Good morning. I’ve missed you and thought often of you as I fire up the Charity Miles app. Our RussellandPascal team has 6 members now with a total of 169 miles. If my math is correct, that is over $41 donated to various charities that move us. If my musing is correct, that is new money that we had perhaps intended to give but had not acted on. Please join our team if you are able. We would like to see half the blog followers join in the next one year and our goal for mileage is >10,000 (time to goal uncertain).
Russell and I had breakfast a week ago and after two hours we agreed upon nothing. Don’t despair. The reason I led with the Charity Miles collaboration is to remind you of how much we do agree on. And, one cup of coffee in, it is quite possible that my insistence we agree upon nothing is a double entendre. We talked about this book that I lent to Russell over Christmas break – –
I loved the book and further thought that it might help me to understand my friend. It did. Here is another book that I’m reading with an extended quote below.
Love is not an easy thing; it is not just an emotional urge, but an attempt to move over and sit in the other person’s place and see how his problems look to him. Love is a genuine concern for the individual. As Jesus Christ reminds us, we are to love that individual “as ourselves.” This is the place to begin. Therefore, to be engaged in personal “witness” as a duty or because our Christian circle exerts a social pressure on us, is to miss the whole point. The reason to do it is that the person before us is an image-bearer of God, and he is an individual who is unique in the world. This kind of communication is not cheap. To understand and speak to sincere but utterly confused twentieth-century people is costly. It is tiring; it will open you to temptations and pressures. Genuine love, in the last analysis, means a willingness to be entirely exposed to the person to whom we are talking. — Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There
How did these two books relate? Gleick, in The Information, helped me to love my friend Russell. I read the book with fascination and took notes in the cover. I think I took notes – – Russell still has the book. I read it around the same time that Russell introduced me to Sean Carroll and Howie and began to think – – why don’t I think this way? It is quite a beautiful way to think.
Information theory then has become an area of interest for me and obsession for Russell (I’ll ask him to correct me if I overstate; I frequently do for effect). Information theory found its way into our taco breakfast last week and helped us to agree on nothing. Please accept a brief paraphrase.
R: Even in the outer boundary of the known universe there is information.
P: I don’t see it. Quantum fluctuation maybe . . .
R: But, that is information.
P: I’m tracking – – I just didn’t consider that useful information. So you’ll accept the noise and not just the signal?
R: Yes.
P: Remember how we’ve had a hard time agreeing about the definition of nothing? How I insist that the Universe can’t naturally be made from nothing?
R: Yes, but that has never bothered me.
P: You know it bothers me?
R: I do.
P: So would you accept the complete lack of information as nothing?
R: I would.
There are not many readers of this blog who will recognize the milestone that this represents in Russell’s and my communication. We have gone to great lengths to understand each other, deconstruct straw men and yes – – to love each other. As Schaeffer says, it has not been easy. But this agreement, on nothing, meant the world to me.
Where will it lead? Do I jump directly to an apologetic based on ex nihilo nilo fit? Absolutely not. I finish the post and prepare to run a 10K trail with two of my sons, thankful that I’ll log 6.2 more miles for water. On that run I’ll thank my God for my friend and thank him for the love that lets us to talk to not past each other.
I lost another friend to the cliff last week. This was a literal cliff, challenged by a colleague my own age, because it was there. This was a man who kept his promise to only leave his marriage by death, and did. As we gather again to support his family and to embrace the community at work I grieve in a very different way. I understood his sense of adventure and his pursuit of fitness that allowed him to do hard things. I last spoke with him 4 weeks ago when he welcomed me to CrossFit and explained why he did it. I understood, as a hiker, the draw to climbing rocks that I was just too cautious to embrace. I admired him for taking the risks that I would not take. And when he fell I do not reproach him. I don’t ask him to do it over, to live a safer life. Could my perspective be that of his bride or children the age of mine? It is honestly too soon to contemplate asking. Yet I know that her husband did not break promises. And I know that their father was a hero.
The cliff of infidelity is avoidable, and I strive to live away from its ledge. The cliff of death will touch us all in a free fall or slow slide. I honor my friend for his choices, his bravery, and his life. I grieve that we won’t enjoy his company for longer here. Our family will seek practical means to comfort and support his. In 6 weeks I’ve lost 2 friends to traumatic death. Friends within 2 years of my age. In my profession, half of the people I meet know that they are dying sooner than they expect. So yes. I think much about death even when it doesn’t brush this close. And yes. That is one of the main reasons I believe – – the hope that the dead will rise.
