This is Brent's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Brent's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Brent
Gainesville, FL
Linguistics professor, father of two, occassional mad scientist
Interests: linguistics, theology, evolution.
Recent Activity
I would also like to (unfairly?) throw blame at pastors for this. I think by and large (at least non-mainline denominational) pastors ignore tradition from the pulpit completely, encouraging the attitude that we don't need church history. Vineyard is particularly bad about this given its Stage 3 origins. I don't think it is necessarily a pastor's responsibility to teach me everything about church history. But I do think it is his/her responsibility to make me think that it matters.
1 reply
We've been talking about his in a reading group I'm in, though in regard to science and atheism. We've noted that the availability of so much information has made it incredibly hard to figure out what's important and incredibly easy to ignore the inconvenient. Thus, Dawkins and Harris can give their 'air tight' arguments for atheism without seemingly knowing that Neitzsche even exists. This kind of sloppy thinking is never allowed in actual scholarship, of course, where one has to publish and pass peer review. But for some reason regarding the most important questions in life we think we can just start from scratch and figure things out on our own.
1 reply
I found that response Dave linked to above way more interesting than the video itself (which, can I say, should have been delivered at about three times the speed. I kept wanting the guy to hurry up). I think the question 'Did Jesus come to abolish religion?' is an incredibly interesting question. I happen to think the answer is 'yes.' So I find the explicit defense of religion in the response post (from a Catholic website) very interesting. I recommend reading it much more than the video, though it can also be a little snarky.
1 reply
So, I thought about typing up my own post on this, but three would be overkill (like two isn't) so I'll just put my thoughts here, namely on the topic of what Tim Tebow and Evolution have in common. Yeah, going there. There are a ton of people out there who just can't seem to think about science and faith in the right way. Either God miraculously created the universe out of nothing in six days as the Bible clearly says, OR a blind, random, impersonal process of evolution did it over millions of years and there is no God. It's gotta be either/or. It's either side with the facts or side with magical thinking. But there's a smaller group of people who just don't accept that. They think its possible that evolution is true AND that God has been involved at every step along the way. Indeed, they think God provides the very foundation for evolution to take place and that without God evolution wouldn't be possible or wouldn't make sense. Can I submit that the same problem underlies the difficulty with thinking about Tim Tebow? It seems like we either think there is just blind, dumb luck involve here or the magical thinking that God is giving him some super-natural powers on the field (but not against the Patriots - God is apparently a New Englander after all). But is a third way of thinking about this possible? That maybe a life spend trying to live a holy and Godly life might actually make a difference in the way someone lives their life? That it might, over time, give one a large degree of determination and confidence and humility, and that this might translate into a drive to do one's best no matter the circumstances or one's limitations? That it might translate to a confident belief that one can disregard the odds and that this might actually substantially improve one's performance, say, on the football field? In other words, can we accept that God really IS helping Tim Tebow, but not in any magical way but in the way he really wants to help each and everyone one of us, by helping us become the sort of people he wants us to be? Is it possible that when we commit our lives to pursuing God and all he has for us that we might see the occasional improbable miracle happen in our lives? Ask Tebow.
1 reply
Personal side note: Tom Gordon is from my home town (Avon Park, FL) and when I was in HS Stephen King roamed the halls one day with Gordon doing 'research.' I was already a fan, so it was pretty cool to shake his hand. Got a signature on something on which he wrong 'Brad' not 'Brent,' but lost it long ago.
