Volokh on Facts and Values

Eugene Volokh, of the Volokh Conspiracy, writes:

Even if one believe[s] that certain things are objectively immoral, one should recognize that such a judgment is not the sort of thing that one should label "fact"; if anything, we should be teaching students to better distinguish facts from value judgments, even while recognizing that value judgments may be very important and even objectively right.

To my mind, this statement is a mess, but perhaps I'm not seeing clearly. There's a few things clouding my vision.

If I only believe something, I could be wrong. If I know something, I cannot be wrong. (This is not the same as saying that if I think I know something, I cannot be wrong.) For example, I can never know that I had oatmeal for breakfast this morning because it's false that I had oatmeal for breakfast this morning. Note that this is different from saying that I can never know the details of what happened in the duel between Hamilton and Burr. In the first case, I cannot have knowledge because the claim is false. In the second case, I cannot have knowledge because the evidence does not rise to the level of knowledge. (After examining the evidence available, I might lean one way or the other, but not enough to say that I know what happened.)

So when Volokh writes that "Even if one believe[s] . . ." I don't know whether he's playing on the distinction between believing and knowing. If he means that "Even if one knows that certain things are objectively immoral . . . one should [not label them as fact]," then I think he's wrong. If what Volokh means is that "Even if one only believes [i.e., doesn't know] that certain things are objectively immoral . . . one should [not label them as fact]," then he's right to say that we shouldn't label our judgment a fact. If we want to be responsible in our labeling, we should wait until we know that something is a fact before we label it as fact. Which of these Volokh has in mind is the first thing that is unclear to me. Here's the second.

What is the difference between a fact and an objectively correct value judgment? I take "fact" to mean the way things are. Not very illuminating, I know. The point is that facts are basic. A fact is the way the world is. So, if grass is green, then it's a fact that grass is green. If F=MA, then it's a fact that F=MA. Sometimes people use "fact" and "correct" or "right" or "true" synonymously. That's misleading. We say that a judgment about a fact is correct or incorrect, right or wrong, and that statements about facts are either true or false. If I judge that grass is green, then my judgment is correct. If I say "Grass is green," then my statement is true.

Volokh wants to distinguish between facts and "value judgments." In a trivial sense, I agree. A judgment is a mental act. A value judgment, then, is a mental act about values. A fact is the way the world is. Clearly, mental acts are not the same as the world's being a certain way, and though there are facts about mental acts, this should not lead us to conflate the two. To be precise, we should speak of judgments about value and judgments about facts. (Maybe Volokh thinks that one does not make judgments about facts. I disagree, but I'll save that for another day.)

But I do not think that Volokh meant to state the obvious that mental acts are not the same as the way the world is. Here are two possible further interpretations.

(a) He might mean that judgments about facts are not the same as judgments about values. In some cases this is true; in others, false. It is true in cases where the value judgment is nonnormative, for example, in the claim that I prefer strawberry icecream to vanilla. In this case, I can make no legitimate claim to normativity, that is, that everybody ought to prefer strawberry to vanilla. So in cases where the distinction is between judgments about facts and judgments about nonnormative values, Volokh is right to insist on a difference between fact and value.

But in cases where the value judgment is normative, for example, that one ought to be courageous (or, controversially, that one ought not engage in homosexual acts) then it is in the same boat as judgments about facts. Why? Because normative judgments depend upon there being a fact of the matter in order to be normative. Normative value judgments are significantly like judgments of fact: they are either right or wrong (and the corresponding claims based on the judgments are either true or false). What makes both of them right and wrong is the world's being a certain way.

(b) He might mean that facts are scientific or empirical or some other such thing and that values are nonempirical or nonscientific. This claim can only be supported by arbitrarily restricting our use of "fact." Facts are the way(s) the world is. Some facts are facts about the way the world is scientifically. They tell us about the chemical or biological parts of the world. Now the question is Is there a fact of the matter about the way the world is morally? If so, then let's call those ways facts. If not, then we can call them something else. The important point is that we can't say that we need to limit our use of "fact" prior to discovering whether there is a fact of the matter about the way the world is morally.

So here's why I'm confused. Volokh says that we can recognize that "value judgments may be . . . objectively right"; here he seems to think that there might be a fact of the matter about morality. But he also says that judgments about value are not the same as facts (or, to be precise, judgments about facts). These are incompatible claims.

Now, in both (a) and (b) there are issues of whether there are any normative value judgments and whether there are moral facts of the matter about the way the world is. I think that these are essentially the same issue. Since I haven't given an argument that there are any normative value judgments, one might think that my critique of Volokh is pointless. But, on the other side, in order to show that the usual (but false) distinction between fact and value is real, one has to give an argument that there is a difference. Volokh hasn't done this, and so my critique of his claims doesn't require that I show there isn't one.

Should Be Studying; Doing This Instead

From Jonathan and Thorgerson and Matt.

1. You are stuck inside Fahrenheit 451. What book would you be?
Aquinas's Summa Theologiae.

2. Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
Maybe I had a crush on Nancy Drew. Can't remember.

3. What was the last book you bought?
Philosophical Writings of Descartes (three vols.)

4. What are you currently reading?
Language, Proof, and Logic, Jon Barwise and John Etchemendy
Aristotle East and West, David Bradshaw
Plato's Sophist, trans. Nicholas White
Ethics in Finance, John Boatright

5. What five books would you take to a deserted island?
(Again, assuming the Bible and Shakespeare are already there)
Complete works of Plato (with Greek facing)
Iliad and Odyssey (with Greek facing)
Beowulf (Heaney trans. with Old English facing)
Divine Comedy
Logical Investigations, Edmund Husserl (contrary to Matt, this work, not Barth, is the culmination of modern thought)

6. To whom are you going to pass this book meme and why?
No one. Why not?

"The Church Has not Disappeared but Is Continuing . . ."

This is some great stuff from an interview with the then Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, in September 2003. (HT to Hugh) The context is discussing what the faithful of the Catholic Church should do in the wake of the sexual abuse scandals in the USA. To say these comments are encouraging would be understatement. One of the things that I have heard comment on most often from protestants about liturgical tradiations is the lack of emphasis on and acknowledgement of "personal relationship" with the Divine. Against that compare these comments from the new Pope. Pretty exciting I say.
____________________________________

Raymond: You, I know, have been closely involved with the continuing crisis in the United States, trying to bring closure a healing in the wake of terrible sexual abuse in the United States. My question is, “What do you identify as the root causes of this crisis that we continue to live through in the United States?”

Cardinal: I will distinguish perhaps between 2 different elements – a general element and a specific element of this time and of this scandal of today. The general element is, as I said, is a weakness of human beings, even of priests. Never will we have all this end, but always the temptations of human beings are present also for the priests. So always we have to accept that. Even in the communion of priests and bishops, we have to know that these things can happen. The second point is more specific, why at this time it was so often and it was more than in past times. And I think the essential point is the weakness of faith, because only if I am really in confidence personally with the Lord; if the Lord is for me, not an idea, but the Person of my deepest friendship; if I know personally the Lord and be in contact of love everyday in the Lord, if for me faith is the reality. It is the ground of my life; it is a most sure of reality, and not some possibility – in this case, if I am really convinced and really in contact of love with the Lord, the Lord will help me in these temptations and I can even win what seems impossible. If the faith is not everyday realized, if the faith is weakened and begins only to be an hypothesis, so it’s not a fundamental of your life and so begins all these problems. So, I would say the essential point is for me, weakness of the faith and not a sufficient presence of the faith in the Church. I think it was the problem of the last 40, 50 years. That the idea was we have common ideas with all the world and that faith is very personal and a universal gift of the Lord was not so present. So, I think the first point is re-learn, re-convert to a deepened faith and education in the faith. I think also that in the last perhaps 40, 50 years, it was not so clear the validity of the moral teaching of the Church. We had so many masters in the Church that teach in other ways, and said, “No, this is not a sin. This is not a sin. This is common and what is average of doing is also permitted.” And with this idea, we do not have a clear moral teaching. We have to learn from the normal actions of human beings. So, we also will be in the normal actions and even …

Raymond: Fall prey unto the things of the world.

Cardinal: Yes. Yes. Yes. So, I think that 2 things are essential – conversion to a profound and deep faith with the life of prayer and the sacraments, and clear moral teaching and conviction of these teachings that the Church, has the Holy Spirit and can give this way.

Raymond: What would you say to the faithful, who in the United States are so despondent at this hour, and not sure who to look to? What would you say to them?

Cardinal: Yes. On the one hand, look to the Lord is the first point. He is always present and He’s always near to us. Look also to the saints of all the times, and so find in our times the saints. The humble, faithful persons are present, perhaps not so visible because they are not appearing on the television. But the humble, praying people are present today and this is a confidence of the Church and of all our people find these people, finds that with all the problems of today, the Church has not disappeared; but is continuing, especially in not so visible personalities. So, I think this is essential – find the Lord, find the saints of the times, but also find the not canonized, simple persons who are really in the heart of the Church.