Pascal – – 1:16
photo credit: David Hiser, 1937-, Photographer (NARA record: 3651517) (U.S. National Archives and Records Administration) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also,30 since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Time to take my own advice. I’ve asked Russell for positive assertions to balance his skepticism and he’s provided several excellent ones – – the love for his family and the love for the beauty of science. What do I love and where can I explain how I build my life? I too love my family and my work. That is such a blessing and I realize that all can’t rejoice with it. My hope for each of our readers is that you have a family to love and treasure. My hope is that work is a joy and not a toil – – no matter what you do. Why has scripture led me Christ? Romans is a major reason. I chose Romans because its authorship is not disputed by atheist New Testament experts. That is not the non sequitur it seems. On many issues of history, I prefer to consult the least biased experts I can find or at least those with different biases than mine. Serious scholars of the Christian New Testament attest that Paul wrote Romans in the first century CE. I last addressed Romans 3:21-26 here, saying that humility required confidence. What does this next passage say?
Here we find that least controversial of words – – faith. Paul contrasts the Jewish law and prophets with a different kind of law – – faith. I find our recent discussions of what faith is and is not to be useful background as I revisit Romans. To simplify, faith is belief based on acceptable evidence or is the evidence when empirical evidence is not available. Faith is my belief that there was a man named Jesus who was God incarnate and that he made me right before himself by the free gift of forgiveness. This faith is specific and does differentiate following Christ from other religious faiths. For me to believe this there are several prerequisites. I have to believe that a supernatural is possible and probable. That is empirically untestable. I have to believe that Jesus and Paul existed and that Paul’s letter is an early and faithful communication of what he believed. Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, would cede the first three points but argue that a revelation to one is just that – – a revelation to one. He felt that Paul mythologized the Christian faith based on his familiarity with Roman myth.
As a follower of Christ, I do believe that God came to men and dwelt among them. I do believe that he willingingly gave his life to rescue mine and to reconcile me to God. Then what of the myriad book of rules that Paul contrasts here? Then what of the law of works? Why did the Jews have so many rules, some of them so strange to our modern ears? The Jews, people of the book, were set apart. In my opinion, they still are. They were, are, a minority. The law and physical male circumcision were two marks that set them apart. But I was not born a Jew. I was born a Gentile (non-Jew) just like >98% of humanity. If I did grow up with the law, prophets and traditions of God’s chosen people, then how could I be special before him too?
By the law of faith. Paul is saying that faith in Christ brings Gentiles into God’s fold. As a Gentile writing 2000 years after him that brings me comfort. I was not raised with Torah. I was not circumcised for religious purposes. I have always identified with the Romans more than I have the Jews. And yet, there is a way for me. The law set apart God’s people the Jews. In antiquity, they were strange. The law of faith sets apart the people of God today. I feel strange too. It is interesting that Paul feels faith is not a replacement for law but a fulfillment. The purpose of the law was to lead the Jews to and constantly remind the Jews of God. This purpose is now fulfilled by faith – – leading me to and constantly reminding me of God.
What of my sincere friends who do not believe in either a supernatural, or the historicity or fidelity of scripture? Here I find comfort and instruction in the reminder that the God of three natures is one. He is God of Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). <2% + >98% = everyone. Who am I to disrespect those whom God calls his own? Mine is to love and to gently reason and to be thankful for the law of faith which brings me to God and offers the same for all humans.
For the past week I have been a reader. I read every word of your last post Russell – – twice. The context of my reading was heightened by a strong sense of self preservation. I was riding shotgun as my 15 year old with a learner’s permit drove back from Colorado. Thankfully, fear can enhance learning. I also read most of the dialogue that you and unkleE conducted. You are birds of a feather. Each of you looked like you were concluding the discussion with tacit apologies for length, then kept going. [insert good natured smile here].
One thing that struck me as I read your discussion about faith and reason was the nature of your replies to each other. You respectfully asked unkleE if he minded a point by point reply and he answered that he rather preferred it himself. It worked well and disciplined you both to visit and revisit each other’s arguments and to protect against the erection of straw men. I got to thinking – – why do I rarely reply in this manner? Is that related to the way I differ in my view of an evidence driven life although I work in an evidence driven field? Perhaps so.
