are not blessed by the State.  Christian men will continue to provide for their families as best they are able.  Non-Christians will continue as well as they are able.

But this is just removing a vestigial remnant of the Christian worldview.  It does not address replacing and fortifying underlying structure.