Seven Reasons for the Liberal Arts—Part 1

Posted on September 6, 2011 by Jim Spiegel

The school where I teach, Taylor University, is a Christian liberal arts college.  Sometimes I am asked for a rationale for the liberal arts and, specifically, why a liberal arts education is important from a Christian point of view.  In this and my next post, I will provide such a rationale.

I considered giving my reasons in the form of a top ten list.  But top ten lists are cliché.  So I’m going to do something completely different.  I’m going to use a top seven list.  I will propose seven good reasons for studying the liberal arts—seven reasons why disciples of Jesus should be intellectually versatile.

By “liberal arts” I mean, of course, that wide range of studies that includes the humanities and sciences, from art to zoology.  So why as Christians should we be committed to liberal arts learning?

Reason #1:  Studying the liberal arts enables you to better appreciate the wisdom and beauty of God.  God is the source of all truths of science, math, history, psychology, theology, and every other discipline.  As the apostle Paul says, in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3).  So to study in literally any discipline is to understand Christ better.  Even the most abstract or minute insights about differential equations, mallard migration patterns, or the history of the French Revolution reveal something about the genius of God.  And any insight into the divine is a profound insight.

Also, all of the beauty found in the creative arts, from painting to poetry to music and theater, is ultimately derived from the beauty of God.  As Alain de Botton puts it, “beauty…is a fragment of the divine…  The qualities of beautiful objects are those of a God from whom we live far removed, in a world mired in sin . . . but bittersweet tokens of a goodness to which we still aspire.”[1]  God is the source of all aesthetic excellence wherever it might be found, so to experience beauty in any domain is to indirectly experience God’s beauty.  And liberal arts training gives us the greatest exposure to that beauty.

Reason #2:  Studying the liberal arts helps you to avoid embarrassing your faith.  To explain what I mean, consider these words from St. Augustine that are just as relevant today as they were when he wrote them 1600 years ago:

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars an even their size . . . , and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.  Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of the Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn . . . .  If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven . . . ?”[2]

Augustine’s concern here is that fellow Christians in his day were reflecting poorly on Christ by announcing false and uninformed views about various issues—issues that today we would call scientific.  By publicly sharing their ignorance, these Christians undermined any credibility they might have had in proclaiming the Gospel.  For if a person is easily duped about geology and astronomy, then they are just as vulnerable and untrustworthy when it comes to theology.

By giving you a substantive exposure to all of the disciplines, a liberal arts education prevents this sort of thing.  You will be less likely to ignorantly pontificate about a subject because, well, you won’t be ignorant about it.  So liberal arts training helps you to avoid associating the Gospel with ignorance and thus tarnishing the name of Christ.  That’s a big deal.  But now let me expand on this a bit more positively.

Reason #3:  Studying the liberal arts makes you a better ambassador for Christ.  By becoming broadly knowledgeable, you make yourself a more interesting and circumspect person, and thereby you become a more compelling witness for Jesus.  There are a lot of evangelistic “methods” and programs out there, and all of them attempt a shortcut past the best and most biblical way of drawing others to Christ.

The apostle Peter sums it up like this: “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (1 Pet. 2:12).  A Christian liberal arts education doesn’t just equip you for this or that vocation or set of tasks.  Rather, it turns you into a certain kind of person—a person who is a good thinker, imaginative, and intellectually versatile; you will become a person who has more interests and is therefore more interesting.  In short, you will become a person such that people will want to know what your ultimate life commitments are.  And no evangelistic method or program can match the power of that.

[1] Alain de Botton, The Architecture of Happiness (Vintage, 2008), 149.

[2] St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 2 Vols., Ancient Christian Writers, nos. 41-42, trans. John Hammond Taylor (New York: Newman Press, 1982), 1:42-43.

Posted in Education, Theology | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Three Gospel-Centered Children’s Books

Posted on August 28, 2011 by Amy Spiegel

I am one of those incredibly annoying people who can’t stop themselves from analyzing things even when the “thing” in question isn’t really meant to withstand anything beyond a superficial examination. Books, movies, and casual comments made in passing by my unsuspecting husband all fall prey to my compulsion to contemplate. It doesn’t even matter if the material in question is meant for a much younger audience. Having spent endless hours reading and watching children’s literature and films, I have also spent hours being annoyed by inconsistencies and fallacies of reason. I once almost ruined a perfectly good dinner party arguing over whether or not Dora the Explorer’s attitude towards Swiper the Fox taught children the importance of grace or taught them to tolerate the sins of others whether they repented or not.