1 reply
Late to the convo here, but I have to chime in since there's a bronze statue of Tim Tebow about a hundred yards from my office (I'm a Univ of Florida professor). We watched the guy for four years here before he went to the NFL. Pretty much nothing has changed. Tim has always been (i) a completely sincere guy who stands on his convictions (which happen to be evangelical Christianity), (ii) extremely strong physically and strong-willed mentally, and (iii) lacking in technical skill. There's a reason why his bronze statue is running the ball while the two next to him (Spurrier and Weurffel) are in passing stance. The NFL, I think, is not as used to seeing this kind of quarterback - one who relies more on his physical strength than skill and who actually prefers to run the ball - and that surprise is probably more responsible than anything for his moderate success. (it is also his chief limitation - he really does throw like a junior varsity middle schooler) As for his public faith - that has always been there as well. But it has always gone beyond his specific Christian beliefs to something more personal. For example, in his senior year, I recall a CBS sportcaster saying sincerely on national TV that 'just spending a little time with him makes you a better person.' This is not an uncommon sentiment amongst those who know him. I do think its awful he's gotten pulled into the culture wars (and he never should have done that FF ad), but hey, its a dark world and we need our heros and as long as he's not shoving his faith down our throats, I think we could do a good bit worse than Tebow.
1 reply
Perhaps the thing most insightful has to do with those comedies...I find NBC's Community, 30 Rock, The Office, and Parks and Rec to be just about the funniest things TV has ever seen (esp Community...Modern family is also very good). Other differences might simply have to do with taste or slight cultural differences or even political views, but why should we have such different sense of humors? One's sense of humor is pretty fundamental to who they are and so much of communication depends on humor...seems like the area that is most problematic to me. Btw, some of the best shows on TV are not listed here: FOX's House and Fringe (for network) and AMC's 'The Walking Dead' and Mad Men as well as FX's Justified (and even Sons of Anarchy, though it was a better show when it was called The Sopranos). I wonder how these sorts of high-octane, character-driven dramas do (or sci fi shows like Fringe)? Also, Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia is on my list of 'Things I will Never Understand.' After watching an ep, I feel like someone has just yelled horrible things at me for half an hour.
1 reply
although I do not think Bryan did it, I think some other *might* be misusing the term 'sacrament.' As Bryan said, it is a rite in which the presence of God is uniquely present. So, not just a symbol. And not just meaningful to some on an individual basis. Rather, I think, this implies an initiative on God's part to BE present in that rite. It is a meeting, so to speak, which requires willingness on both sides. I have to think about this some more, but I guess I am looking for a middle ground between the inflexibility of orthodox sacraments ('God has decided once and for all that these are the sacraments') and a total flexibility in which the individual decides what is and isn't a sacrament solely on their own terms.
1 reply
Brian: love it. For me, you have not misappropriated the term sacrament, you have given it meaning. I did not grow up in a 'sacramental' tradition. I have always thought of 'the' sacraments as human institutions, well-defined and countable. But why put this limit on the term? Why define the possible two or seven ways that God can be 'uniquely present' in some rite? I think you open it up here for churches and individuals to ask an incredibly useful question: what are my/our sacraments? What are the rites I adhere to in which God is uniquely present? The implication is that there should be such rites, which I think would make a lot of evangelical churches uncomfortable, which is a good thing. Thanks!
1 reply
Those don't seem like measures I can quantify and discretely mention to pastors at church growth conferences, so I'm not so sure about this :) I'm on the faithfulness-not-success train with steve (and, I think, with the heart of this post).
1 reply
Thanks, but I'm still trying with Infinite Jest. I'm hoping to finish it before the world really does end in December 2012.
1 reply
Vince, I like the thoughts here. And I wonder if you might be getting at something even deeper than you might realize, like 'what is the goal of the Christian life?' I'm reading a great book by Miraslav Wolf right now (a Public Faith, though all his books are great) and part of Wolf's assumptions is that the goal of the Christian faith is human flourishing, broadly construed. No 'hitting it big,' just living as we're meant to.
1 reply
Ah, the anonymity of the internet and the ability to render judgment without being accountable. Also, this is like the best stage 3 post ever.
1 reply
Hmmm...I am surprised no one has brought up the negative (which people seem to be doing now)...that he was difficult to work with, a tyrant when it came to his vision, and ran a company that always sought maximal profits, even on the backs of Chinese sweatshop workers and by extorting money from other companies (and sometimes shutting them down) through lawsuits. but that said, I have to say I'm on board with most of what people have said here. I think the most apt comparison in our recent history is with the death of John Lennon. I mean, the guy was JUST a musician, and he didn't work alone. But I think Lennon tapped into people's darkness and isolation and brought some light into it, connecting people to each other. He also opened up people's creativity, encouraged us to go out and make our own way with the guidance he had given. I think Jobs has done the same.
