Theodicy is a topic I’ve been thinking about a bit. Next weekend, in the OT course I’m taking my final is to give a 10 minute homily on an Old Testament lection (assigned reading for a liturgy, matins, or vespers service). I was considering doing my little talk on a Genesis reading, because that’s the book I know the best. I’ve read a number of commentaries on Genesis (including the wonderful Kass book) and 4 or 5 separate translations, some heavily footnoted and with generous comments. But … I’ve decided instead to stretch myself and am going to talk on Job 2:1-10 … although I will likely stray to include remarks on the entire narrative of Job and the theodicy contained within that book.

Theodicy connects often as well to apologetics. Blog neighbor Larry Niven at Rust Belt (link) often looks at what he sees as failing theodicy arguments as a proof of God’s non-existence, for in his view without an answer to Theodicy God cannot exist (or be good … or at the very least worthy of worship). One of the likely failings here is that logic is not up to the task of describing everything. If he put his critical analysis of argument to work on those things to which he ascribes then likely he’d find they also fail. As Mr Plantiga remarks (in a book I have yet to read so forgive me I can’t support the details of the argument) that the argument for the existence for God fails, but it fails in a direct parallel to the argument for the existence of other minds, which also fails. We all (I’d venture) expect that other minds in the universe actually exist. Thus the failure of the (logical) argument for other minds really existing does not give us pause in our belief in them … thus that “best” (logical) argument for the existence for God failing also might not be flawed. This isn’t to say that it means that just as other minds exist so must God exist, that is the failure of the argument is no justification for non-belief if you believe other minds exist. On this subject, I’ll try to expound in the coming week.

So anyhow, during the next week I’ll likely be developing thoughts for my homily. In that regard, does anyone have any suggestions for net based resources on theodicy general and Job in particular?

I should mention that the lection noted above is read during Holy Week on Wednesday night. So besides connecting this reading to theodicy a discussion of what connection (which I think is sort of obvious) Holy Week and its events have with Job. My guess is that the obvious connection is that God’s answer to evil (and specifically bad things happening to the innocent) is the promise demonstrated by the Resurrection. But that might be just too easy an answer. I’m suspicious of easy answers.

1. A payoff “matrix” for Democrats.
2. Church and state in the EU.
3. Church and space (in the EU?).
4. Christians and Jews and inter-marriage … in medieval Poland.
5. Heh.
6. This was linked as bad sociology by me a day or so ago, here it is linked non-critically.
7. Martyrdom.
8. A remark from the conspiracy in the wake of the MA elections.
9. A correlation … cause?
10. The coming invasion … or not.
11. Training report.

Here’s a quick question for Protestant readers, especially those who adhere to innerrancy and Sola Scriptura … although those of other traditions might jump in.

Look at the endings of these two books:

II Kings 25:27-30

Now it came to pass in the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the year that he began to reign, released Jehoiachin king of Judah from prison. He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin changed from his prison garments, and he ate bread regularly before the king all the days of his life. And as for his provisions, there was a regular ration given him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.

Jeremiah 52:31-34

Now it came to pass in the 37th year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, that Evil-Merodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah and brought him out of prison. He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a more prominent seat than those of the kings who were with him in Babylon. So Jehoiachin changed from his prison garments, and he ate bread regularly before the king all the days of his life. And as for his provisions, there was a regular ration given him by the king, a portion for each day, all the days of his life.

More than just a little similar. So … what does your tradition say about this similarity?

1. Thoughts on the “super-majority.”
2. Hunger.
3. Actual (real-life) lawyers contending for the un-Constitutionality of the healthcare bill.
4. Guns for God.
5. Heresy.
6. Podcasts on monasticism that come highly recommended.
7. Is that right? Does the left interpret any enthusiasm on the right as “dangerous and intimidation?”
8. Dishonest activists …. no really? (Isn’t that the norm)
9. Hope and change continue (to fade).
10. Demographics and Russia.
11. If you, like me, have questions about charitable organizations like the Red Cross giving their top management big 6 figure salaries … here’s some that don’t.

One of the current dogmas on the progressive/liberal left is that military spending is far too great. They will enjoin and welcome in today’s depressed economy any sort of broken window ala Bastiat, transposing ditches, repairing roads which don’t urgently or presently need repair, beautifying rarely used parks, or spending great sums on underused airports but if that money is spent on military resources, well now, that’s going far beyond the pale.