Sometimes, however, one stumbles upon the truth repackaged for children in a way that highlights the power of that truth. I would like to share three examples of this that I have discovered in reading with my own kids. I am sure there are countless others. Maybe you will enjoy reading these to the little people in your life or maybe you will find pleasure in being reminded of the simple truths of the Gospel.

The Jesus Storybook Bible: Every Story Whispers His Name by Sally Lloyd-Jones—I have to confess that this “Bible” often frustrates me and I find myself frequently interrupting the story in order to clarify a point or express my opposing view. I also grit my teeth through the emotions the author imposes on God. I am sure our sin does make Him literally “sad” or “heartbroken” but this language can diminish the holiness of God in a way I find unsettling. Having said this, there is something to reading the Gospel through the eyes of a child that brings greater clarity to the startling, marvelous nature of the Good News. I also love the way Lloyd-Jones teaches children that Jesus is the thread that binds the entirety of the Bible together.

The Tale of the Three Trees by Angela Elwell Hunt—I can never get through this one without choking back tears. It kind of freaks the kids out and they pretend not to notice but I can’t help myself. This book communicates so powerfully the idea of God’s working in unexpected ways, both in the big picture, salvation of the world kind of ways as well as the small picture, plans for our individual lives kind of ways. I never thought I would feel such empathy for trees, but I know what it is like to dream and plan only to find yourself in a very different place only to realize that the different place is where you were meant to be all along. Beautifully illustrated, beautifully told.

The Giving Tree by Shel Silverstein—This is one of the few books I remember from my childhood and it impacts and convicts me as much today as it did then. Not sure what it says about me that it is yet another book featuring a tree as the main character, but anyone who works with children knows Shel Silverstein could make a book about pond scum interesting. A great illustration of the downward spiral of materialism and selfishness, I appreciate Silverstein’s light touch. I know it is sacrilege to criticize Dr. Seuss, but there are times when he is a bit heavy-handed for my taste. Silverstein never loses sight of the fact that he is telling a story. It may have a moral; it may teach a lesson. But it is first and foremost a tale to transport, and he tells it masterfully.

As summer is winding down and we put away our summer reading of mystery novels and chick lit, take a few minutes to read one or two of these gospel-centered tales. Plop a kid in your lap if you fear being discovered reading children’s books alone. Just be sure to have the tissues handy.

Posted in Books | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Is God a Moral Monster?—A Book Review

Posted on August 19, 2011 by Jim Spiegel

Anyone familiar with the writings of the new atheists is aware of their penchant for taking potshots at Old Testament ethics.  Their moral objections target such things as:  (1) God’s desire to be worshipped, (2) God’s preferential treatment of the Israelites, (3) the Old Testament’s apparently low view of women, (4) the Old Testament’s approval of slavery, (5) the divinely ordered massacre of Canaanite people groups, and (6) the Old Testament’s peculiar laws related to food, hygiene, and other matters.

Richard Dawkins infamously sums up these complaints and more in The God Delusion when he calls God “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

So where and how to begin responding to these raving claims?  One good place to begin is Paul Copan’s new book, Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.  Copan systematically addresses each of the above objections and more.  He not only presents helpful rejoinders to the new atheists’ objections but also provides an astute analysis of Old Testament ethics that demonstrates a proper sensitivity to (1) the historical-geographical context of the ancient Near East, (2) numerous complex and perplexing hermeneutical issues that arise in Old Testament studies, and (3) the moral, social, and cultural presuppositions that contemporary readers invariably bring to their reading of the Old Testament.

In sum, what Copan offers is an informed, patient, and crucially nuanced treatment of the Old Testament moral code.  Of course, as Copan rightly notes, the new atheists are not interested in nuance, so his responses to their objections are unlikely to change their minds or, for that matter, soften their inflammatory rhetoric.  For those who are willing to approach the text sympathetically, Copan’s treatment of these thorny issues is richly rewarding.

