Threads from Henry’s Web

Update: The Pensacola News Journal now has a report here.

After a depressing road trip and a delay filled return, the Pelicans got off to a late start against the Shreveport Sports. John Webb (my stepson, for those who haven’t realized it yet!) started for the Pelicans and went 6.2, allowing 3 runs, 2 earned. The official stats aren’t showing the last game yet, but it looks to me like that puts his ERA at 2.89.

Despite one error that allowed a run, and one inherited runner who scored on a wild pitch (that’s the 2nd earned run against John) the Pelicans looked much better than they have. The errors (or lack of them) alone doesn’t tell the story. There were a number of very well done plays, and at least one exceptionally good catch by the center fielder that simply made the game look much better.

Note that I usually put out a couple of tweets on Twitter during the games and might put out a few more if I thought anyone was reading them. Right now I’m pretty certain nobody is, so it’s just an exercise in typing on my Palm Centro.

With a hat tip to evangelical outpost, I present this quote from P. J. O’Rourke in the LA Times.

The Bible is very clear about one thing: Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there’s the tenth: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.”

Now please, please go read the whole article before you comment on how I used it. There is absolutely no way I could get the flavor while staying within the bounds of fair use. The article is funny, and if you read closely, you’ll find some truths lurking in it, just waiting to jump out and bite you. But above all, it’s quite humorous.

Nonetheless, I’m grabbing a sentence that involves equivocation in the use of the term “fairness” that is all too prevalent in our society. Being humor challenged, I’m going to deal with it seriously. I hear or see “fairness” used in two substantially different ways.

First is the fairness of approach. For example, in a game, a “fair” game is one in which the umpires ruled impartially, the rules were followed, and generally cheating was prevented. That’s fairness of opportunity or potential. In politics, we might be talking about the opportunity to make money. The government doesn’t deny me the opportunity to start a business or to take a job. I’m not blocked for some irrelevant reason, such as gender or age. That doesn’t guarantee me the ability to sell my idea and acquire or borrow the capital to put it into action. It doesn’t make me succeed at the resulting business. But all else being equal I am not prevented from access. (Note that there are move controversial points in economics than in sports because the possibilities are more complex, but that’s not my topic.)

The second is a fairness of results. In this case we assume that people should win a certain amount and lose a certain amount. We usually find this amongst young children who think a game is fair when they win, or when they’re a little older they think it’s fair when they win the appropriate percentage of the time. In politics we’d look at the idea that everyone should receive either similar incomes, or incomes that are rated on some scale of non-economic value of their work. Why, for example, is a doctor rated as less valuable than many entertainers, and a school teacher less than either? This view of fairness results in some sense of moral outrage at economic inequalities, and often in an attempt to directly address those inequalities rather than looking at opportunities that lie behind them.

The 10th commandment would certainly stand against fairness in this second sense, but I would suggest that this second type of fairness is a muddled concept, incapable of being resolved into clear thinking. The reason an entertainer gets more money is that more people want his or her services and are willing to pay more for it. (Note that each individual pays less to the entertainer than they do to the doctor, though the total income for the latter is less. Should the doctor learn how to serve patients in the millions he would likely get very rich!)

But in the first sense, fairness of opportunity, the 10th commandment creates no problems. I think it’s unfortunate that in discussion these two senses are so rarely sorted out. In social policy, the line may not be so clear at the edges, but it is certainly a distinction that needs to be made.

I want to recommend another sermon from the senior pastor at our new church, Pensacola First UMC, Dr. Wesley Wachob. I should note that they usually post audio from a different service than the one I attend, and he doesn’t follow a precise written text, so there may be some difference.

There were two reasons I wanted to commend this sermon. I’ll go with the lesser one first. I always appreciate a sermon in which the relationship between science and religion is discussed. Dr. Wachob very clearly stated that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is not science, but theology. He also rejected the term “mythology” and I would agree with him for the precise passage, but there is material in Genesis, 2:4b through the end of chapter 4 in particular, that carries most of the literary characteristics of myth. Nonetheless he also called Genesis 1:1-2:4a liturgy which is what I believe it is. He only spent a minute or two on this.

The second point is really more important, however, from my point of view. He preached a solid sermon with a spiritual lesson from Genesis 1:1-2 without making it a debate about historical and scientific issues. Some people have a very hard time preaching from this chapter. They spend all their time either affirming or denying it as narrative history. Dr. Wachob makes application to daily life and practical Christian living.

There’s a link to the audio on the Pensacola First UMC site here. Look at the left hand side of the page toward the end of the pastor’s message.