Toggle Commented Oct 9, 2011 on Why Steve Jobs? at Not The Religious Type
1 reply
Yeah, ok, I get it. And I share some of the anger. We responsibly bought our first home, which we knew we could afford, in 2006, thinking we'd likely move in five years or so. Now we find ourselves about $80K underwater. Not going anywhere anytime soon. And of course, nothing we did (other than being fairly ignorant about historical macro-economic trends when we bought the place) caused this. On the other hand, these protestors seem to me a bit like cavemen who just got burned by fire. They don't really understand fire or how or why they got hurt, they just know fire is bad and are angry about it. That alone isn't likely to go anywhere. My hope, though, is that these protests might give birth to actual creative change, not by overthrowing the government or toppling Wall Street, but by making intentional choices to live alternative lives with alternative values, maybe even 'opting out' of the system that they feel has harmed them. It strikes me this was the real achievement of the 60s protestors - they changed culture which eventually changed the way people live their lives. I don't see much signs of that happening yet, though.
1 reply
Hi, Steve. I recall reading part of that book as a grad student...memory is fuzzy, but I think they are different. Noll wants to give us a general Christian foundation for developing the life of the mind, to convince us that this is an integral part of Christian life and always has been (I didn't mention it, but he takes the Christian Creeds as being a strong model for Christian thinking). Sire, I think, wants to give us a model for Christian intellectuals and talk about why that's valuable. Maybe the difference is mostly one of approach. Noll isn't interested in defending intellectualism (which Sire seems to do), but just wants us to embrace learning and critical thinking and even science as fundamental to following Jesus.
1 reply
An irony about a book like Noll's is that it is most likely to be read by people like me - Christian academics - but it is actually being written to non-academics to convince them that if they are not developing the life of the mind they are neglecting a crucial imperative of Christian life. Obviously, I don't need to be convinced. Maybe the best target audience he can hope for are people like you - intelligent pastors who can hopefully make developing the life of the mind an integral part of discipleship in their churches. Side note: something that bugs me is when academics study pop culture and academize it. You'd be shocked at how many English professors teach 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' as part of their coursework, and if I meet another white grad student studying the influence of hip-hop on African society, I think I'll scream :)
1 reply
Thanks, JCS (which I assume stands for Jesus Christ, Superstar). Good points. I would point out that Noll certainly doesn't think the Incarnation and Creation are the only reasons to take the life of the mind seriously, but I think he'd say those are the Christian reasons for doing so. There are others (humanitarian good, value of increasing knowledge, one's job, etc.) that could be very good reasons but not specifically Christian. You might like to know he takes Aquinas a model for academic work (which he opposes to Duns Scotus), and especially a model for the humility that should go along with it.
1 reply
You mean *more*, right? Those who answer the questions intuitively are more likely to believe in God. Those who answered with less intuitive answers are less likely to believe in God. Am I missing something?
1 reply
Thanks, Liane. I did understand the study. My point is that it seems to tell us very little except maybe that reflection on intuitions is likelier to lead one to belief in God than just stopping at intuition. The much more interesting follow-up would be a study of people from each group who do hold to beliefs in God and some evaluation of their beliefs, to see how they differ and how strong convictions are. My anecdotal experience tells me that those who have examined their intuitions and applied rationality to it and still hold beliefs in God might have stronger and much more specifier beliefs than those who rely on intuition alone. But that's just my intuition :)
1 reply
Personally, I don't see much value in this study. At the most it is saying that people generally have an intuition that God exists. Duh. Nothing 20,000 years of human history couldn't have told us. Intuition is an important quality to develop, based partly on experience and partly on biology, but it doesn't get you very far and very often leads us astray. Many of the great scientific discoveries we've made have been counter-intuitive. Only after they were made and studied closely did they then become part of intuition. The situation is much worse when it comes to God. People believe all sorts of things about God and their faith because they 'just feel' it must be true. I think science is a pretty good guide here, actually. The best scientists follow a kind of pattern of thought that start with what we might call intuition ('Something doesn't seem right about this theory;' 'this phenomenon seems strange to me,' etc.). Then they take the next step to ask, 'Why do I have that intuition? What made me think this is strange/wonderful/interesting?' They try to nail that down. Then after the problem is defined they ask questions about it, things they'd like to know that would help clarify the bigger picture. Then for each question they devise experiments (be they thought experiments or in the lab) to do their best to answer the questions. Finally, they submit the results to others who might be interested to get feedback. The is a great model for learning, the only self-correcting method we have, and it applies pretty well to God-questions as well. Unfortunately many people just stop with their intuitions and never get on the next step of examining them.