The Entire Interview

Something New for the Classicists to Do

Smart people at Oxford have invented a way to recover the text of papyri from an Egyptian dump. The papyri were discovered about 100 years ago, but no one has been able to read them until now.

Apparently, they've already recovered some Sophocles that was previously completely unknown. I'm pulling for a copy of Plato's lecture on the good to be among the papyri. If that's not available, some dialogues of Aristotle will do.

Edna St. Vincent Millay: Christian Poet?

I've been an admirer of the poetry of Edna St. Vincent Millay for a while. She is a modern master of the sonnet. Consider this:

What lips my lips have kissed, and where, and why,
I have forgotten, and what arms have lain
Under my head till morning; but the rain
Is full of ghosts tonight, that tap and sigh
Upon the glass and listen for reply . . .

Or her poem "Grown-up":

Was it for this I uttered prayers,
And sobbed and cursed and kicked the stairs,
That now, domestic as a plate,
I should retire at half-past eight?

I did not know what kind of person she was, and I always assumed she was something like Sylvia Plath. So I was bit surprised to see her described by Dallas Willard as a "Christian poet." Intrigued by this possibility, I read her biography by Nancy Milford. It turns out that unless the seven deadly sins have been repealed, Millay's standing among the saints is nonexistent. Of course, when one says this, it must always be with the caveat that only God knows the heart. Perhaps her behavior belied her Christian beliefs, but if Milford's biography is comprehensive (which I think it is), then Millay never seems to have had much interest in Christianity.

Her life was full of impropriety, but no life is untouched by that, so hers is not distinguished in that respect. But contrast her life with that of another public figure, Johnny Cash, and one sees that the unpleasantness and impropriety of her life seemed to mount at the end of her life, as if her life had been propped up by youth and vigor then fell into disarray at the end. On the other hand, Cash's youthful antics are well-known, but he eventually renounced them for a life of virtue, and his later work seems to have been just as good (if not better) than his earlier. This is due, I think, to the fact that he corralled his dissipation in middle age. Millay did not, and her work seems to have suffered from this, though I am no expert on her work. Cash's happiness at the end of his life is plain; Millay's life did not end very happily. (There may also be something to Cash's being raised by devout Christian parents whereas Millay was not. Cash's wife, June Carter, also strikes me as more virtuous, perhaps because more stubborn, than Millay's husband, Eugen Boissevain.)

Now I think it is possible for Millay to have written Christian poetry without having been a Christian herself. Her poetry does contain Christian symbolism and themes, and the poem Willard cites ("Feast") seems to be evidence of this. So she may be a Christian poet in that respect. I would prefer to say that her poetry is Christian while she herself may not have been. (Note that her middle name, "St. Vincent," is a reference to the hospital where she was born. Many of her close friends called her "Vincent" or "Vince.")

Milford's biography, by the way, was a good read, but she seemed to commit what C. S. Lewis called the "personal heresy" quite a bit: the clue to understanding Millay's poetry is to understand part of her biography. I disagree with this principle, but that's for another day.

Scientists Talking about Ethics

It usually doesn't provide sound results. Consider, for example, an excerpt of an editorial from the recent Science, ominously titled "Twilight for the Enlightenment?"

Finally, certain kinds of science are now proscribed on what amount to religious grounds. Stem cell research is said by its opponents to pose a "moral dilemma." Yet this well-advertised dilemma does not arise from a confrontation between science and ethical universals. Instead, the objections arise from a particular belief about what constitutes a human life: a belief held by certain religions but not by others. Some researchers, eager to resolve the problem, seek to derive stem cells by techniques that might finesse the controversy. But the claim that the stem cell "dilemma" rests on universal values is a false claim, and for society to accept it to obtain transitory political relief would bring church and state another step closer.

It's difficult to determine the exact target of this paragraph, or what the objectionable statements the author has in mind are. But a few things are clear. The author thinks that a proposition expresses an "ethical universal" only if it is believed by all people. This is false. A statement expressing a universal (or objective) fact about ethics is either true or false regardless of who believes it. It is similar to the universal law of gravity. The law of gravity is still universally valid even if not everyone believes it to be true. The same goes for ethical facts.

Our author ignores this point when he states that objections to stem-cell research (presumably of the embryonic kind) "arise from a particular belief about what constitutes a human life: a belief held by certain religions but not by others." But if there is a fact of the matter about what a human being is, then a human being will have certain properties regardless of whether everyone believes that human beings have those properties.

The author also suggests that these universal facts of ethics can only be tenably held by religious people. This is also false. Many facts of ethics can be known apart from the special revelation of a religion. For example, one does not need to believe in the veracity of the Bible in order to know that kindness is a virtue, not a vice. Whether or not the ethical facts relevant to the debate over stem-cell research fall into this category is an open question, but one should not assume that objections to embryonic stem-cell research must be made on religious grounds. Realizing this obviates the worry that agreeing with objections to stem-cell research legitimizes the position of "the church." (One should also note the assumption that science is part of the state. Since when is science identifiable with the state?)

Scientists often claim that philosophers or theologians wrongly impinge upon scientific territory and make pronouncements about science without being qualified to do so. Since the problem is a lack of qualification, it is just as wrong for a scientist to speak about matters of ethics when they are not qualified to do so, and in light of the basic mistakes noted above, the author of the Science editorial is clearly not qualified to speak about ethics.

Lives Well Spent

There has been a lot to think about recently. The imminent passings of Terry Schiavo, Pope John Paul II, and my sinful self (Forgiveness Sunday ... yes YOU ALL celebrate Easter on the wrong date) have been on my mind for at least the last two weeks. So much has been said so well, that I will not pretend to have anything to add, specifically on the life of the Pontiff, who surely falls in the short list of greatest men of this century, and perhaps the Greatest Christian Leader my generation will see. [[On that note, I would be interested to hear the personal reactions of my evangelical friends: sad event, happy event, etc.]]

Ran On. Back to subject. Because this has been on my mind, I was surprised yesterday to awake with great joyful anticipation. I was able to relax and have more joy playing with my daughter than I think I have experienced in at least two months. (This is not counting the screaming fit that I was in charge of at 4:30 a.m.)

Today my Beloved and I explored the very large park behind our home, to a greater extent than we have done before. It was a sublime day: idyllic spring weather. High clouds, stunning deep blue, smell of recent rain, slightly muddy trails, clear air, distant sea, song birds, soaring hawks, bees, wildflowers. Hills. I got to hike 2 miles longer than the others (we forgot about the car ... don't ask), and it gave me a chance to think in the way that is natural to me.

It is my goal as a father, and eventually will be as a teacher, to teach others how to die well. To do this one must have a dual approach: to teach how to live, and to hold up as models those who have also died well.

For the Christian, dying is the beginning of life. Dying is the opening of our eyes and soul. It opens to us the Undiscovered Country. If it is life actualized, then by learning life we will prepare ourselves for it. But this is where things get confusing.

The one element that is of course the most important and least mentioned is that to live one must die. Here, I realized, is the mystery of Christian teaching on life. Here is why those who demand life for themselves have produced a "culture of death", while those who demand the acceptance of death to themselves produce the "culture of life." The Christian does not fear death because he has truly died already in baptism.

This is why baptism MUST be sacramental, and why it MUST initiate entry into the covenantal life of the Church.

The Christian parent teaches their children about life by showing them the true meaning of death, and the waking death that is called suffering. In the Antiochian Vespers, Psalm 104 is always read at the beginning of prayer. I quote the last half of the Chapter:

19. He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth his going down.
20. Thou makest darkness, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forest do creep forth.
21. The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their meat from God.
22. The sun ariseth, they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens.
23. Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening.
24. O LORD, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches.
25. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable, both small and great beasts.
26. There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
27. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.
28. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
29. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.
31. The glory of the LORD shall endure for ever: the LORD shall rejoice in his works.
32. He looketh on the earth, and it trembleth: he toucheth the hills, and they smoke.
33. I will sing unto the LORD as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.
34. My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD.
35. Let the sinners be consumed out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless thou the LORD, O my soul. Praise ye the LORD.


There is too much here to provide a detailed analysis--and I have used too many words to say too little already, but note especially v. 29 to the end. All die, and then they are created by His Spirit. My mind stuck here for the entireity of the service.

The Sustainer of Life, and Lord of Creation brooks no rival in any corner of His creation: not the Leviathan in the sea, nor sin in the heart of man.

Die, O my soul. Repent, Die, and Live.

"Normal Activities"

Legendary rocker Neil Young underwent minimally invasive brain surgery on Tuesday. His agent released a statement:

"The procedure corrected the problem and has been characterized as a complete success with a total recovery. And resumption of normal activities by the 59-year-old rock legend is predicted for the near future."

My question: Exactly what are "normal activities" for a 59-year-old rock legend?