Via Quintessence of Dust I found this post at Reasons to Believe, with the following interesting paragraph:

The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, “The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.”¹

What interests me here is that the theory of evolution is criticized for not doing something it was not intended to do. We frequently see this when the theory of biological evolution is criticized for not explaining the origin of life, or for not explaining where matter came from. We don’t expect the theory of gravity to also explain why there is something and not nothing; given that there is something, the various predictions of that theory seem to work.

In this case, the error is a bit more subtle. The quoted author is apparently saying that the theory of evolution is to be criticized for not predicting just how a particular population will evolve. It predicts general pathways, but not actual results. But that is precisely what a theory that includes random activity will predict. We have essentially random input in variation (well, not totally random, but with random elements), and it is then controlled by environmental factors which are also not totally predictable. We know generally how these will interact, but we do not, and very probably cannot know the actual result with any certainty, other than that variations that improve reproductive success are more likely (not certain) to survive.

I’m used to this sort of thing from archeology. One can’t look at a particular culture and predict what will happen to it, unless one includes a huge number of “ifs.” Archeology can predict things about what activities will leave what results, but it can’t tell you what will be there ahead of time.

The criticism posited of evolution, therefore, is a criticism that evolution does not do something it is not intended to do. It is sort of like criticizing my hammer because it is totally useless is sawing boards.

Note: I am responding solely to the quote as provided by and used by the poster at Reasons. I have not checked its context and do not know if they used it properly in context.

Several discussions have led me to think about this question over the last few days. There is a significant group of scientists who think that the inevitable result of scientific knowledge is a loss of faith or a turn to atheism. On the other side of the line there is a significant group of fundamentalist Christians who feel much the same way. The major difference is in which they would give up. A recent MSNBC.com story gives the encouraging reminder that about 40% of scientists believe in God. Encouraging, indeed, but for which side?

There has been a great deal of discussion on just how compatible religion is with science. Obviously for myself I’ve decided that good science is compatible with my theology, though not without some adjustments to how I understand the theology. My theology today is not the same as what I grew up with in any number of ways. But let’s lay that one aside.

What does the church offer to the educated person? My education is related largely to theology, and I have spent a good deal of my church life being urged to ignore some things, greatly simplify others, and basically to leave my education behind at the doors to the church. This is by no means a universal attitude. At the same time as one person would be telling me not to bother people with things I knew, others would be inviting me to teach.

But consider the difference between my education and that of an evolutionary biologist for example. Since I’m trained in Biblical studies and most particularly in languages, there is always someone in church who wants some portion of my expertise. I have even been invited to programs where I’m pretty certain my primary role was to sit with the other speakers and be “the guy who knows Greek.” There’s a certain respect for that. But the hypothetical evolutionary biologist isn’t going to find much call for his knowledge in church.

Now that is the trial of the specialist. You have to gather with other specialists to talk about your specialty. But in church, other people frequently feel free to express uneducated opinions on just about any topic, and especially to talk about the great danger of education to faith, and the one way to be accepted in that society will be to claim that your education is not important to you.

I’m painting this rather negatively, more so than I actually feel, but I do believe there is a problem. It’s variable with churches. In the United Methodist Church, for example, I have found a great deal of appreciation for education in any area. At the same time, for many people in the pews the educated person, especially one who questions any of the standard explanations of life, the universe, and everything, can be looked on with suspicion.

In my view, faith and fellowship go together. Someone’s faith is not going to be nurtured when there are no other people to take that walk with them. While I think many churches do try, and I really appreciate the United Methodist congregations of which I’ve been a member, I think there will be a substantial problem for a scientist looking for a congregation where he or she can explore and examine faith freely and openly–in other words, to have constructive fellowship.

It may well be that a significant number of those scientists who have slipped away from faith did so not because they were philosophically convinced that God does not exist, but because they never found a place to explore faith in a vital and constructive way with other people who welcomed their questions, their doubts, and even their unbelief.

I do not mean in any way to question the intelligence or judgment of those who have made a conscious decision based on their view of the evidence to reject belief in God or to become agnostic. I even find many of their arguments quite reasonable myself in a certain context. But I suspect there are many who have slipped away from faith simply because they are not particularly trained to deal with spiritual issues, and those who should have helped them were unwilling, or perhaps unable, to deal with them doubts and all.

I don’t know what numbers would be involved, but I’m convinced that having fellowship is an essential part of one’s faith journey. I’m further convinced that many people don’t take the fellowship needs of the educated seriously. Education is simply another characteristic of the people God brings together into his church; their needs need to be served as well.