Here is a brief summary of some issues Copan addresses and how he responds to each:

  • Arbitrary Dietary Laws:  The Israelites were only permitted to eat split-hooved and cud-chewing animals.  And they could only eat fish with fins and scales.  Isn’t this irrationally arbitrary and just plain kooky?  Copan proposes that the point of these requirements was their symbolism.  Organisms that meet these criteria do not cross spheres or living boundaries.  That is, they live entirely on land or in the water.  Thus, the dietary criteria symbolized purity for the Israelites.  And “unclean animals symbolized what Israel was to avoid—mixing in with the unclean beliefs and practices of the surrounding nations.  Israel was to be like the clean animals—distinct, in their own category, and not having mixed features” (81).
  • Polygamy:  The Old Testament was apparently misogynistic.  After all, doesn’t it endorse polygamy?  Copan notes, however, that the fact that many O.T. patriarchs had multiple wives does not imply that this was a morally acceptable practice.  “Is” does not imply “ought.”  (This is just one instance of many where this principle applies to Old Testament ethical issues.)  Also, Copan shows how passages that have been interpreted as showing divine approval of polygamy (Exod. 21:7-11; Deut. 21:15-17; 2 Sam. 12:8) actually do no such thing.
  • Slavery:  Ancient Israel’s moral code permitted slavery.  This is morally repugnant and a sure sign that the God of the Old Testament was indeed a “moral monster,” right?  Not so fast.  First, Copan notes that the Old Testament “servant” (ebed) should not be equated with “slave” as we understand the term (vis-à-vis Amercian slavery).  In ancient Israel, such servanthood “was a voluntary (poverty-induced) arrangement not forced” (126).  Secondly, the Old Testament standard for servanthood constituted an enormous moral advance on other ancient Near East practices where slaves were considered property and were stripped of their familial and social identities.  O.T. servants were considered persons, not property.  And, thirdly, the Old Testament servant laws were actually devised to protect the poor.   “Israelite servitude was induced by poverty, was entered into voluntarily, and was far from optimal.  The intent of these laws was to combat potential abuses, not to institutionalize servitude” (127).
  • Killing the Canaanites:  In several O.T. passages, God commands the Israelites to completely destroy several Canaanite people groups, including the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites.  This appears to be blatant genocide.  Copan makes many interesting points in response to this accusation, most importantly that this was not genocide or “ethnic cleansing” because God’s command was not was not based on ethnicity but sin (162).  In fact, Canaanites who repented were spared and welcomed into the Israelite community.  Secondly, we tend to overlook just how severe the Canaanite debauchery was, as they were steeped in extreme idolatry and sexual perversion.  Thirdly, as Copan puts it, “the conquest of Canaan was far less widespread and harsh than many people assume” (170).  The O.T. phrase translated “utterly destroy” does not imply that literally everyone is killed, but need only suggest a good trouncing of the enemy.   And, fourthly, the main concern was to eliminate the Canaanite sins and the deadly religious practices that inspired them rather than the Canaanite people themselves.

Copan offers a variety of observations intended to either diminish or eliminate our moral qualms with God’s commands and moral regulations in the Old Testament.  Depending on the reader, these will be more or less convincing.  But however helpful or persuasive his points are, we need to keep in mind the biblical observation that God’s ways are not our ways (Isa. 55:8).  In particular, as Copan wisely notes, “We live in a time when we’re very alert to racial discrimination and intolerance, but we aren’t as sensitized to sexual sin as past generations were.  We live in a time that sees death as the ultimate evil.  Perhaps we need to be more open to the fact that some of our moral intuitions aren’t as finely tuned as they ought to be.  The same may apply to our thoughts about what God should or shouldn’t have done in Canaan” (192).

One of Copan’s emphases in the book is that we should not resist the new atheists’ accusation that the Old Testament ethical standards were imperfect:  “Instead of glossing over some of the inferior moral attitudes and practices we encounter in the Old Testament, we should freely acknowledge them.  We can point out that they fall short of the ideals of Genesis 1-2 and affirm with our critics that we don’t have to advocate such practices for all societies” (62).  This cannot be stressed enough.