Also, Brian Kruse, if you're out there, I hope you weren't too panicked about Neil's surgery. You were almost apoplectic when he cut his finger and had to cancel a few shows.

"Clinging to Life"

This is the description of the Bishop of Rome given by CNN. I beg to differ. John Paul II is not clinging to life. He is about to enter the larger life, as some Christians say. For many people living today, death is the great evil to be avoided at any costs. I think that is why people would rather live longer than live well. The Bishop of Rome does not, I think, share that delusion.

I've always liked D. L. Moody's remark about his death, which has been paraphrased so often, it's difficult to know his exact words, but they were something very close to this:

"Someday you will read in the papers that D. L. Moody of East Northfield is dead. Don’t you believe a word of it! At that moment I shall be more alive than I am now; I shall have gone up higher, that is all, out of this old clay tenement into a house that is immortal -- a body that death cannot touch, that sin cannot taint; a body fashioned like unto His glorious body."

A Good Day

(1) I finished refinishing some furniture for the apartment. For some reason, doing manual labor is really appealing to me after spending ten weeks doing nothing but mental work.
(2) I restarted the Republic translation.

Greek Font

I've started using the SP Ionic font for Greek. If the Gr. is jibberish in the post below, that probably means you don't have SP Ionic installed. You can get it for free here.

Republic 330a7-b7

"Well, in which way, Cephalus," I said, "did you gain the most -- did you inherit it or did you earn it?"
"What's this 'did I earn?' Socrates," he said. "As a businessman, I have come to be somewhere between my grandfather and father. For my grandfather and namesake, having inherited something close to what I now have earned, made it many times larger. But Lysanias my father thereafter made less of the same substance. I would be pleased if I did not leave to my sons here less than this, but, even in some small way, more than what I inherited."

[I'm trying to use "well" to capture the force of de/. Gr. has the word po/terov, which means "whether of the two?" It's not really translatable, but I've rendered it "in which way." "The most" is really "the more" (ta\ plei/wn), but it is bad English to use the comparative to say "gain the more."

Adam offers the translation "Do you want to know what I acquired, Socrates?" He gives some reasons for it, but I'm an inadequate judge of whether he or, say, Shorey or Bloom is correct. The translations of the latter two invoke the sense of derision, which Adam rejects, in C.'s question.

"Businessman" is a translation of xrhmatisth\v. It may be a bit anachronistic, if one takes it to imply the existence of a free market economy. But LSJ also offer "a man in business." (It's odd that "man of business" is offered in the Middle Liddell but not in LSJ, is it not?) Strictly speaking, it is in the nominative case, but I've made it the object of an adverbial phrase in order to make it sound right in English.

The verb "have come to be" is ge/gona, from gi/gnomai, whose usual meaning is to be born or to come into being. It's meaning here seems to be the latter, though the former is not completely absent.

A question: Is it worthwhile to examine the fact that C. was somewhere in between his father and grandfather? Chronologically, he is not in between them but after them.

See Shorey for the bit about the namesake. The fact that grandsons often took on their grandfather's name leads to a bit of confusion about who's who in Plato's world. For example, exactly how many Critias's are there in Plato's world? See this book for a detailed hypothesis.

I'm not quite sure how to translate the phrase I translated "I would be pleased if I did not leave . . . less than this." In Gr. it's e)gw de\ a)gapw= e)a\n mh\ e)la/ttw katali/pw tou/toisin. The difficulty is deciding whether or not a)gapw= is subjunctive or not. I think it is because it's followed by e'an, but then one would expect katali/pw in the indicative. It's not; it's aorist. So I'm probably missing something.

"My sons here" is only tou/toisin, "these," in the Gr., but it seems clear that he's referring to someone close by, and since the discussion is about inheritance, his sons are the obvious choice.

In the sequel, we find out why S. asks C. about how he got his money.]

Cheapskates or Profligates?

I found out today that the department in which I am a graduate student is no longer providing gratis copies of the books required for the classes for which grad students TA. We don't have to buy our own copies, but we do have to turn in the copies given to us at the end of the term. The reason given was that publishers are refusing to provide desk copies each term, especially if the same text was used last term or even last year.

I suppose I shouldn't complain about not getting free books since I am not entitled to the books. But at the same time, it seems that if publishers have a policy of distributing a certain number of desk copies per number of students enrolled in the class, then the publishers should fulfill that promise. It's another question of whether the department should pass on the books to the TAs. I suppose it doesn't have to. However, I am dreading the state of affairs that will probably be realized in a few terms when I am given TA copies that have underlining and notes in pen, indiscriminate highlighting, and (gasp!) broken spines.

When I think about it, I'm glad that the only thing I really have to complain about is not getting free books. I have a beautiful wife, a nice place to live, employment, time to read Plato, freedom of religion, etc., etc.

A Theological Discovery?

"There are no sacraments on the Internet."

So says the Catholic bishop's conference of Peru. I find it a bit disheartening that the bishops needed to issue a statement on this point. Did someone actually think there were sacraments on the Internet?

Attempting to Teach Ethics

Here is a summary of a recent exchange I had with a student in one of my ethics classes.

Me: Should people in the business world be honest even though it is thought that a majority of businessmen lie?

Student: Well, they won't make as much money that way.

Me: Perhaps, but ought they to tell the truth?

Student: Well, they probably don't want to tell the truth.

Me: Maybe, but ought they to tell the truth?

Student: Well, they might get caught if they lie.

Me: Yes, but ought they to tell the truth?

Student: Well, everyone else is pretty much lying most of the time.

Me: Yes, but ought they to tell the truth?

Student: Well, I'm not sure I would tell the truth.

Me: Yes, but ought you to tell the truth (putting aside extenuating circumstances)?

Student: I guess I don't get what you mean by "ought."

Me: I mean something you should do because it's the right thing to do.

Student: Well, what's right for some is different from what's right for others.

Me: Do you have a car?

Student: Yes.

Me: Would mind if another student in this class damaged your car?

Student: No.

Me: What if they think it's right for them to damage your car?

Student: Well, I don't think it's right.

Me: But what if they do?

Student: Well, I don't think it's right.

Me: So, you think that everyone should do what you think is right.

A few observations about this. (1) This student really had no clear conception of "ought." This seems to be worse than someone who just won't admit that they know they ought to do something but don't want to do it. He honestly seemed to lack a clear idea of what I meant when I asked him if he ought to do something. (2) At this point in the student's life, it will be nearly impossible to teach him ethics. Of course, I can "teach" him different ethical systems such as egoism, utilitarianism, or deontology, but he will probably never learn to be ethical.

Forgiveness

"For if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions" (Matt 6.14-15, from the gospel reading for the last Sunday before Lent, also called Forgiveness Sunday, in the eastern rite of the Orthodox Church).

I have lately wondered how the story of Genesis would change if Adam and Eve had forgiven each other on that tragic day in the garden. Would we still read the report of a son who murdered his brother out of envy and lied to cover it up? Would we hear of a world wiped out by floodwaters because of the wickedness of its inhabitants?

Perhaps Adam and Eve eventually did forgive each other. Perhaps they never learned how to forgive, nor how to ask forgiveness. There are surely many people today who do not know these things, including (all too frequently) myself. We all know how to apologize, of course; most of us learn how to say "I'm sorry" from an early age. But an apology of this sort often means something quite different than the words "will you forgive me." This can be illustrated by the ease with which "I'm sorry" is so often followed by "but..."

Imagine Adam and Eve apologizing to God:
"I'm sorry, God, but I just noticed that I was naked, and the woman..."
"I'm sorry, God, but that snake..."

There is another perspective: that of the person on the receiving end of the apology. In my own life I have observed that I have difficulty responding to an apology, sometimes even a simple one with no buts. Usually I say something like “it’s okay” when, in fact, “it” is not okay. All of this language is far too vague; it has the appearance of exonerating the sinner while implicitly justifying the sin.

The world we live in is no Eden, but what might it be like if God had simply said “it’s okay”? And – for our own sake and the sake of those around us – we ought to ask what the world might be like if Adam and Eve had asked for forgiveness rather than transferring their guilt to another. It is clear, at any rate, why they suddenly found a world of distance between themselves, and why they chose to hide from God. To say “will you forgive me” is to freely admit one’s guilt, to open oneself to another. Such vulnerability is difficult, which is probably why we tend to prefer apologizing to asking forgiveness.

So what has all this to do with Matt 6.14-15? It seems to me that this image of a stern father who offers only conditional forgiveness disappears when one considers the condition behind the condition. The person who is unwilling to forgive another quite likely avoids or refuses asking forgiveness of others. How can someone who does not admit their failures and shortcomings to another person sincerely ask forgiveness of God?

“…my king and Lord, let me look at my own sins and refrain from judging others: For you are bless'd unto ages of ages, amen” (from the prayer of St. Ephrem).

Quotable

Working one of my day jobs as editor for a philosophy journal, I came across the following sentence.

Membership in the Trinity has its privileges.