The current budget has four large parts which make up about 75% of the budget. These parts four parts are to a first order roughly equal. The other three parts along side the military expenditures are social security, payroll security, and healthcare. The opinions expressed here by myself regarding government/state involvement in actuarial activities and the need to be careful about keeping incentives in order are likely well known. Thus the salient objection that the military budget is too large in comparison to the other three large expenditures would normally be contested here with an eye to the point of view that the other three are not part of what a government should be engaged and therefore eliminated entirely. However, let’s set that aside and inspect for a moment the question of the size of the military budget and whether it is too large or too small. Read the rest of this entry

1. The bullet may still be ducked.
2. One comparison.
3. Is this a failure of hope/change or just a transparency transgression?
4. Where are the public sinners?
5. Dirt girls.
6. So … is this news to Mr Krugman … or was he being dishonest?
7. I’ve never understood the attraction of this sort of story.
8. Dishonest (or at least bad) sociology noted.
9. Lookin’ good or not?
10. Now, I didn’t watch the video, but I’ve never liked that sort of question … I find them unanswerable, much to the frustration of my daughter(s) who can’t figure out why I can’t answer a simple question like, “What’s your favorite color.” This question seems in the same category.
11. Epistemologically privileged information on Haiti and aid.
12. “Scientism” recast.
13. Blessing of the water.

1. Chicago school economics noted.
2. Discussing cure and disease … what constitutes genetic disease/disorder?
3. Liturgy and Leviticus.
4. Uhm, yikes.
5. Toll roads and competition.
6. In part, the basis for my union post.
7. Spidey.
8. Healthcare and Constitution.
9. Those who decry our military expenditure … take note (here too).
10. A homily … Zacchaeus Sunday means something else … to whit Lent is coming nigh.
11. Obamacare and marriage.

I’m going to form a union (if the “union exemption” for taxes on healthcare gets passed). Some features of my new union:

1. The dues will amount to the price of your employer’s healthcare, which we will pay for on their behalf … but get that nice loophole thing.
2. Management is welcome to join.
3. We will not take up any wage/workplace or other similar issues.
4. We will not collectively bargain with management, our truck is not with them, but with regulatory burdens.
5. Will will take full advantage of government tax shelters and perks for unions.
6. We will dissolve immediately when it is no longer advantageous to exist.

Seems like these simple steps will set the course in motion. Whaddya think? We have Blue Dog dems, RINOs (DINOs?) why not tea party unions.

Are there other perks and benefits to unionising that I don’t know about? I’ve spent so many years despising unions that I hadn’t realized all those reprehensible government perks to buy votes can and should be subverted and used by the rest of us.

1. Economics and green codes.
2. Obama-care and the selling point.
3. Why Orthodox.
4. The Hut burner.
5. Haiti. Remarks on the same, with some epistemic advantage.
6. Again, for my youngest daughter.
7. Well, the right reacted (largely) allergically to Avatar, how will the left react to Eli’s message?
8. A rally.
9. An interview on marriage.
10. Bush and the golden era (for gays).
11. On fasting.

Some scattered remarks on race prompted by this post (which in turn was prompted by my linking this post).