Recently I’ve had several different things remind me of what I perceive to be a serious problem with numbers in this country. This can have a severe impact on one’s personal life, but also on church and social policy issues.

I recall when I argued some academic affairs committee into allowing me to count a probability and statistics course against a math-science requirement, even though it wasn’t on the list, and I have always been glad that I took that particular course as part of my own limited math education. Of the courses I took outside my own major, that one is easily the one that has contributed to my daily life.

Now the one course, and whatever reading I’ve done on the subject since, does not make me an expert. But you don’t need to be an expert to detect problems with the way people use numbers. You just need to know some basics, and then ask questions. Some of the questions don’t even require math. For example, if you read a newspaper story about sexual promiscuity that indicates that a certain percentage of teenagers are sexually active, you need to ask just how they know that. The answer can be found, though to get very specific you might have to go find the report. Reporters rarely give any of the methodology. (A second course in survey design, only partially completed though I read all the texts anyhow, helps me here.) In the survey you want to look at the questions asked to see just what the definitions are. Normally you will find that those who conducted the survey used good methodology and reported the facts in the appropriate context. It’s when the survey gets quoted that the problem starts.

Here are some of the interesting cases I’ve noticed. The Florida Lottery is advertising a new drawing. According to them, this gives you additional chances to win. Now this is one of those lines that can qualify as true, but only if you assume people will understand it in a certain way. The way consumers, especially those addicted to the medium, actually hear this is that they have a greater chance of winning. Unless you increase the number of winners while selling the same number of tickets, the probability of an individual winning does not increase. Similarly, a few years back the lottery advertised better chances of winning by placing five scratch-off patches on each ticket rather than just one. A moment’s thought will tell you that the probability of winning remains the same, since every ticket now provides five chances–every ticket.

Pepsi’s current commercial talks about the number of chances you can get. Here it’s more benign because you’re merely buying Pepsi products, which I presume you were going to buy anyhow (I could be wrong!) yet they work with the “billion” chances. If I give out a billion tickets to allow someone to win $10, but I only have one winner, then I have, truthfully, given out a billion chances. Of course Pepsi has many prizes, but the principle is the same. Here they are merely impressing everyone with large–and irrelevant numbers. The real number that should interest you is the probability of winning any prize or of winning a particular prize, a number that will be quite depressing.

Then there are the polls. Reporters have gotten much better at pointing out the margin of error, though they seem to miss the decimal portion of it frequently. A 3.7 margin of error is closer to four than to three, and I’ve seen a couple of cases where two candidates were actually within the margin of error but were reported as outside of it. Then people regularly miss (and are not told) the percentage chance that the result is outside of the margin of error. What I’ve noticed more in the last few days, however, is that reporters will note a trend when the difference between the previous figure for a candidate and the current one is still within the margin of error. I would point out, as well, that the margin of error is not a line inscribed in steel, in other words it doesn’t switch from “certain to be correct” to “certain to be incorrect” on the dot.

Then there is the division of demographic groups. I’m not really talking statistical measures here, but rather our need to divide and classify things. I don’t even object to this division. It’s necessary to analysis. But it’s useful to remember in thinking about these groups that people’s attitudes don’t undergo a radical shift on the line between 25 and 26, or at the point where they begin to make $50,001 annually. People are pretty analog. Analysis tends to be binary.

I want to mention one last church related issue. I remember a conversation with a pastor who informed me that most (I forget the particular number, but I think the percentage was in the 50s) people who were looking for a church in our neighborhood were looking for a traditional worship experience. The immediate assumption was that the road to church growth was by providing such a service and focusing on it. Now that might be true. But don’t forget the 40+ percent. Before those numbers have good context to provide a basis for decision making, we need to know how many churches are providing a traditional service and how many are providing something more free-flowing with contemporary music, amongst many other factors. Many business operate with the purpose of providing services to the minority in a community, those with specialized wants and needs.

For whatever reasons we place greater weight on an argument that has numbers in it. When I went to the emergency room a couple months back with abdominal pain, the nurse wanted me to rate it from 1 to 10. Now the fact is that I have experienced remarkably little pain in my life. How do I come up with a number? Painful enough to get me to the ER, but what number to assign? Once we have a number for the record, however, we feel that we have more accurate information. Those numbers, however, are only as good as the data collection method that produced them.

Statistical information could be extremely valuable, but it is also subject to abuse. That’s not because of an inherent weakness in the method, but because so few people take the time to take the numbers apart and understand what they’re saying. Thus the unscrupulous, or just the numerically challenged, can deceive us too easily.