A Byzantine Speaks

From Procopius, Buildings:

[Describing a person entering Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, after a lengthy description of the building and its construction]
"And whenever anyone enters this church to pray, he understands at once that it is not by any human power or skill, but by the influence of God, that this work has been so finely turned. And so his mind is lifted up toward God and exalted, believing that He cannot be far away, but must especially love to dwell in this place which He has chosen. And this does not happen only to one who sees the church for the first time, but the same experience comes to him on each successive occassion, as thought the sight were new each time."

I have two thoughts on this. The first is academic: Procopius is emphasizing the Emperor's nearness to God throughout the Buildings. It is the essence of his project, and as Hagia Sophia is the starting point for his work, and is also a divinily appointed building by a divinely appointed Emperor, when we notice the nearness of God, in Hagia Sophia, we are noticing His nearness through the medium of the Emperor who has in a very real sense, revealed Him for us. I'm going to leave that as it is.

The second is to believe that perhaps this statement could also be taken at face value, as a genuine expression of piety; Byzantine rhetoric does not exclude personal sentiment. The sentiment expressed is not one usually associated with "late antique religion;" it would not be used in a paradigm for Byzantine Christianity, and her emphasis on the nearness of God (I don't think hardly anyone in the history department has ever thought to emphasize that). Perhaps it should.

Of course, a Western Christian today who walked into the same building would probably be overwhelmed by God's distance. Which is more important to have as the basic paradigm -- to insist on God the ineffable, or Jesus lover of my soul? In any case it is refreshing to enter, if only for a moment, into the world of a man who is inspired anew by God's nearness, as we search desparately for something to awaken in us a sense of God's otherness. A balance must be struck, for in the end this is simply the mystery of the incarnation revisited. Jesus who wept with women at the death of his friend is the same rider on the pale horse with all hell following behind him. However, I think that the divinity of Christ (and therefore the absolute holiness of God) must be the starting point: the incarnation is no mystery if you start (theologically) with the babe already born.

The Manolo

At right, on the list of places to burgle, you will find a link to the Manolo. I first linked to Manolo because of his lighthearted comments about fashion, particularly shoes. Recently, prompted by Martha Stewart's implicit endorsement of the poncho, Manolo posted the following:

The Manolo No-Poncho Pledge
"I (insert the name here) swear on the head and/or the grave of my sainted granny to never wear, buy, knit, crochet, or fashion from the old throw rug, the poncho. And if the poncho it is given to me as the gift, I will graciously thank the giver and then, when she has left, put the poncho into the dog's bed and/or the trash as the case she may be. Only by doing these things faithfully can I help end for the good of the humanity the scourge that is the poncho. So help me Manolo."

Then I noticed Manolo is reading the greatest mystery novel ever written.

And also, Manolo posted some very thoughtful comments on modesty and what is valuable and worth pursuing in life.

I promise a post on Plato/Republic soon.

Blog Game & New Burglar

Everybody:

There is a new blogger here at the Bourgeois Burglars. Please welcome Le Complice, whose first post is below.

Perhaps you've seen this circulating in the blogosphere. I've decided to play.

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the "coolest" book you can find. Do what’'s actually next to you.

Well, there are a number of books next to me, but this is the one I grabbed (and, okay, I was motivated a bit by the "cool" factor).

He [the "Guardian" in Plato's Republic] hates him whom he does not know, not for some wrong he has previously suffered from him, but for the very fact of his ignorance of him; just as he loves him whom he knows, not for some kindness he has previously received from him, but for the very fact of his knowledge of him. (From Averroes' Commentary on Plato's Republic, corr. ed., trans. E.I.J. Rosenthal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966).)

It's like the "six degrees" game, only smarter.

(HT: Brian Leiter)

WWJB?

Greetings fellow Burglars, jurors, and eyewitnesses (friends, Romans, countrymen?) . In my inaugural blog I thought I'd drop a bomb, of sorts, or at least comment on the dropping of bombs and other related acts of military violence. I recently saw a bumper sticker that asked the question "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" While it is an amusing riff on the ubiquitous (in some circles) WWJD theme, it also implies a critique of Christians who might see no irony in a bomber with the words "Jesus is my co-pilot" plastered on its hull. If the results of our recent presidential election are any indication, such Christians would seem to represent a sizeable number. Perhaps that's why we all saw maps of our country covered in red.

Now I live in a "blue state," and I've been a graduate student at what can only be described as a blue university (in more ways than one); these things have undoubtedly influenced my politics. Yet I cannot help but be struck by similarities between the rhetoric of ancient generals who defeated "tyrants" and brought "liberty" to Rome, and the rhetoric of a President who has declared a "war on terror" and brought "democracy" to Iraq. Terrorists are, of course, tyrants; the weapon they use to advance their tyranny is fear. But they cannot, and will not be overcome by machine guns, tanks, and bombs – even bombs with crosses painted on them and the legend "by this sign, conquer." Neither does the freedom we experience as Christians have anything to do with the form of government under which we live. Only when we recognize that there is no fear in love will we be free from tyranny, whether it is the tyranny of ideologically vacuous notions of "liberty" and "democracy" or the tyranny of terror.

I recognize that individuals and nations are often faced with difficult choices, and I am not a pacifist of the "egoistically vegetarian" sort described by Mother Maria (recently canonized Orthodox saint). But in the midst of all the rhetoric that is flying around, a crucial message has been obscured. As members of a church that claims as its Lord and Savior a man who was ignominiously put to death on a Roman cross, we are faced with a choice: we can take up our cross, or we can take up the hammer and nails.

Checkpoint Tragedy

The death of Nicola Calipari (the Italian secret service agent) while helping Giuliana Sgrena (the kidnapped Italian journalist) get out of Iraq is horrible.

That said, the comments by Sgrena in utter rejection of the U.S. explanation (that they were speeding despite US soldiers yelling and flashing lights) to me seems a bit disingenuous:


"Sgrena, who works for the communist daily Il Manifesto, did not rule out that she was targeted, saying the United States likely disapproved of Italy's methods to secure her release, although she did not elaborate."

" 'The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known,' Sgrena told Sky TG24 television by telephone, her voice hoarse and shaky. 'The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostages, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target.' "

A description of the incident leading to Calipari's death, on the way to the airport:
" 'I remember only fire,' she wrote in Il Manifesto, which fiercely opposed the war in Iraq. 'At that point a rain of fire and bullets came at us, forever silencing the happy voices from a few minutes earlier.' Sgrena said the driver began shouting that they were Italian, then 'Nicola Calipari dove on top of me to protect me and immediately, and I mean immediately, I felt his last breath as he died on me.' Suddenly, she said, she remembered her captors' words, when they warned her 'to be careful because the Americans don't want you to return.' " Sgrena wrote that her captors warned her as she was about to be released not to signal her presence to anyone, because 'the Americans might intervene.' "


Again, it is a horrible event, but this was obviously also traumatic in the extreme for the woman: could she be jumping to conclusions? that the US deliberately wanted her taken out for her governments tactics of rescuing prisoners??? Call me naively patriotic: I'm sorry, Guiliana, I want to believe you and I think you must have had an awful time and deserve all of your nation's and ours' congratulations and rewards for your bravery, but I simply cannot believe that the US is trying to keep the few allies it has by shooting them when they use a different set of policies for hostage rescue.

What seemed to me the most sensible piece to come out of the whole affair was this one in the Christian Science Monitor by Annia Ciezadlo: well worth the read. [Look at this one too.] Given Annia's comments, could it be that the advice Guiliana was given by her captors led to the US's misinterpretation of her vehicle's behavior? Could it be that this was the captors' intention??? Nah, couldn't possibly. Memo to self: when in hostage situation, always listen to what captors say: they have your best interests in mind.

Thank you, Annia, for rising above the chance to sling a fist of mud at public enemy of your choice and instead helping those of us who are sitting at home sipping a latte in slippers make some sense of the situation -- it stinks and doesn't make sense.

Go journalism, go!

A Note on Sedley on Plato's "Development"

From David Sedley, Plato's Cratylus:

There have been some recent proposals to jettison this whole chronological structure [of the development of Plato's thought], but in my view they represent, so far at least, little more than the understandable fact that people are getting bored with it. There is actually much to lose if we say goodbye to it. For by reading Plato's development along the lines I have summarised, we are enabled to understand how the youthful admirer of the maverick critic Socrates became in time the teacher of Aristotle and the august founder of a metaphysical system which was to dominate philosophy for the last half-millennium of antiquity and well beyond. (7)

The problem with this argument is that it mistakes the assumptions underwriting this kind of chronology for the conclusions it provides. The "development" theory of Plato's philosophy assumes that Plato developed from an admirer of Socrates into a full-blown metaphysician who bequeathed to Aristotle, among others, explanations and problems Socrates did not conceive of. In order for the development theory to be plausible, it has to assume a development.