• In the first post, Dafydd (Mr Lizard?) points out that he says “To be a racist, one must, at the very least, believe in the concept of race — where “race” means some discrete and self-perpetuating subgroup of humans, defined by skin color and a certain morphology, but that also affects behavior and (some argue) thought itself.” Yet, in part this is in itself false. “Race” that is observable phenotypical inheritable differences between groups of humans, the prime notable example being skin color, do in fact track real differences regarding ability in a variety of ways. Northern Europeans and a few others have a genetic mutation which prevents the turning off of the ability to digest lactose. The notion that all racial differences have no impact on statistical distributions of cognitive and physical skills is a fallacy. Significant (statistical) differences of abilities and traits track along cultural lines because of historical geographical and social isolation allowed/allows the development of real measurable differences in the abilities of these subgroups in a range of arenas. Some of these differences are more significant in the modern world than others.
• Mr Schraub makes a interesting correction in his definition of racism. He writes, “And what is a racist? I’d say a concept or argument or behavior is racist if it causes or reinforces unequal inegalitarian distribution of benefits and burdens on racial lines.” The replacement of unequal with inegalitarian is interesting in the light of de Tocqueville’s observations of America. His prediction that American tendencies to move equality to a “cutting down the outstanding” to match the herd comes to mind. A premise of egalitarianism is one the axiomatic foundational political concepts for the left (as extended and distinquished from beyond legal/moral egalitarianism). The right remains with the older classical liberal notion of legal/moral egalitarianism. But, by including “egalitarian” concerns in a definition of racist ideas and racism, then it follows that a rejection (or more accurately a disregard) of egalitarianism might go far to explain why when the left, as so frequently occurs, accuses the right of racism that then the right has trouble figuring out the basis of that accusation. It also gives a hint why Mr Schraub (and others) apparently can talk of “unconscious” racism. That is because they use a notion which requires the premise of egalitarianism to work. For if one is “free” regarding egalitarianism (not driven at all by egalitarian concerns) the tracking of one’s concepts/arguments/behaviors with egalitarian concerns will be somewhat random … and therefore often be judged by egalitarians to be in contrary to those concerns. If you back off on your definition of inegalitarianism to purely moral and legal venues distinct from material then there’s another problem. For then racial concepts, arguments, and behaviourswhich the progressives utilize and promote are those which are racist and the legal egalitarian ones the right prefers are not. This, perhaps, is the reason for the correction seen above.
• Even if one accepts the definition of racism as being intrinsically tied to material egalitarian policy there is a problem of differing ideas of the presumptive consequences of policy. For example, take affirmative action as a race-based policy. The intention of the policy is egalitarian, it is meant to normalize material inequities by given enhanced educational and employment opportunities to races deemed disadvantaged. Opposition to this policy is normally thereforedeemed racist, by Mr Schraub’s definition. Yet, one might hold the opposite opinion, that is the effect of affirmative action is exactly opposite of the intent, that it enhances and sustains the unequal material norms that it hopes to diminish. In that case, from the point of view of those (like me) who believe that, support for affirmative action would be racist not the reverse. Thus you cannot (apparently) judge a policy/argument/behaviour as racist in any objective non-personal way. Racism becomes a purely subjective relativistic concept.  Or in other words it becomes completelyuseless.
• A famous writer once observed that race and racism, specifically regarding Black America, is the “most important” factor for American (US) historical development. This however, mostly betrays the fact that the writer himself was concerned chiefly with Black American issues. For it is categorically false that this in the “most” important factor for American development. Technology, foreign events and currents, and even the interaction of the multiple cultural heritages in the waves of immigration to these shores dwarf the Black/White matter regarding our historical development. Compare for example the historical impact on today’s America from two events that occurred in the late 50s, that being the transistor and the civil rights movement. Which impacts today’s America more? Clearly the former has more impact.

Finally a summary of these points follows.

While race as broadly defined (White/Black/Asian) is not useful, narrower cultural groups do in fact track with real differences of ability. Second, including ideological concepts in a definition of racism is less than useful, unless the purpose is to cast aspersions on those who don’t hold to your ideology. Third, even within the concept of those ideological concepts, using material egalitarianism within a definition of race is problematic. Finally, race itself is less important than many (if not most) race theorists imagine, so if you really want to change the world become a scientist or engineer and not a lawyer or social worker. 😀

1. Cycling and specialization.
2. Some old Hebrew text.
3. Bad ideas, I’d argue however that dignity not rights are the location of the flaw.
4. Ahead of the curve?
5. Standing against the nanny state.
6. Congress and healthcare and the question of Constitutionality. Of course it’s not Constitutional … but do you think they care?
7. When cyclists run.
8. Blogging and the truth to power theme.
9. Climate, and a measurement making the rounds (another here). Say this is right, and the next 30 years are part of a global cooling trend … why or why not does that not affect AGW/GW’s plausibility?
10. It remains hard for politicians (and bloggers apparently) to admit that entitlements are the problem.
11. A question, if you don’t believe race is a proper characterization of man … are you and can you be a racist? (Assuming that your beliefs translate properly to normative practice)

1. A link for my youngest.
2. I can’t speak for economists, but I think it’s a big part of why it is so easy for government agents to accept, i.e., it empowers them and excuses reaching for more power.
3. Co-existence.
4. Avatar as Eden.
5. Belief and practice discussed. It seems to me that the idea that they are not connected is also wrong.
6. When Dems say “smarter” …
7. Quake.
8. Same sex marriage.
9. Marital advice.