(For those without math training, let me recommend a couple of books: How to Lie with Statistics, which is old but fun, and Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics. I have seen some reviews that accuse the latter book of a conservative bias, and it may have one based don the selection of stories, but I think he does well in analyzing the data for each case he does cite.)

I was intending to post this earlier, but at an away game this time John pitched his second game of the season. He went seven innings with 1 earned run, but got the loss due to 4 infield errors.

When we were listening to the radio broadcast they reported two earned runs, and I was thinking it should have been one, though it was a slightly confusing inning. He had walked one runner, but the one he walked would have ended up on 3rd base without the errors, I believe. In any case, the official wrap-up gives the numbers as I believe they should be.

This is finally a continuation of my series blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus? (Previous post here.) Part of the problem is that I have been very busy, and this book tends to fall through the crack. It’s not the sort of thing I read for my own devotions, yet it’s not my light bed time reading.

But I’m also rather disappointed in it, because I don’t feel that it really is contributing that much to understanding of historical Jesus studies. It’s written at a popular level, so I don’t expect it to advance scholarship that much, but I frankly find the approach a bit bizarre.

In chapters seven and eight, Witherington continues, this time dealing with the beloved disciple and thus possibly the author of John. He maintains that this is Lazarus. I’m not going to go into the details of his argument. You’ll have to buy his book for that. The historical data that he surveys is coming to this point is rather interesting. He surveys authorship issues in the book of Revelation, concluding that John of Patmos is neither John the apostle, nor to be equated with the author of the gospel or epistles. He believes that the same person wrote the epistles and the gospel, and of course that person was not John the apostle. The authorship issue is dealt with effectively.

If he stopped at that point I would find it interesting. What’s disappointing is that he continues the process of trying to establish who Jesus is based on his restoration of these eyewitnesses. I find many conclusions in historical Jesus research are based on very limited evidence. In this case we have Lazarus based on very skimpy evidence, and then we see him used as a witness.

To quote:

Finally, let’s summarize what the material bequeathed to us by the Beloved Disciple tells us about Jesus. The first and perhaps most important conclusion we learn from examining this material closely is that there is no major gap between the historical Jesus and the Christ of later Christian faith . . . (p. 165)

Say what? That may be true, though it would be another debate. But based on the information contained in this chapter? Hardly.

By January 2013, at the end of my first term as president, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won and Iraq is a functioning democracy. The threat from a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan has been greatly reduced but not eliminated and there has not been a major terrorist attack in the United States since September 11, 2001.

I received this paragraph in a much larger e-mail from the McCain campaign, and similar language shows up in his most recent ad. Let me confess here that the key issue for me this year is the war in Iraq, and more broadly a strategy for the war on terror. Many people think the Republicans have the edge on this, but I don’t. I think neither party has a real, long term, promising strategy, and in lieu of that I think getting the troops out of Iraq and making them available for other activities is critical.

But here’s what bothers me about this ad. How do you accomplish a goal like this? It’s a pretty picture. We’d all like to leave winners, or at least I think we would. But how? What is John McCain going to do differently that will suddenly make it possible to win the war and get the troops (or most of them) out in just four years?

The problem with this war, as with many peacekeeping actions before it, is that the objectives are not stated in military terms. You send your armed forces to defeat enemy forces. Our armed forces have done very well with that. Any particular target you give them, they handle effectively. I’m very proud of our military capabilities and the young men and women who carry them out. I’m very disturbed at the way in which we use them.

But in Iraq they have been given a non-military objective that simply cannot be accomplished. You cannot make Iraq into a stable democracy. Only the Iraqis can do that, and many of them don’t want to. In the meantime, our armed forces are poorly equipped to be an army of occupation, and our citizens (thank God!) are poorly equipped to ask them to be a successful occupying army.

Unless John McCain is going to pull out some new, previously unheard of strategy, there is no reason to believe he can accomplish this goal. It sounds nice in an ad, but he might have said he was going to take a stroll to the moon and back.

I should mention that each remaining candidate has problems with their goals and their means. Neither Clinton nor Obama are admitting the full impact of their health care plans, nor are they going to be able to accomplish them within the specified budget. That’s just my opinion, of course, but I think the history of government programs is on my side.

Each candidate should be asked again and again just how they will accomplish the things they claim they’ll accomplish. We must not vote simply for the best dream. McCain may have just “out hoped” Barack Obama!

This review is way off my beaten track, but I’ve read much of the material referenced, except for the main player, Carson’s book. I find the issues interesting. On most of them I would come out quite liberal. I was interested in the summary of emerging/emergent issues as sometimes I have a hard time differentiating liberal or just plain creative from emerging.

HT: Theology in a Changing World