What we find in many of the Old Testament laws and regulations are either temporary concessions to human sin (e.g., regulations regarding divorce, slavery, and polygamy) or God’s punitive response to human sin (i.e., God’s commands to destroy certain Canaanite people groups).  The new atheists consistently ignore or refuse to adequately appreciate this context of God’s response to human fallenness.  Scripture’s moral “ideal” when it comes to all human relations, as Copan notes, is found in Genesis 1:26-27, which affirms humans as divine image-bearers who should work together in harmony.  It is also evident later in the New Testament, such as in some of the teachings of Jesus.  To represent the Old Testament moral code in isolation of this is a gross distortion of Scripture and a complete Christian ethic.

My criticisms of the book are minor.  First, Copan occasionally refers to God as “other-centered” (e.g., pp. 27 and 201), presumably to combat some new atheists’ claims that God is ego-centric or, in Dawkins’ terms, “megalomaniacal.”  While God is surely extremely other-concerned, even self-sacrificially, he is not other-centered.  This would be inappropriate, since God deserves everyone’s primary respect and concern, including his own.  (For a brilliant and inspiring exposition of this point, see Jonathan Edwards’ essay “The End for Which God Created the World.”)

My second quibble is less significant and essentially a matter of emphasis.  There were a few places in the book where I thought Copan would have done well to concede the difficulty of some of the problematic O.T. passages.  He does make this general point at times, as when he says, “For anyone who takes the Bible seriously, [the] Yahweh-war texts will certainly prove troubling” (188).  But I was disappointed that Copan did not concede his (or anyone’s) inability to completely resolve the moral problems presented by a few other passages.

Again, these are really minor complaints, especially when you consider the breadth and depth of the discussion in Is God a Moral Monster?  Because the book deals with so many controversial and sensitive subjects, I suppose that readers should expect to take issue with some of Copan’s analyses.  (I was surprised that I agreed with nearly all of them.)  But whether or not readers agree with Copan’s approach to each particular problem passage, his book is sure to educate and edify.  Is God a Moral Monster? is an immensely valuable resource for anyone interested in Old Testament ethics or for those who seek informed responses to the new atheists’ objections concerning the topic.  Copan is to be commended for this superb work.

Posted in Books, Ethics, Theology | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

One Thousand Gifts—A Book Review

Posted on August 15, 2011 by Amy Spiegel

At one time or another, all of us have randomly opened our Bibles, blindly pointed our finger and eagerly read whatever verse we had landed on. Maybe we were searching for a sign. Maybe we didn’t have any more structured plan for our devotions that morning. Maybe we were just bored. Sometimes this experiment ends with some meaningless message like “They left Kadesh and camped at Mount Hor, on the border of Edom” (Numbers 33:37). More often than not, in a display of just how rich and diverse the scriptures are, as you can find some way to apply what you find, even if it takes some creative interpretation. But every now and then, you can open the Bible in desperate need of God’s voice and He will speak so clearly, you are tempted to look over your shoulder in order to verify that He isn’t standing behind you.

I wouldn’t put Ann Voskamp’s book One Thousand Gifts on par with scripture, but this summer she has certainly been a voice of Truth in my life. I can’t remember when I first became aware of the book, but it came to my attention enough times that I finally got the hint and decided to read it. It was the perfect companion as I worked through writing my own book this summer.

Mrs. Voskamp’s unique mix of poetry, theological insight and soul-bearing honesty work together to create a book that informs and encourages. The basic assertion of One Thousand Gifts is that gratitude is at the heart of Christian life. The title refers to a challenge issued to Voskamp to list a thousand things for which she was thankful. This may seem like an easy task, but as someone who is currently in the midst of responding to this challenge, let me assure you it isn’t. Once you get past your family, material possessions and cheese, it suddenly dawns on you that practicing the discipline of gratitude is not for the faint at heart. Life is filled with blessings from the hand of God if we will only open our eyes to see them. By blessings, Voskamp doesn’t just mean the sunny day at the beach or the unexpected check in the mail. She reminds us that since all events are under God’s control, there is good to be found even in the deepest earthly sorrows. Having experienced several tragedies herself, including the accidental death of her younger sister, these words don’t come cheaply for Voskamp.