Although I rarely answer line-by-line, I hope you do know that I always want you to be taken in context and I overtly want the majority of readers here to realize that you are among the best of men. Why do I answer like this? What is this? This, for me, is digestion. You always get me thinking. That is one of the things I value about you most. I live in a land of thought and you provoke new thoughts, different angles, and novel chains of reaction. So, when you write an epic on a topic that means much to me – – I think, digest, then reply. It is analogous to the replies of hand-written letters – – a mode that I still cherish although employ too seldom. It is diametrically opposed to the immediate communication of text message, IM or telepathy.
Digestion. What were the results of my digestion so far? First, let me offer that the topic we chose could populate a PhD thesis or even a life of study. This digestive process will represent first pass metabolism alone.
Arguing with Dead People
If you forced me to choose between writing and the wheel as the greatest contribution to human progress, I would choose the pen. What an honor to explore the thoughts of Aristotle and Hume. What we read now and the links that we click are the honored descendents of that humble stylus, brush or quill. You spoke of Aristotle and I summoned the best from my memory. Disciple of Plato. Tutor of Alexander the Great. Father of observational science. To make my joy complete, I found this – – well worth the 3 minutes.
Then you quoted David Hume on wisdom. David Hume – – I had an ephemeral response that I did not consider David Hume to be wise, but I couldn’t remember why. The internet and a short attention span to the rescue again.
You are more aware of logical fallacy than most. It was one of our first studies together. So, I know that you were not using Aristotle or Hume to argue from authority. After two years of conversation with you I know that for sure. My point is this and I know you will not argue. It is okay to argue with, preferable to argue with dead people. We have the greatest intellects of all time (Aristotle would certainly represent the 1% of the 1% of the 1% ad infinitum) available through writing, commentary, and the internet wayback machine. How foolish for me to argue with Aristotle on the details of science which he got wrong when he essentially invented the scientific method and would freely acknowledge that his views should be revised when evidence accrued.
Was Paul aware of Aristotle? Likely so. In Acts, Paul presents to Greeks in Athens at the Aeropagus (Mars Hill) adjacent to the Acropolis. Was Paul, who wrote his epistles in high Greek, unaware of Aristotle? Unlikely. Did he present his reasons to believe in full view of the impact, then 350 years old, of Aristotle. I argue yes. The tension between Aristotelian logic and faith is neither contemporary nor insoluble.
What of David Hume? He also stands with the 1% of the 1% in terms of human intelligence and impact. That there will be 1 of 10,000 people in that category is mathematically predicted and constrained. But would I listen to Hume about wisdom? Wisdom is something different. Wisdom is less predictable. So I can not only disagree with Hume’s philosophy, but challenge a quote where he points the path to wisdom. That would be a delightful topic for future posts – – the difference (if there is one) between intelligence and wisdom.
I know that Russell was not arguing from authority, so I won’t walk down that path. He knows that I can freely argue with Aristotle and Hume and that they, the giants, would welcome a challenge from an ant. My thesis is that the scriptures were constructed in full view of Aristotle’s epistemology. They were not breathlessly awaiting a three minute lesson to correct their stark ignorance. There is nothing new under the sun.
The Possibilian Brain
You and our good friend Howie were the first to turn me on to David Eagleman’s Possibilianism philosophy.
I did like I usually do. I watched it, thought about it, then ordered and read one of his books – – Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain. It is on the 2014 reading list – – and I’m barely caught up with the 2015 posts. One thing that I liked about Eagleman was his call to humility. I think that the 20 minute video is worth the watch, but I will spoil my favorite part of it. He walks to one end of the stage and represents the strong atheist view, then walks to the other end of the stage and represents the young earth creationist biblical literalist view (I’m summarizing from a 1 year constructed memory). Then he calls for gentility and arbitration in the middle. And what is the mediator in the middle? Science. That is what moves him, what convinces him, and what he has and will continue to contribute to. Science.
I have heard some fellow believers say, “I love science, and here is why I believe the earth is young.” That is a non sequitur to me. If I claim to love science to you and our readers, then how would I justify the statement? Perhaps by the time I dedicate to reading science. At least as much by volume as my annual reading list. Perhaps by the time I dedicated to studying science. Ten full years after a university bachelor’s degree in biochemistry. Perhaps by my understanding of why your hope to live hundreds of years is misplaced. Perhaps by my willingness and craft in caring for more dying people in the last ten years than I could ever personally know outside of my profession. I do love science. And to me, science unfolds the mechanisms that a creative and caring God used to delightfully construct the reality that we live in. Cosmology and post-translational modification equally awe me. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. I get just as excited as you when I study, although I rarely offer to send a family recipe or jump up and down.