Now when Sedley states that "by reading Plato's development along the lines I have summarised, we are enabled to understand how the youthful admirer of Socrates . . ." he is mistaking the conclusion of the development theory for its assumption. The only way the development theory "enable[s]" us to understand Plato's development is by assuming that Plato's thought developed.

But what if Plato's thought did not develop? What if, per Schleiermacher, Shorey, Kahn et al., Plato's philosophy stayed pretty much the same from the beginning of his philosophical career to the end? Call this the "stasis" theory. Now suppose I said something like what Sedley says, only in favor of the stasis theory: "By reading Plato's largely unchanging philosophical outlook in the ways suggested by Schleiermacher et al., we are enabled to understand how Plato arranged his dialogues in such a way that it only appears to the reader of his corpus that his thinking changed."

I do not know which of the basic hypotheses about Plato's development (or lack thereof) is correct, but it seems clear that the development hypothesis has become so dominant in Plato scholarship that its assumptions are being mistaken for its conclusions.

On Fasting

Below is an article I wrote for my church newsletter. Readers should know that the Eastern Orthodox church calculates the date of Pascha (Easter) by a rubric different from Protestants and Roman Catholics. I'm not sure what the difference in the calculus is, but EO churches have not yet started Lent. It begins on March 16, and Pascha follows forty days later on May 1.

In the western rite of the Eastern church (that's not an oxymoron), the general rule is to eat one and one-half meals a day during Lent. Meat is allowed except on Wednesdays and Fridays. The rule is suspended on Sundays. The eastern rite of the Eastern church (not a redundancy) allows for three meals daily but prohibits dairy, flesh meat, sweets, and alcohol (among other things, I think). As always, any comments on this post are welcome.

Lent is upon us, and to most of us Lent means fasting. Have you ever wondered why we Orthodox Christians fast? It may seem a little strange when you think about it. What does food have to do with our spiritual lives? Well, the church has told us to fast, and so our first response should be to trust that there is something good about fasting. What follows are some simple observations that have helped me to understand why we fast and what good it does.

First, we should note that fasting is what is often called a discipline. But what is a discipline? Here are two ways to think about discipline. Usually when we think of discipline, we think of parents disciplining their children. If a child misbehaves, then a parent punishes him; this is discipline. We know that good parents do not punish their children for no reason; there must be a reason why they discipline. Good discipline is used to correct a child’s behavior, to teach the child not to do things that are wrong. This is one sense of discipline.

The second sense of discipline will take a bit longer to explain, but the concept is fairly simple. It is training ourselves to be able to accomplish something that we could not accomplish if we just tried to do that thing directly. Let me explain. Consider people who practice something, say an athletic game or a musical instrument. When athletes practice, we say that they are conditioning their bodies. It’s important to note how they do this. If you ever watch a basketball player practice, you’ll notice that he will practice things that look strange. For example, the basketball player might stand under the basket and repeatedly toss the ball off the backboard and catch it. What is he doing? He’s practicing the skill of rebounding. Of course, it is important to know how to rebound in the game of basketball, but when is the player ever going to need to perform these actions in a game? He’s not. In fact, if he repeatedly tossed the ball off the backboard during a game, his coach would take him out of the game. Then why did he perform those actions in practice? To learn the skill of rebounding.

To take another example, consider the piano player who practices her scales. She practices her scales in order to become a better piano player, but only very rarely will she need to play a whole scale during a song. Then why does she practice her scales? To learn how to play better. It’s important to remember that neither the basketball player nor the piano player could become better by just trying to become better or just by wanting to become better. They have to practice specific actions in order to become better.

In both examples, we see someone practicing a certain action, one that they will never use in a performance, in order to perform better. This helps us understand the second sense of discipline. The piano player who practices her scales is trying to become a better piano player, and she does this by practicing her scales. The same goes for the basketball player. What they are doing is practicing a discipline in order to become better at something.

I hope you can see that the same is true of fasting. When we fast, we do not fast for the sake of fasting, just like the piano player does not play scales for the sake of playing scales. We fast in order to become better at something: keeping our bodies under control. In order to live a holy life, we must be able to control our bodies. The piano player cannot become a better piano player without practicing her scales. So we cannot become better at controlling our bodies without practice. It’s very important to see that we cannot keep our bodies under control just by trying to or just by wanting to keep our bodies under control. The piano player could not become better this way, and neither can we. We both need to practice the small things, the things we have direct control over, in order to get better at the big things, the things we don’t now have direct control over.

If we put together the two senses of discipline (parents disciplining their child, and performers practicing a skill), I think we get a pretty good picture of the discipline of fasting. In the first sense, fasting helps to correct us; if we are gluttonous, it chastises us. In the second sense, fasting helps us to get better at keeping our bodies under control by practicing something we have direct control over.

One last thing about fasting. I don’t know about you, but in my experience I tend to become grouchy, and sometimes downright mean, rather quickly during Lent. Even the littlest things provoke me. What has happened? I thought fasting was supposed to help me become a better person, not a grouchy, ill-tempered person. Well, the Holy Fathers say that what happens is this. When we fast, and I think especially if you follow the Western rules of fast, we tend to be hungry more often. Normally, when we feel hungry we eat some food, and this helps us feel better.

But during Lent, we are not to eat more than the rule allows. When we become hungry we do not have recourse to our usual way of making ourselves feel better. This is one of the tests of Lent: How will I treat others when I do not feel kind and when I can’t use my usual way (i.e., eating) of changing my feelings? Will I treat others with kindness even though I feel grouchy and mean? You see, fasting forces us to both realize that we are often kind because we feel satiated and choose to live a holy life despite the fact that we feel, for example, grouchy and unkind. Furthermore, this choice to be kind even though I feel grouchy is one over which I have direct control, and the Holy Fathers tell us that if we make this right choice enough times (even though it may take a long time), eventually we will be able to live a holy life. We will be able to directly do then what we cannot do directly now, and this will be possible because we have disciplined ourselves, like the basketball and piano players, in the little things we can control now.

... The Worst of Times

The LA Times has become a propoganda machine for arguably the most tyrannical, despotic murderous nation in the world.

Hugh Hewitt's expose of the day: LA Times passes on some N Korea propoganda. Amazing. Unbelievable. Sick. What is the primary message we need to get about North Korea? They're misunderstood. They're misunderstood.

North Korea, Without the Rancor [Context: This is a front page article]
This is an interview in China with an "anonymous Businessman" from North Korea, a former N Korea diplomat who now tries to promote commerce to the country. He has "been assigned to help his communist country attract foreign investment." Unbiased source? Of course.

Incredible quotes [my comments in italics]:

[Beginning of the Article] "There's never been a positive article about North Korea, not one," he said. "We're portrayed as monsters, inhuman, Dracula … with horns on our heads."

Bless them, apparently the LA Times is trying to start filling the void.

"He believes that Americans have the wrongheaded notion that North Koreas are unhappy with the system of government under Kim Jong Il. "We Asians are traditional people," he said. "We prefer to have a benevolent father leader.""

I'm not Korean and I'm not Asian. But I did grow up in South East Asia. Yes, most Asian societies tradiationally are and still remain strongly patriarchal, especially compared with those of the West. However, id non sequitor: it does not follow that they are naturally drawn to appreciate the positive aspects of oppressive dictators that destroy the country's economy, oppress its people, violently enforce population control, and suppress political dissent in labor camps. What is amazing is that if I were to make this sort of comment in one of my history classes, all hell would break loose. "Roman women and slaves were traditional people, they preferred to have benevolent father figures despite the fact that they had to endure physical and sexual abuse without legal recourse." Or to drive the point home: "African slaves came from traditional societies, they preferred to have benevolent father figures to provide them with food, shelter and clothing, despite the relatively difficult working conditions." I almost never use this word, because of how much it is overused, but this is racism cloaked in the language of ethnic ideological profiling. It is paramount to stating that Asian people deserve dictators: it suits them. Even if most North Koreans don't have any other perspective, and actually believe their propoganda, it does not follow that they would continue to do so given another option, nor that it is an inherent Asian characteristic. This is the kind of thing that the Times, in any other context, would pride itself on condemning. Not here, however. Why, I don't know, but they are irresponsible and I am disgusted. FRONT PAGE.

"The most important point the North Korean said he wanted to convey in the conversation was that his nation was a place just like any other. "There is love. There is hate. There is fighting. There is charity…. People marry. They divorce. They make children," he said. "People are just trying to live a normal life.""

Here's whats unbelievable: even the editorial comments do not try to correct any of the crap, they perpetuate it. For example:
"But he faulted the United States for the collapse of a 1994 pact under which North Korea was supposed to get energy assistance in return for freezing its nuclear program. The agreement fell apart after Washington accused North Korea in 2002 of cheating on the deal, and the U.S. and its allies suspended deliveries of fuel oil."

Why did the United States break off talks? The North Koreans were secretly continuing to build nukes. This is common consensus--nobody is an angel in negotiations, but clearly it was North Korea who was not keeping their side of the bargain. They shot themselves in the foot. The North Korean Government is the reason their people are starving and eating grass. Take a look at a defector, Kim Duk Hong, perspective from 2003.