The noble savage as characterised by Jean Jacques Rousseau has been repeated in a variety of venues. The 19th century Slavophile movement in Russia idolized the “simple” peasant. Thomas Jefferson repeated that notion with his political writings emphasizing the single family farm as a bedrock of American democracy. Karl Marx distinguished the “proletariat” and their virtues over the decadence of the bourgeoisie. James Cameron’s Avatar is just the last in a long line of works of art to capitalize on this theme. I should say “apparently” when speak of Avatar as I’m basing this on numerous reviews and essays and not a personal viewing of the film, which I yet still intend to accomplish but I think I’m on safe ground making those comparisons. If the sentiments in this film, idolizing the noble savage, being at “one” with nature, and the inherent evils of corporate ethics are shared by much of the left, then there are two problems with this notion.

The first problem is location. Mr Cameron as part of the artistic elite is a card carrying member of the ‘decadent’ (recall that groups reaction to Mr Polanski in the news of late, defending the indefensible) and not a member of the savage simple. In the US in fact, the closest thing that would come to Mr Jefferson’s single family farm as an American representative of the noble savage would be the same rural flyover country which he despises and opposes is in fact where those representative might be found. To put it plainly, the elements he would idolize comprise the political faction he at the same time opposes. Oops.

At the same time, this idolization which is fictional in Avatar, requires fiction for fact is alas not so plain. Mr Checkhov (as quoted in Natasha’s Dance: A Cultural History of Russia on page 255) unlike so many of the peasant lauding 19th century Russian intellectuals, went out and spent time with those same said peasants. He was not impressed. Quoting from Checkhov’s Peasants:

During the summer and winter months there were hours and days when these people appeared to live worse than cattle, and life with them was really terrible. The were coarse, dishonest, filthy, drunk, always quarreling and arguing amongst themselves, with no respect for one another and living in mutual fear and suspiscion. Who maintains and make the peasants drunk? The peasant. Who embezzles the village, school, and parish funds and spends it all on drink. The peasant. ….

Therein lies the problem, idolization of the savage waxes a little pale and loses its lustre when it comes in final contact with the actual subject. Those savages are just as fallen and prone to the same flaws as those groups which would idolize them.

1. Malaysia and being Christian.
2. Religious pluralism redefined.
3. On East and West.
4. Oafisms.
5. Anger and communication.
6. Rules to live by.
7. Speaking of vice presidential choices and consequences.
8. U-234, U-235 … and intelligence.
9. Hmmm.
10. Demographics and Netflix.
11. Starfish and climate.
12. Considering probability.
13. Philosophical links.

The topic of torture and Christian ethics is now a heated discussion topic at Evangel over at the First Things blog cluster. I’d like to ask a (perhaps naive) question about torture. Where is the harm located? What ethical principles are being violated by torture?

Sixteen years ago, I contracted appendicitis and was in the hospital three days recovering from surgery. During that recovery, I was receiving intravenous pain medication (Demerol I believe) to ameliorate discomfort after the procedure. One one occasion my wife returned to the room after being out for some hours running errands. She asked me if I had any telephone calls in her absence. I replied in the affirmative. She asked who and inquired about details about what had been discussed. I had no clue. The pain medication had severely impacted my ability to retain memory of events. It is likely that if not present in the modern pharmacological arsenal there are drugs which completely block short/long term memory formation these drugs could quickly be developed given modern technology and reasonable expectations of the abilities of modern medical technology.

So my question is the following: How does memory relate to harm? Does memory have anything to do with the harm or wrong which we associate with what is wrong with torture?

An interrogator uses “waterboarding” or similar techniques which do no lasting physical damage. The subject breaks under the stress and confesses and talks freely for hours for questioning afterwards. Is the harm or evil we associate with that occurrence changed if the subject is incapable of recalling that it occurred? What if both the subject and the interrogator have no memory of the event … that only in some small corner of intelligence archives exist transcripts of the event afterwards. Does that change the moral calculus or not? Why?

What does continuing to say that this act is wrong imply about your meta-ethics? Are there non-deontological arguments that still hold this to be wrong? For it seems to be that consequential arguments against using this sort of drug and method is likely very weak, i.e., the consequences afterwards are negligible and are likely outweighed if there are any appreciable benefits.