The Supremacy of Science and the Interaction Problem
I have not forgotten that I owe Victoria a reply on the video about Miracles and Televangelists.
Many here have already visited her excellent blog on neuroscience (also Eagleman’s area of expertise). She is smart, funny, and compassionate. She also explains beautifully how the human brain can construct the emotional experiences of joy, sorrow, and yes – – religion. I found the video about miracles and healing to be especially relevant to my journey as I was raised in the charismatic tradition and I’ve actually been to a Benny Hinn service.
I have been digesting the video for quite some time and look forward to posting about it in the future. Apropos to current discussion is this – – what if the experience of religious devotion is mediated by neurochemical interaction? Does that make it less believable or more? For me it makes it more believable. I am thankful to understand the biochemistry of reward, punishment, fear, and hope. In a way that addresses the interaction problem. Will we be able to locate the soul via functional MRI or PET? Quite unlikely. Do we really want to argue about angels on heads of pins. I hope not.
I appreciate the explanations that science can give. I love studying science. It does not threaten my faith. I hope that is not fatally conflicted.
Writing Russell Off
Russell did not wish to be written off as a
post-modernist strong-rationalist steeped in scientism
Dammit Russell. Not only did you force me to quote you, but you packed three precise terms requiring definitions in seven words, hyphens excluded.
I’ll never write you off.
The Products of Digestion
Digestion provides two things: nourishment and excrement. I realize that this line of thought may be the former to some and the latter to others. The point is this. I love my brother Russell. We think very differently. This is a place where we encourage you to think differently and to realize that you are among friends.
I hope this Saturday morning finds you well. Yes uncleE and other friends in Australia, I realize it is almost Sunday. This has been a week like all others. One fiftieth of another year elapsed. I do not know what proportion that year represents of my supposed middle aged life. A treasured work colleague one year younger than me died suddenly yesterday. His partner, our community, and I grieve.
Because I don’t know if I’m in the middle or a day from the end, the conversation here means more to me. You mean more to me. I’m sorry for doubting it. No — that’s not true. Doubt is part of who I am and a reason I feel drawn to you. Reason. That’s what I’d like to address this morning. I’m grateful to Mike for his guest post and the respect that he showed in our home here. He is a thoughtful atheist who is willing to talk.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
Mike quoted this scripture in a dialogue with Eric (uncleE) about evidence and faith. It started with a comment that Mike offered in his guest post. I’d like to provide the paragraph before as well for needed context.
I’m all about secularity and think people should be free to choose religion or non-religion. If anyone tried to take religious folks rights away to choose a religion, I would be in the front lines with them.
However, I will not pretend that I agree with religion – Christian or otherwise, and I’m certainly not adverse to sharing my views and doing my best to convince others to embrace evidence based thinking instead of faith.
The first paragraph is important to me because I need to emulate it. I need to stand for people whose convictions I do not share. I live in America, an imperfect place. But one blessing that I should not take for granted is the ability to speak without being stifled. How can I realize that blessing without defending it for another? That was the core of Mike’s first paragraph and I appreciate it.
The second paragraph is important to me because Russell and I have often reached a point of impasse here. Is the word instead correct? I feel that it is the pivot of the sentence at least, likely the paragraph, perhaps the thesis.
Back to Mike’s scripture reference. It is one of my favorites and I chose to use the King James Version because I remember it from childhood and it has the words evidence and faith in close juxtaposition. As a Christ follower in a scientific vocation, this verse has meant the world to me.
Is faith blind? Is it always required? The text in Hebrews says that faith is the substance of things hoped for. Is faith needed for things already realized? Probably not. I do not have faith for a table. I’m sitting at it. Is faith the substance of my hope for my children to follow Christ? It is. Is faith separated from hard work? By no means. My favorite epistle is James. Martin Luther called it the epistle of straw. I don’t particularly like Martin Luther. James said that faith without works is dead. So, if my faith that my sons will follow Christ is to have life, should I lead an authentic life worthy of imitation? I argue yes. I have faith – – belief – – in what I hope for but have not yet realized. That faith is coupled with effort. I can not have faith that Mike and I can continue respectful dialogue. I have to be willing to write letters and to carefully read his.
Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Allow me to be clear. I am an old earth creationist. I believe that God created the universe by authoring natural laws and allowed us to evolve to sentience. I don’t think he directed every mutation. He could have, but the scientific evidence does not point that way. I don’t believe that Genesis is literal. I do believe it is completely true. As a student and lover of language, allegory has never bothered me. In biological science, I have some degree of expertise. In physical science, I have enough knowledge to plumb the depths of my own ignorance. In social science, I have compassion, but not Mike’s degree of professional knowledge, expertise and practice. As an aside, social workers are some of my favorite people on earth. How is faith evidence? Did I take on faith the existence of Pluto? It could have been another light source that we didn’t understand. In a thin way I did before the photos came back, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I take on faith that my life will continue if it ends tomorrow. That is a bold claim that I can’t prove. My personal version of Pascal’s wager is this: if I’m wrong I won’t know it — the can’t lose position for an egotist like me. That is a statement of faith.
Faith is my belief in the things that I have not witnessed, accounting for the fact that even what I witness, experience and remember are constructed in a brain so complicated we barely comprehend it. Is faith required for history? To some extent. Only modern history is recorded verbatim and one first run movie or internet meme will convince you that future generations may believe nothing that we so confidently record. But I don’t really consider it faith to believe that Jesus Christ existed. That is a consensus amongst historians just as the existence of the third Roman emperor Caligula is.
Do I need faith to believe that Jesus was God incarnate? I do. Scripture claims that he was. I can question the veracity of that Scripture. I can rightly question the legitimacy of eye witness accounts. I can rightly question even the existence of a supernatural. I can rightly ask why some claims of deity survived and others did not. There are few active temples of Zeus remaining. At every point in my chain of logic for belief, there are legitimate questions that skeptics ask. I don’t have answers for them all.
I’m open to the possibility that I live a dichotomous life – – evidence in my professional pursuits, faith in personal. But that doesn’t feel quite right. I see the effects of faith as evidence. There was a call to comfort when our professional friend was taken so quickly. There was an impromptu memorial at our place of work. We remembered his life. There was an urge to pray – – a hope that there was someone greater who cared about our grief. Is that urge evidence? It could be. All human societies have displayed the behavior of worship. Is that behavior evidence? Perhaps not. Perhaps it is an accident of our genes that made the paranoid and delusional more likely to survive. But it could be.
Time to close this James Joyce style post. I’m not even sure that I’ve asked or answered any good questions and for that I apologize. I suppose I just needed to write, and in a time of sudden loss this post took a different flavor than it would have otherwise. I do have one question that may be useful.
embrace evidence based thinking instead of faith.
How would the meaning change if “in addition to” replaced “instead of”?
Pascal – – 1:16
photo credit: “Bascula 9” by L.Miguel Bugallo Sánchez – self made, Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bascula_9.jpg.
I was truly thankful for Russell’s last post on personality types and on the possible correlation with belief. I had previously taken the brief version that Russell had recommended and remembered that my type was INFJ. Yesterday, in an executive education seminar at work I took the longer form M with my classmates with results listed above. I resonate with several of our readers who compared the experience to reading a horoscope with the understanding that it is indeed something different. Although not perfect, this test has been administered to 40 million humans over the last 90 years. Rather than being based on my birthday, it was based on honest answers to questions about my way of thinking, working, and perceiving the world.
I loved the comments of our friends and readers. I loved how you offered each other understanding and empathy. I promised more musings too. So here they are.
Although I knew I was an introvert the holistic meaning of my personality didn’t come into relief without the impasses that Russell and I often meet. We know that we care about each other. We also know that we just don’t process things the same. All models are wrong. Some are useful. That’s the way I feel about going through this exercise on the blog and in the long form yesterday. This is useful.
Russell (INTP) and I are both introverted intuitives married to extroverts. Mrs. Russell is ENFJ. Mrs. Pascal is ESFP. Mrs. Pascal and I had a great time reading our own and each other’s personality types. I realize that confirmation bias is likely at play, but the profiles were surprisingly accurate. For my wife and I the differences are dramatic. There was a weekend when we were dating where we took a 48 hour time out to determine if we would get engaged or never speak to each other again. Twenty one years later we find our differences to have stretched us both and to be a source of deep energy. I didn’t have the language to describe it then and probably didn’t need it. I realized that we were very different and that we liked each other very much. The decision to love each other was the best we have ever made.