Just for reference, the U.S. Committee's report on Human Rights in North Korea. This describes the different types of detention facilities, and what goes on there as detailed by escapees' testimonies.

For instance:
"In the kwan-li-so [long term detention camp], tens of thousands of political prisoners — along with up to three generations of their families — are banished and imprisoned without any judicial process for usually lifetime sentences. Their sentences entail slave labor in mining, logging, and farming enterprises in the valleys of mountainous areas in north and north-central North Korea."

"But some prisoners are “political” in that they are convicted for actions that would not be normally criminalized: one woman interviewed for this report, for example, described being convicted of disturbing the “socialist order” for singing, in a private home, a South Korean pop song."

I don't need to say any more. I wish I had a subscription to cancel. How can one interpret this newspaper? Charitably as idiotic or are they downright evil?

Coincidentally from a Catholic

Not to confuse what the Grand High Burglar has been saying (I too am Eastern and proud), but today I read some comments by a recent Catholic convert, R. Reno, that resonated.

Apparently Reno wrote a book in 2001 or so on why conservative Anglicans needed to remain Anglican. The article detailed why though he was apparently eating his own words, the decision was actually faithful to his original principles.

In brief, Newman realized that he was falling in love with his idea of being a prophet among ruins, at the expense of his love for the Church, her members, and Christ. Discussing Augustine's Confessions, Reno traces a similarity between love for idea and theory (ie., the discipline of theology), and the eternal pursuit of "truth" as such: an eternal seeking of theory. What we realize in the end is that we are actually chasing our own mind, ourselves (What am I to myself but a guide to my own destruction?). The following paragraph reminded me of my own motiviations along the journey to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic.

"[John Henry Newman's] observation (drawn from his study of the Arian controversy) that 'the truth lay, not with the Via Media, but with what was called the extreme party' struck me as a bracing correction to the sensible liberalism of my childhood and education. He endorsed the principle of dogma. 'Religion as mere sentiment,' he wrote with denunciatory directness, 'is to me a dream and a mockery.' He had no patience for vague fantasies of spiritual fellowship. Like Augustine, he saw no hope in seeking. the basis of the Christian life is not our longing; it is the 'visible Church, with sacraments and rites which are channels of invisible grace.' We cannot move through the spiritual life the way we drift through the marketplace. Dogma and the sacramental system must define and circumscribe our belief."

The whole article is worth reading.

Incidentally, First Things and Touchstone are two journals that I am proud to support, and encourage anyone and everyone to make use of them. Last months' First Things also had a good article on the proper goals and methods of "interfaith dialogue" from an Orthodox Jewish perspective.

The Turning of the Tide

That is an overly presumptuous title, but this struck me today as a significant event.

Demonstration at Iraqi Bombing Site
Over 2,000 Iraqi's spontaneously gather to protest the most deadly suicide bombing yet, with no mention of the Colaition they chant: "No more Baathism, No more Wahabism!"

[HT: Drudge]

What the Great Schism Means

It is not a habit of mine to seek out disagreement, especially disagreement about theological matters. This is not to say that I am not interested in theology; I am. And as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I think theology is an important part of life. But I usually don't seek out disagreements about it.

So when a friend of mine sent me a package recently, I was tempted to ignore the piece of paper stuck inside titled "Dear Roman Catholic Friend . . . ."

My friend remains in the Baptist tradition in which we grew up, and I think I can understand why I was sent that piece of paper. To many Baptists, most things liturgical tend to be conflated with the Roman Catholic church, and since I am now a member of a smells-and-bells church, I can see how my friend thought I would be interested in a discussion about the Roman Catholic church. I do not mean to be rude, but I am not very interested in such a discussion. This is because in the Great Schism of 1054 the churches of the East and West parted ways. I am a member of the Eastern church and offer no apologies for what the Western, Roman, church has done. (Unfortunately, many people --Eastern Orthodox included -- attribute doctrines or practices to the Roman church that it does not necessarily embrace. When such an unfair attribution comes up in conversation, I think it's necessary to clarify for the attributer what the Roman church actually holds. So I am a stickler for understanding properly what the Roman church believes, though I am not an apologist for those beliefs, except when those beliefs overlap with the beliefs of the Eastern church. Such instances of overlap usually mean that we're discussing matters of "mere Christianity," and in those cases I suppose I could also be considered an apologist for the Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, or Lutheran.)

As I say, I was tempted to throw away the "Dear Roman Catholic Friend" missive, but after a few moments' reflection, I thought it would provide a good opportunity to explain to my friend -- via this blog -- some of the differences between the churches East and West.

The piece of paper began with the following paragraph:

The following challenge is given out of a heart of love and is presented to encourage you to do some serious research in your Bible. The issue before us is whether to embrace the traditions of man, or to believe doctrine that has Biblical foundation. This study is not intended to ridicule or mock your religion, but is only presented to motivate you and your family to carefully and prayerfully study the Word of God. Are you willing to accept the challenge?"

Well, I don't think that this really gets the issue straight, for the issue is not "whether to embrace the traditions of man, or to believe doctrine that has Biblical foundation." For one, neither the Roman Catholic church nor the Eastern church thinks that they are following "the traditions of man." They think that they are following divinely guided traditions. Secondly, it's not clear whether these two things are mutually exclusive. Couldn't I follow tradition and biblical doctrine? More on this later.

Anyway, the opening paragraph was followed by a number of statements beginning with the phrase "Can you produce a text of Scripture . . ." where the ellipsis was filled in by a Roman Catholic doctrine or practice, for example, that priests ought not to marry.

Since I am no scholar on this issue, I thought I would start with some of the easy ones. The challenge is to find a text of Scripture supporting the specific doctrine or practice (1) that the Blessed Virgin Mary was born without sin, (2) that priests ought not to marry, (3) that the pope is infallible, (4) that unbaptized children who die go to "Limbo," (5) that the Bible should not be read by everyone, and (6) that the Church of Rome is the first or oldest church.

I'll address each of these with the Eastern Orthodox response.

(1) EO do not have a doctrine of immaculate conception. They do not hold that Mary was born without sin.
(2) EO do not have a rule prohibiting priests from marrying. In practice, priests may be married if they are married before they are ordained. If they are ordained while single, they are not (usually; I'm sure there have been very rare exceptions) allowed to marry. As far as I know, bishops are not to be married. This follows from the example of, among others, the apostle (and bishop) Paul, who found it better to be single since he could devote his time to overseeing his churches. (I recently heard that celibacy in the RC church is not, strictly speaking, a law. It is a discipline. But even if this is true, it seems to be a discipline that is mandatory, which in practice amounts to being a law.)
(3) EO do not think the pope is infallible. Strictly speaking, neither do the RC. For the RC, the pope's pronouncements on doctrine that are given ex cathedra are considered infallible, but the pope is not considered infallible all of the time.
(4) EO do not believe that children who die unbaptized go to "Limbo."
(5) Neither the RC nor the EO church believe that there are some people who should not read the Holy Scriptures. This seems to be an urban legend among some Protestants. In some times and places such rules were probably made by priests and bishops. But according to RC and EO doctrine, they were wrong to do so.
(6) Obviously, the EO church thinks that it is the first and oldest church.

In the future I'll try to address some of the other questions from the "Dear Roman Catholic Friend" paper. If anyone has comments or corrections, please e-mail me (bourgeoisburglar [at] gmail [dot] com).

A Question

Am I the only one to have thought that the opening line of Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" is "You need Kool-Aid"?

Republic 329e6-330a6

"You speak the truth," he said, "for they do not accept it. And there is something to what they say, though not as much as they suppose. But that saying of Themistocles holds good. When someone from Seriphius insulted him and said that he was famous not because of himself but because of the city, he replied that if he himself had been a Seriphian he would not be notable, nor would that man have been notable if he had been born an Athenian. And this saying holds good for those who are not rich -- they bear old age painfully -- that no one who is entirely decent would easily bear old age with poverty, nor would the one who is not decent ever be content even if he became wealthy."

[Shorey has a note on the bit about the Seriphian.

Cephalus's speech has touched on a number of topics that will be addressed later in the dialogue. Among these are happiness in old age and the usefulness of money. I'm sure there are more, but I have to dash off now.]

Republic 329d7-e5

And I, being astonished by him saying these things, and wishing him to say still more, stirred him up and said, "Cephalus, I suppose that when you say these things the many do not accept them from you, but they hold that you bear old age easily not because of character but because of having gained much substance; for they declare that the wealthy have many consolations."

[According to Adam, the word ekinoun, which I have translated "stirred him up," has a technical meaning in the Socratic dialect: "the stimulating of the intellect by interrogation."

Most people translate ousia as "wealth" in this context, but I like sticking with the literal meaning, substance. I suppose that's because I was raised on the KJV, which often does the same.