This book has greatly inspired me to look for God’s hand working in the big and small moments of my life. As Voskamp shares her own transformative journey in such intimate detail, without oversharing, I felt pulled along by her energetic reflections on joy and gratitude. Not pressured to comply with some unobtainable “law” but swept up by the current of the Spirit. I can’t recommend this book enough!

Posted in Books | Tagged , | Leave a comment

You Say You Want a Revolution?

Posted on August 9, 2011 by Jim Spiegel

A new Rasmussen Reports poll found that just 17% of Americans say our government has “consent of the governed.”  Only 8% believe their representatives on Capitol Hill listen to their constituents more than their own party leaders, and a mere 6% give Congress a “good” or “excellent” rating.  These are historic lows.  Meanwhile, President Obama’s approval index rating stands at -21, and another Rasmussen poll found that fewer voters than ever believe U.S. elections are fair.

Note the phrase “consent of the governed” used by the Rasmussen pollsters.  It is borrowed from John Locke, the early modern social contract theorist who most influenced the American founding fathers.  It was also Locke who effectively argued for the people’s “right of revolution” when the government violates the basic rights of those it is supposed to represent.  The Lockean notion of the right to revolt held sway among our forefathers, as it was asserted in the Declaration of Independence and, to many, justified the American Revolution.

Might another revolution be coming?  In a recent Fox News interview, Pat Caddell called our current condition “pre-revolutionary.”  It’s a frightening prospect and one that not long ago seemed unthinkable.  But such talk is increasingly common on the Internet, among people (on both the left and right) who favor it as the key to progress as well as those, like me, who believe it would be devastating and a sure path to extreme oppression.

Bloggers everywhere have picked up on Caddell’s remarks, and it will be interesting to see where the discussion goes from here.  Will the effect on most people be politically sobering or intoxicating?  Let us pray for the former.

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Snapshots

Posted on August 3, 2011 by Amy Spiegel

Brief comments on film by Amy.
Some old, some new.  Domestic films and foreign too.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two — This movie was definitely the highlight of my film-viewing experience this summer. Bailey and I went to see it at 12:07 a.m. on opening day. The energy in the theater was amazing despite the fact that we weren’t in costume. The film itself, however, was amazing. Rare is the adaptation which only adds to your appreciate for the book, but I walked out with one phrase resounding in my head “J.K. Rowling is a freakin’ genius!” The filmmakers did a wonderful job changing things enough as to keep it interesting without losing the heart of the story. Brilliant!

The Dilemma — I went into this one a bit skeptical but on the recommendation of a fellow church member and a love for Vince Vaughn’s hometown humor, I gave it a shot. It wasn’t great but it wasn’t bad either. Casting is huge for me and I thought Kevin James, while a funny guy, was a bit off. Winona Ryder was way off as James’ wife. I love that Vaughn attempts to mix humor with bigger issues in a way that doesn’t detract from or trivialize the issues at hand. This was a poor man’s Couples Retreat but definitely worth the Redbox rental.

Charlie St. Cloud — I have never watched High School Musical all the way through so I wasn’t quite sure what to expect from Zac Efron. He seems to be the rare exception among young actors in that he can actually act. Despite knowing much of the premise going in, this movie touched me and even had the kids tearing up as I retold the G-rated version on a long car ride to the pool. I wanted to give Efron’s love interest a sandwich, as she appeared so emaciated and kept wondering where Kim Basinger (who plays his mother) had wandered off to after the opening scene of the film. Otherwise, a really good flick.

Pacific — We are back it with our seemingly unquenchable thirst for WWII films. I have only watched the first episode of this companion to Band of Brothers, but so far it reminds me a bit of the Baldwin brothers:  Sure Billy is ugly but you can’t stop yourself from comparing him to Alec (the young Alec who wasn’t overweight and in need of anger management counseling). While Band of Brothers was patient and meticulous in its character development, this feels more rushed and heavy handed. Not bad enough to keep me from watching the next episode, but I am not willing to make it through the entire series, especially with Masterpiece Theater starting up again soon.