So Russell and I match in the introverted intuitive domains but contrast in the thinking/feeling and judging/perceiving dichotomies. Is the whole greater than the parts? With 16 personality permutations the answer is surely yes. I do, however, feel that Russell and I most often disconnect when I feel and he thinks. Does that mean he doesn’t feel and I do not think? Of course not. But it does explain the epistemology of science, and history, and love. I feel that love can be an epistemology. I know that my heart can deceive me, but it hasn’t in the long term. Love made me marry. Like is not a decision – – I liked my wife and always will – – it is the quirky spark of compatibility that drives my happiness every time I see her again. Love was a decision — an epistemology that trumped the thinking that could have talked me out of it. Love is why I believe that Jesus saved me. Do I find science in conflict – – no, not really. Do I find some things beyond my comprehension? Yes. Can my mind be changed by a call to justice and mercy. Yes.
Perhaps Mrs. Pascal and I work so well because the yin and yang of I/E, and commonality of F balance any conflicts in the N/S and J/P domains. Or not. Maybe an intuitive needs a sensor and maybe a go along for the rider needs someone who loves to drive and plan the trip a year in advance. And maybe that planner should plan a day with nothing. Duly noted.
Russell, where does this leave you and me? In a better place. I’m so glad to understand you better and to be understood. I’ve always respected you and always will. I like that we have different ways to process and relate and now I get it better. As part of our exercise in the class there were cues on how to better relate to those of different personality types — how to speak their language if you will. I think that we’ve tried to do that for each other by reading or listening to things that the other likes.
P1 just took the test at our request. After complaining about seeming redundant questions he came back ISFP. We work well together. He can put concrete steps to my big idea. I also understand his messy room a bit better. Thanks again for this Russell.
Question:
Has knowing (or guessing) the personality type of your loved one helped you to respect and communicate better?
I begin most of my letters here with a derivative of that salutation. Dear Russell and Friends . . . But the letter on my table is not from Russell. It is from Steve Forbes, or rather it appears, from his desk. I don’t know Steve Forbes but he asks me to join him by buying a magazine. It is three and a half pages long, but a quick read due to capacious spacing and outsized font. The first words that receive the inflation denote the thesis of the letter. Mr. Forbes offers me something that he thinks I want: wealth and power.
Is he right? Before I discount advertising, I must assess its success. It often works. Very often. And those who can afford Forbes magazine and even its peddled luxury wares are not less vulnerable. Perhaps they are even more so.
Mr. Forbes thinks that I want to read about the lives of billionaires. In his words the magazine that bears his name is not all about business.
It’s also about enjoying the rewards of success. Exotic supercars. Yachts to die for. Hideaways that you can’t get to from here. The private plane circuit, where wealthy flyers never see the inside of a terminal. Plus, you’ll get ForbesLife, our guide to living the good life.
Is he right? Is wealth and power a worthy goal? Mr. Forbes is no fool, but I’ve been one. I’ve been sorely tempted to mistake my gifts for entitlement. I’ve been sorely tempted to direct my capacity toward temporary things that will not survive even my brief life. I’ve been sorely tempted to seek approval, influence, and regard. In truth – – I find power more tempting than wealth and view the latter as only the currency of the former. I have been tempted and I have fallen.
One reason I follow Christ is so that I can answer Mr. Forbes with honesty. Yes – – you’re right sir. I do want wealth and power. But, deep within me I know it is not enough. Deep within me I know that it will not survive me. Vanderbilt barely lived in America’s largest home. So what can replace wealth and power as my desire? Following Christ has given me that answer.
Mr. Forbes and his team are no fools. I’m not in the top 0.1% of income, but honesty compels me to acknowledge that I am in the top 1%. I’m not in the top 0.01% of intellect, but honesty compels me to acknowledge that I am in the top 0.1%. Honesty is not what I need. I need humility. By following Christ I see someone so much greater than me that I have no metric of comparison. Yet he came to serve and to suffer with us (compassion defined). Mr. Forbes may not be a fool, but I want to be. I want to foolishly reject the call to wealth and power although I know that I could realistically attain a measure of it. I want to foolishly love those who are poor and powerless.