I wonder why S. is so astonished at C.'s remarks. Why is S. astonished at what C. says? What is there at which to be astonished in C.'s statements? Is it the fact that C. believes that it is character that makes old age only moderately troublesome? Is that astonishing? I don't find that claim astonishing, but perhaps I should.

Or is it more the fact that it is C. saying these things that astonishes S.? I.e., S. is thinking, "Wow, is this C. I'm talking to?"]

Republic 329d4-6

If they are orderly and contented, old age is moderately toilsome; if they aren't, both old age, Socrates, and youth end up being hard to bear for that sort.

[The end of Cephalus's speech about old age. Recall that Socrates had asked him to deliver his views on old age (328d4-e7). C. responds with a spirited speech -- the first speech in the Republic to invoke a god (329a1). Since it's only in parts on this blog, I thought it might be good to reproduce the whole thing in one place. Here it is:

"By Zeus," he said, "I will tell you indeed, Socrates, how it appears to me. For often we who are nearly the same age, having come together, preserve the old saying; and, in truth, whenever we come together most of us lament, longing for and recalling to memory the pleasures of youth -- sexual pleasures, drink, feasting, and all that goes with things of this sort -- and are discontented as though having been robbed of something great, that they were then living well but now they are not even living. Some also bewail the abuse of old people from relatives, and in this wise they repeat over and over all the evils for which they blame old age. But these men, Socrates, seem to me to not blame the root cause. For if this were the cause, I too would have suffered the same things on account of old age, and so would all the others who have come to this age. But presently now I have met with others for whom it is not so, and in particular Sophocles; once I was near the poet when he was asked by someone: 'Sophocles, how do you hold up in sex? Are you still able to be with a woman?' 'Hush man!' he said. 'Gladly did I flee from this, just as I were escaping from some raging and wild master.' Even then it seemed to me that he had spoken well, and now it does not seem any worse. For altogether much peace and freedom comes to be in old age: whenever the striving desires are made to cease and then slacken, that saying of Sophocles altogether comes to be: it is to have been released from very many, and raging, tyrants. But, indeed, about these things and the things concerning relatives there is one cause, not old age, Socrates, but the character of human beings. If they are orderly and contented, old age is moderately toilsome; if they aren't, both old age, Socrates, and youth end up being hard to bear for that sort."

C. seems to me to deliver this speech with verve, a quality which is sadly lacking in my translation.]

From the E-mail Account

[This reply to Thorgerson's post, The Incomparable, was sent in by the Bourgeois Brother in Georgia.]

I found the article compelling as I spent the month of January teaching the first chapter of James to an adult Sunday School class. James's exhortation to the reader is that trials will occur in the life of a believer. The author also gives an insight to the purpose of trials and the right response of the heart of a believer. Quite simply, trials are essential yet often unfortunate events in our lives that are designed to strengthen our faith. The concept of testing with the purpose of strengthening is like a young bird flapping its wings all the while not letting go of the branch until it is strong enough to fly.

James points out the initial response to a trial is not to question God's sovereingty, but to "consider it joy" (v. 2). I can imagine to those who do not know the love of God that statement can appear to be sadistic, yet to a believer it puts a trial into proper perspective by having an understanding mind. With a right understanding comes the right approach to the patience needed in a trial (vv. 3-5). The type of patience noted here requires the individual take an active pursuit of God seeking Him in prayer rather than trying to shelter in place hoping the storm of life will pass over. The prayers offered during this time of patience are really a request for wisdom -- as John MacArthur puts it, "when you go through the trials of life, whatever they might be, it is the intention of God that you recognize the bankruptcy of human reason and the answers that you might get from other people . . . True wisdom, the supernatural wisdom needed to understand the trials of life is not available in the world around us. 'Destruction and death say, We have heard its fame with our ears.' Destruction and death have heard about it. They've not found it . . . they do not find it. And then verse 23 [of Job 28], 'God understands its way and He knows its place.'"

James finishes the section (vv. 6-8) with what I feel is a description of many today -- those who want God to help them in a time of need, but do not want give Him proper place in their life the rest of the time. When trials occur, these double-minded begin to question God, blame God and ultimately reject God. While this usually characterizes a non-believer, Christians are also guilty. Ultimately, as the cycle comes to completion, the right response to trials will bring forth humility. It is when we have been humbled that God can transform our lives with a renewed spirit that seeks after Him.

Please also consider this article by John Piper in World.

DH

Darwin Day

My apologies to my avid following. The night after my previous post, I attended the Darwin Celebration with the intent of producing some intrepid reporting. The facts of life happened. Imagine I’m reporting for your favorite weekly as opposed to daily.

I walked into a lecture hall of about 200, packed with students and faculty. At the door I was handed a pamphlet crammed with 10pt font, and the greeting: “This isn’t part of the official syllabus, but make sure you take a look at this.”

“The Battle for the Future Will Be Fought From Here Forward: you think you know … but you have no idea … just what Bush has in store for … you .. us … the world … our future!” The first paragraph: “Straight up – Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either. They are Christian fascists—dangerous fanatics who aim to make the U.S. a religious dictatorship and to force this upon the world. If they get their way—and they are very far along the road to getting it—society will be plunged into a high-tech dark ages.” I won’t dwell on this, but it concluded with a call for revolution under Chairman Bob Avakian.

I will not describe all the participants – their names are accessible at the link on my previous post and you can google them if you’re curious. Suffice it to say that this was not a gathering of extreme views: these were real live marketeable scientists and recognized promoters of Darwinism.

Eric Meikle gave structure to the evening both beginning and ending the presentations, and so his comments were intended to provide context for the remarks from the scientists. It is on these ideas that I will dwell. If you are interested in what Jameson, Dumbacher or Gillespie (I didn’t have time to stay for Mishler) had to say, I can pass on some notes.

Meikle’s talk was a sort of state of the union address. The goal of his parent organization (National Center for Science Education) is to “support and defend evolution in schools today.” He began by showing graphics of states where anti-evolution bills have been proposed in legislatures, and states where “problems” have been reported. Putting the two graphics on top of one another revealed that nearly all states in the US in the last three years have had a “problem.” This warned the Darwinists to beware of the Bible belt myth [“For example, Pennsylvania is the worst state in the country”].

“Problem” was a key word for Meikle. This was the term consistently applied to any challenge (formal, such as ID or informal, such as a parent asking that evolution be taught as a theory) to evolution. Thus, challengers to evolution are not intelligent people, they are not highly trained philosophers and scientists with legitimate querries, they are problems.

Next a strategy tip: Setting the argument up as God vs. Darwin/Science does not work well for the Darwinists. Rather, Darwinists need to realize that the opposition has “almost nothing to do with science. It is really a fight within religions … really a philosophical and metaphysical conflict.” The debate is “never going to be settled with science … not about scientific procedures.”

To help orient his audience, Meikle provided a continuum of origins orientation: (couldn't paste my reproduction, here's the jist)

"Flat Earthers" -----> "Geocentrists"----->Young Earth----->Old Earth----->Theistic Evolution----->Materialistic Evolution

Young and Old Earthers were grouped together into Intelligent Design Theory (IDT). He then went on a rant that involved political cartoons and quotes from some old school Biblical literalits and concluded, “I’m making fun of them, but sometimes they deserve it.”

IDT was characterized as a modern variant of an old idea (Wm. Paley – early 19th c. was cited as an example): the modern equivalents are Michael Behe and Wm. Dembski. At this point it came out that the main charge against ID theorists is that they refuse to explain their alternative. They coyly offer that the world could have been created by an intelligent being: ranging in possiblities from the Christian God to aliens. “Are you going to teach in 10th grade science class that time-travelling space aliens created DNA?”

His conclusion involved a study of The Wedge organization, Center for Science and Culture, and the evolution of their name and banner since the 90’s. They have noticeably “gotten away from being so religious.” But based on their roots, they are really a “religious movement to promote theism over materialism … replacing science with theism.” The Wedge strategy is to conflate methodological materialism with philosophical materialism, and in debate their goal is “to confuse these two always, always, always. Thank you.”

Perhaps the most interesting Q & A exchange was this (I summarize—no detailed notes):

Q: Why is this [people refusing to accept evolution] specifically a problem in the U.S. as opposed to Europe, where there does not seem to be much resistance?

A: First, America has to deal with the strong contingent of Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestants. This is a problem because in American education is still predominately locally controlled rather than government controlled.



Some thoughts:
First, ignorance. Secondly, I like IDT. Third, why the politics, kids?

The use of a graph that allocated IDT as simply one step above Geocentrism was incredible. However, that is just rhetoric. Meikle clearly had read his ID books. However, the audience reaction was what clued me in to people just not knowing. No one in the room knew anyone who did not believe in Evolution. They were able to laugh about such people without any idea that Phil Johnson’s ideas mean something more to their world than those of Pope Urban VII. One of the main goals of the talk clearly was to convince the audience that people (like me) were real.