1 reply
Thanks for reminding me of that great passage, Dave. Forgot that was in there! It should be noted we are not without thoughtful atheists today. There are some around. One thinks of the recently deceased Anthony Flew (putting aside his last days conversion to agnosticism) or Richard Rorty or even Stanley Fish whose NYT op ed on the new atheists you may recall: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/the-three-atheists/ And of course there are many others. So maybe the question is why no one pays attention to thoughtful atheists anymore and instead hold up ignorant, pedantic ones like the new atheists instead?
1 reply
So, might I, as per usual, push back? Here is the historical situation: there were once some really serious atheists with names like Sartre and Neitzsche who took long, hard looks into the void of what human existence must necessarily be like if there is no God which, they asserted, there was not. Their conclusions were not positive, but they were philosophically inescapable: without God, there is no real basis for moral behavior nor for real purposeful living. But these were the old atheists. Now we have the new atheists. The new atheists, as far as I can tell, have not read the old atheists or have chosen to ignore them. They claim we can live moral, purposeful lives without God, not just individually, but as a society. These claims are not based on any philosophical or experimental reasoning. They are, rather, based solely on experience and conviction. I don't necessarily think we need to 'defeat' the new atheism, but its growth worries me because it signals the death of considering reasonable arguments and the dominance of guiding oneself solely based on experience and personal conviction. The ignorance that results from this is the precise same sort of ignorance exuded by the fundamentalist evangelical creationists the new atheists like so much to argue against ('have you ever SEEN any species evolve into another? hmm, have you?) They also are solely guided by experience and conviction. I don't mean to deny the central importance of experience in how we live our day to day lives. But I think that in order for that experience to be useful, to point us toward something real, it has to stand on a strong well-reasoned scaffolding. I have yet to see a framework anything like that out of the new atheists, and I think it is worth pointing it out to them.
1 reply
It would look like this: you'd act as if your actions have eternal consequences. you'd be interested in other people also acting that way since you'd presumably also believe that they also will experience life after death. I agree we have to make a distinction here between what people say they believe (which are just words and fairly meaningless) and what people actually believe (which by definition dictates their actions, at least in a general sense). I think the latter beliefs are well worth talking about with people. If we proclaim Christ, but this makes no difference in our actions, of what value is Christ?
1 reply
So, I think there are two issues here. One is simply about the best way to talk about matters of faith. I tend to agree that talking about experiences is in general more helpful than talking about beliefs since it is more relational and therefore more relatable and people are more likely to find common ground, etc. But I don't think we should let this confuse us into thinking that beliefs aren't absolutely essential to our faith in every single area. Beliefs are simply the principles we operate on every day, the directives that lead us to choose option X over option Y. Those beliefs might be arrived at by experience, or they might be adopted wholesale from someone or somewhere else, but we all have them and we all operate on them. We don't generally make decisions based solely upon experience (but rather on beliefs that arise out of experience). Understanding our beliefs, then, is important because that's the way we know why we do the things we do. We should be able to talk about those beliefs freely and succinctly and my sense is that those conversations are likely to be really productive (because we are not talking about abstract ideas really, but rather the reasons why we do the things we do). They have been for me. But maybe by 'beliefs' here Vince really meant something like 'established doctrine,' in which case my comment is not so relevant.
1 reply