Oh Mr. Forbes, you knew I would be tempted. I am constantly tempted by goals that honor myself and not my savior. Oh God – – please let me be wise and pursue your compassion. Let me live differently as a steward of the capabilities that are only a gift from you.
Dear readers – –
1) Does Mr. Forbes’ offer tempt you?
2) Atheist friends: how have you mitigated this siren call?
3) Christ followers and those of other faiths: same question.
4) Any: am I wrong to recoil from this letter? I welcome your criticism.
Pascal 1:16
photo credit: “Biltmore Estate 14-2” by Biltmore_Estate_14.jpg: Doug Coldwellderivative work: Entheta (talk) – Biltmore_Estate_14.jpg. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons –
Much of my reading and writing this week has been in the comments concerning my last post on God’s goodness or lack thereof. That is a new and exciting way to interact with our new friends – – something that we’ve seen modeled on several of their blogs. Much of the content in these blogs is in the comments. So we’re slowly addressing your reasons for doubt and unfolding the map to your intellect and heart. I find your mind to be fascinating, likely because it is very different from mine. I also find it fascinating when you and your wife J (aka CC) write each other from the same room. Fascinating, and completely valid. She said the following after you apologized for the length of your comments.
Your napkin drawing (that happened on paper, but same idea) was far more effective. Even if you has said the same thing in many thousands of words, I think fatigue would have prevented me (and perhaps others) from getting it. Are there readers who skip your comments altogether because of the length (knowing that they don’t have time in the Subway line)? You have so much to offer that I don’t want it to be missed for that reason.
I need to accept your apology and resist my impulse to reassure you that apologies are never needed. That impulse does not honor the reality of friendship. When I apologize I would rather have that apology accepted than deferred. Why do I accept your apology? Because I recently found myself in a Subway line trying to engage the blog content and I couldn’t attend to your very good comment, primarily because of length. I read and scrolled, scrolled and read, gave up, then ordered a six-inch wheat black forest ham toasted with pepper jack cheese, green peppers, red onions, black olives, banana peppers, spicy mustard and a little bit of sriracha sauce. I woke at four this morning intending to read every single one of your comments. I’m actually a slow, plodding reader – – speed reading is anathema to me. And I did, but it took two hours to do so thoughtfully. Smaller bites and clarifying questions is good advice from your bride.
What about napkins? That is a favorite strategy of ours when we meet for breakfast. Back of the envelope analogies fail because the only envelopes I seem to have contain junk mail and I rarely have them at breakfast. Likewise, we have never eaten together at a restaurant with cloth napkins. I’m not saying that we couldn’t write on those napkins, just that it could get a little strange or tense. In the napkin above I’ve illustrated a general taxonomy which may or may not be correct. The horizontal axis represents a way of thinking – – like you or me. The vertical axis represents a skeptical or theistic belief. I’ve taken the liberty of asserting that you think the most like you and I think the most like me. We serve as paradigmatic members of the quadrants: you the Russell-like skeptic, me the Pascal-like theist. Then I’ve assigned several of our more active writers to the quadrants as I see them. I chose Madalyn for my way of thinking, albeit with very different beliefs, primarily because I find her writing style very easy to read. I chose Howie for your way of thinking because when he first came by I thought you had adopted another pseudonym. And so forth – – it’s a bit like picking teams for dodgeball. It would be better for people to assign themselves – – then I could redraw the napkin, although I did find the creative effort to be draining.
Why a tangential discussion about napkins? Because I’ve taken so many tangents this week trying to see how we see things differently. Did you know that Bertrand Russell was an opponent of coherentism as an epistemic strategy? I did not. Did you know that Soren Kierkegaard requires too many special characters in the correct spelling of his name to be my favorite philosopher? That was a joke (although true). He’s not my favorite philosopher because I don’t have one yet. Kierkegaard valued the subjective in his understanding of truth. I didn’t know that, but I’ve encountered him before in many readings and it is probably time to go to the source. My tangential responses to your comments and your linearity help me to learn and also to respect that I many not ever be able to reply to you in kind. I understand your objections, I just don’t process the world that way. And that is okay. I’ll do my best. Let’s have breakfast this week.
For our friends — which napkin quadrant would you place yourself in? Any takers for the lonely square? If you are one of the 8-in-ink and consider yourself misdrawn I am prepared to revise.
Pascal
–1:16
photo credit: the napkin on the table, Pascal, my own work Creative Commons share and share alike
russell & pascal 