Secondly, IDT, which I think is the most exciting philosophical movement of our time, is accomplishing its goal. IDT precisely wants to show that methodoligical materialism has been unequivocably wedded to philosophical materialism since Darwin. Darwin’s theory carries with it metaphysical implications, and these implications have been transmitted part and parcel with the principles of scientific inquiry. Meikle (at least) seemed to understand this challenge, though he publicly gave it little credence.

Last, in a classic eat your own words move, Meikle, immediately after accusing IDT of failing to make distinctions between philosophy and method and denying that the one necessitated the other, implied that if we only had big federal government we could solve the “problems.” That combined with the friendly handout I received from the front desk guys made me seriously question the forthrightness of his denial.

Republic 329d2-4

But, indeed, about these things and the things concerning relatives there is one cause, not old age, Socrates, but the character of human beings.

[Nearing the end of Cephalus's speech on old age. The comment about relatives refers to Cephalus's earlier statement that some of his old friends "bewail the abuse of old people from relatives. . ."

Note that in some ways C.'s diagnosis of why people are disgruntled in old age is similar to Socrates's (see book 4, 441c and following), though S. and C. will disagree about the benefit of money.]

Republic 329c5-d1

For altogether much peace and freedom comes to be in old age: whenever the striving desires are made to cease and then slacken, that saying of Sophocles altogether comes to be: it is to have been released from very many, and raging, tyrants.

[Picking up where I left off. This is Cephalus coming near the end of his speech about the wonders of old age, when the desire for sex leaves an individual.

I'm afraid that my translation of this sentence is much like the rest of my translation: overly literal and wooden. But I'm pretty sure that I don't yet understand Plato well enough to make certain decisions about matters of style. Perhaps when I'm done I'll have learned enough to go back over this again.]

Eason Jordan Resigns from CNN

This is big news; well, at least it's big news in the blogosphere, which isn't to say that it's unimportant but that you won't find very much coverage of the issue in MSM.

Michelle Malkin has a history of what happened. The brief history: Jordan (the head of CNN) is reported to have said at a media conference in Davos, Switzerland, that American military forces have deliberately targeted and killed journalists. I say "reported to have said" because officials of the conference refused to release a videotape of the event and Jordan says his remarks were taken out of context. Some journalists, a few members of Congress, and an ordinary citizen were present and challenged Jordan's claim. They later broke the story in the blogosophere while MSM had no coverage until one or two days ago.

Instapundit has a roundup of links.

LA Times Retracts Statement about Dobson

Patterico has the details here, and the link is to his site because the LA Times requires registration.

You'll recall that Dobson released a statement clarifying what he said about SpongeBob about a week ago.

Our Father among the Saints

Today I received a departmental email inviting me to a week of celebration for ... yes, that's right, Charles Darwin's 196th birthday. Tomorrow night is the feature lecture: "Setting the Record straight". The entire program seems centered around debunking the ID fellows: those dastardly Darwin Challengers led by that annoying Berkeley Emeritus, P. Johnson.

For your enjoyment, here is the schedule of events. I plan on trying to get in, so hopefully I will have some intrepid reporting tomorrow night ... developing ...


Please come help celebrate Darwin's birthday, with events presented by the Bay Area Biosystematists, UC Berkeley Entomology Students Organization, and the Essig Museum of Entomology:

Throughout the week, there will be lunchtime screenings of the NOVA/WGBH "Evolution" series, Feb 7th-11th from 12-1pm, 306 Wellman Hall

ON FEBRUARY 8th:

*Essig Museum Open House, 1pm-5pm, 211 Wellman.

Specimen displays and tours at 1:30, 2:30, 3:30, 4:30.

*Darwin's Birthday Cake and Toasting, 5:15pm, Essig Museum (211 Wellman)

*BABS Dinner, Mandarin Garden

*BABS Lecture

"Setting the Record Straight" (vignettes on modern Darwinism and anti-evolutionism).
Featuring speakers from UCB, CAS, and NCSE, including faculty whose work has been cited as "evidence against evolution."

1. Welcome (Kipling Will)
2. Introduction and overview of anti-evolutionism (Eric Meikle)
3. The knowledge of Darwin's time and development of the basis for our present knowledge (David Jameson)
4. Genomics and Darwin (Brent Mishler)
5. Vertebrate examples used by anti-evolutionists (Jack Dumbacher)
6. Anti-evolutionist (mis)use of Hawaiian spiders: evidence for evolution (Rosie Gillespie)
7. What can we do? (Eric Meikle)
8. Questions and discussion

Super Bowl Blog

Thought I'd try this for fun. I may only last an hour or so; no promises.

Anthem
Fitting. Whoever thinks up these ceremonies did well on this. America is at once the most criticized nation on earth, and the most openly self-critical. Whatever we all think of the war in Iraq, we are able to enjoy our most physically gifted citizens playing games into retirement because of the sacrifice of so many -- present and past. We rage against the machine, and yet it is the 'machine' that lets us have the luxury of raging against it while gladly taking social security checks and food stamps. We must not forget these things amidst our healthy doses of criticism. I've never heard the national anthem sung by a full choir before. I like it a lot more than a solo.


Coin Toss
I have never heard a ref explain a coin toss at a major game without stuttering/stumbling through the first several sentences. They always seem like they forget what they are saying because they are listening to themselves on the loudspeaker.


(I) 14:30
The Eagles should get back the fumble. Donovan McNabb is a good quarterback and fun to watch. However, I will be cheering for the Pats. As I tried to explain to some friends on friday, I like sports dynasties when they are built by a lot of hard work combined with talent and determination. For this reason I appreciate the Atlanta Braves, or the Oakland A's. You get the sense that their staff, transported anywhere, would produce a great team. You just don't get that sense with George Steinbrenner and co. or Theo Epstein (Red Sox). For that reason, I say go Patriots: show us some good football.

(II) 10:50
Looks like its going to be a good game. And I lasted an hour. Not much to say about the game, but I took a break to make myself a latte and exploded espresso grounds everywhere. Don't know how that happened. I also figured out the greek numeral system.

(II) 9:50
Eagles finally score! They've had some pretty passing plays.
I just explained the Donkey-Clysdale Bud ads to Kelly. I'm embarassed that I remembered the sequence from last year. Interesting how much the Ad companies bank on EVERYONE watching the super bowl ... EVERY year.

(II) 0:43
Great drive by the Pats to score. Two really pretty passes by Brady at the end. McNabb, like Daunte Culpepper or Michael Vick, is a good quarterback, but a great athlete. Brady is just a great quarterback. Somehow the non-running quarterbacks always seem to come out on top. Here comes Sir Paul ...

Halftime Report
Why do they give the talking heads microphones if they are going to spend their 42 seconds screaming towards the camera saying I don't know what.

Beep beep mmm beep beep yeah.
hmmm ... that was a strange song. At least it didn't inspire any bare breasts. Sorry, cheap shot.
I think my favorite thing about Get Back Jojo is the honky tonk piano.
And ala Jon Koerner Hey Jude is my favorite Beatles song, so I have to say I was pleased. Though having the people make "Na Na" with their little colored squares was definitely the least creative idea possible. I enjoyed it. I think that is the first Super Bowl halftime that I have actually sat back and enjoyed. Libertas!!

I'm going to take a break and come back sometime in the fourth quarter.

End of Game
Well, I got distracted with the daughter. That was a great game. Great quarterbacks, great coaching, I enjoyed myself. Go American pastimes.

Cause to Celebrate

I almost always enjoy what Charles Krauthammer has to say. Horray for Iraq. Imperfect? Clearly. But good.

They aren't dancing to this kind of music, but I will (inside at least).

Advice for American Men

Learn restraint, learn to fight, remember that you will die, and meditate devoutly on the fact that death is preferable to dishonor. (Brad Miner)

Music and the Soul

Posting has been light because the Bourgeois Wife is out with pneumonia. That means I've been running her back and forth to the doctor's office and generally staying at home. Luckily, my life as a graduate student is fairly flexible.

Which leads me to Bach. Thorgerson mentioned his suites for solo celloa while back, and I wholeheartedly agree. I have the recording by Wispelway, and it is magnificent. I was worried about my wife yesterday, and the first note of the first suite dispelled that worry. I have no idea what the connection is between music and the soul, but I know there is one. I don't think any amount of spoken words could have had the effect that Bach did.

I once saw a production of Les Miserables, and I swear at one point, for a few seconds, I could see -- literally see -- the music coming out of the singers. It's the closest thing to a mystical experience I've had, and what's even stranger (or perhaps not) is that the singers were not professional singers but high school students singing magnificently, from their souls I believe. In saying this I am not suggesting that it was because of some imperfection in their singing that made the music visible to me; on the contrary these were very fine singers, some of the best I've ever heard. I think the innocence of their souls had something to do with it. Thinking of it now brings tears to my eyes.

Back to Plato. I'm dragging my business ethics students through book 1 of the Republic.