Honorable Mentions — “What Would You Do?”:  Can’t stop watching it! Completely addicted and without any desire to kick the habit. “Masterpiece Theater Mystery: Zen”: It’s set in Italy and everyone speaks in English accents. What’s not to love? Could do without the adultery, but it is Italy after all.

Posted in Film | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Thislethwaite, Theology, and the Norway Massacre

Posted on July 27, 2011 by Jim Spiegel

This Washington Post piece by Susan Brooks Thislethwaite has created quite stir.  Take a look, and you’ll see why.  For starters, she follows the NY Times and others in referring to the Norway mass assassin, Anders Behring Breivik, as a Christian.  Then she goes on to challenge readers to consider how Christianity may inspire violence.  Interestingly, in her article she vacillates between asserting that the supposed violence-inspiring elements in Christianity are mere theological “interpretations” of our religion, on the one hand, and actual “elements of Christianity” on the other.  If she intends to claim the latter, she gives us no evidence whatsoever to support her claim.  If she intends only to suggest the former, then her remarks are horribly misleading.  In any case, Thislethwaite’s article is inflammatory and only manages to create confusion.

Thislethwaite apparently rejects the distinction between genuine Christians and those who merely claim to be Christians.  We recognize this distinction in every other context, so why not here?  Being a Christian is not simply a matter of affirming certain propositions, as is clear from many biblical passages (e.g., Mt. 25:31-46; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; and Gal. 5:19-21).  Even if Anders Breivik did affirm the deity and resurrection of Jesus (which, by the way, he denies), this does not by itself make him any more Christian than the devil himself (who presumably would affirm these truths).

It is telling that Thislethwaite doesn’t bother to identify any biblical passages that might reasonably be construed to inspire violence, much less mass murder.  Perhaps she has in mind certain Old Testament passages where God commanded the killing of the Canaanites.  But these are not uniquely Christian texts.  Jews and Muslims also regard these as scripture.  It is the New Testament that is uniquely Christian, so it is here that we must look for “Christian elements” that might inspire violence.  And what do we find in the New Testament?  A consistent ethic of non-violence.  The ethic of “turn the other cheek” non-resistance.  The ethic of submitting to political authorities.  And, when one must disobey the governing authorities, an ethic of peaceful disobedience.  In short, we find an ethic of non-violence that has inspired numerous pacifist theological traditions.  Yet Thislethwaite insinuates that there is something about Christianity that could justify violence?  Breathtaking.

Okay, so perhaps what Thislethwaite really wants to suggest is that some madmen, most recently Anders Breivik, have warped or twisted Christian ideas to their own use in attempting to justify their violence.  Well, of course this is true—and it is so obvious it is hardly worth stating.  But if this is all she wants to say, then why does she say that it is Christianity that becomes lethal, that Christianity may be complicit in mass violence?  Perhaps Thislethwaite just wants to have it both ways—to implicate Christian theology itself in violence without having to do the biblical or theological analysis necessary to demonstrate this (which, of course, is an impossible task, as I just noted—the New Testament nowhere endorses violence but only peaceful responses, whether in resistance or non-resistance).

Or, more cynically, perhaps Thislethwaite’s only real aim in this piece is political.  Maybe she just wants to create a negative association with conservative Christianity by suggesting that Breivik is a “right wing” Christian extremist.  This would certainly help to demonize the political views of conservative Christians—views that, as a “left wing” political thinker, Thislethwaite personally despises.

In the end, I’m not sure what Thislethwaite’s aims or real claims are in this piece.  What I am sure of is that her article is confused, inflammatory, and irresponsible.

Posted in News, Politics, Theology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Oxford Study on Religious Belief

Posted on July 21, 2011 by Jim Spiegel

A three-year long Oxford University research project has recently concluded that religious belief “comes naturally, even instinctively.”  The study, led by Oxford University Professor Roger Trigg, was a transcultural mega-project that actually incorporated data from forty different studies around the world.  Trigg notes that the findings reveal that children and adults alike naturally think in religious terms, demonstrating a readiness to believe in an afterlife and divine purpose in life and the cosmos.

This study appears to confirm John Calvin’s notion of the sensus divinitatis—the idea that there is an innate awareness of God hard-wired into human beings.  As Calvin puts it, “to prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty” (Institutes, I.III.1).  If Calvin is correct, and I think he is, then atheistic dreams of eliminating religious belief in society could never be realized.  In Roger Trigg’s words, the “secularization thesis…[is] hopeless.”

Posted in Cultural Observations, Theology | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Observations on the Casey Anthony Case—Part 2

Posted on July 15, 2011 by Amy Spiegel

Here are my responses to Jim’s three points in the previous post:

1. A Point About Logic — While I’m not sure I understand Jim’s first point, here’s my point of logic: Though I am willing to concede that it is unclear what the exact circumstances of Caylee Anthony’s death were, she is still dead and her mom still played some role in either her death or the coverup that followed. She was not the one to report it to the police and was out partying just days after the supposed accident. That amounts at minimum to child neglect. I can understand jurors who say the state didn’t prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt but can’t get how some of them seem to be saying they think she is completely innocent.

2. Racism and Classism — I don’t know why some abduction stories grab the national attention and others do not, but I am not as convinced of it being based on racism. This is one of those stories where all the factors come together like a perfect storm to create the “perfect,” however tragic, story. Yes, the little girl being super cute and the mom being young and pretty play into that but there are other factors that build on one another. First, the child went missing, then there was the crazy story about a runaway nanny, the grandfather attempted suicide, the mother was suspected and then charged, etc. I don’t understand all the people driving from across the country to witness the trial or all of the picketing. Maybe I am just being naive but I do think to say it is racism that increases our interest amounts to some kind of reverse racism.  Somehow it demeans the sorrow we should feel that a little girl is dead, as if we shouldn’t feel as sorry for her because she is white.

3. Erosion of Trust in the Legal System — As to consequences, I have thought about them in reverse, as in how do we get to this point where mothers (and there are plenty of proven cases of infanticide out there) kill their own children. I think that instead of worrying about the consequences of this case, we should consider that this is the legal system which gave permission for women to kill their unborn children. Why should we be surprised when it allows them to walk free when the children are outside of the womb? And what are we doing to stop it? Maybe instead of spending so much time thinking about Casey Anthony and her little girl, we should concentrate on putting an end to the countless murders which go on everyday with the consent our legal system. Then maybe it would be a system worth trusting again.

Posted in Cultural Observations, News | Tagged | Leave a comment

Observations on the Casey Anthony Case—Part 1

Posted on July 11, 2011 by Jim Spiegel

In the wake of last week’s verdicts concerning Casey Anthony, there have been some interesting conversations in the Spiegel household, as I’m sure has been the case all over the country.  Amy and I both believe Casey Anthony is responsible for her daughter’s death, and therefore at least guilty of aggravated child abuse, if not manslaughter or murder.  However, we disagree over whether the jury’s decision in the case was warranted.  Amy believes the jury’s decision was irrational, while I think that, given the standard of proof (“beyond reasonable doubt”) AND the actual evidence available for the jury to review, the decision was justified.

We thought it might be interesting to air some of our observations about the case.  Though I’m sure that, like us, you have suffered a bit of news fatigue from all of the coverage already, perhaps you’ll find some of our comments helpful.  Here are my (Jim’s) observations:

1. A Point About Logic — The jurors agreed that the available evidence was insufficient to prove Anthony’s guilt of a felony “beyond reasonable doubt.”  Note that this standard for proof requires either a deductive argument or an overwhelmingly strong inductive argument (from probability).  Since, among other things, there were no eyewitness accounts and there was no ascertainable cause of death, the causal link between Caylee’s death and her mother’s actions could not be established either deductively or inductively.  Of course, most of us are confident that Casey Anthony is indeed guilty of a horrible crime (i.e., murder, manslaughter or aggravated child abuse), but the method we use is what is commonly called abduction, where one reasons to the best explanatory hypothesis, given the available data.  However, showing that manslaughter or severe neglect by Casey Anthony is the best explanation of Caylee’s death does not meet the more stringent requirement of “beyond reasonable doubt.”

2. Racism and Classism — The media frenzy over this case is yet one more example of how news networks are socially and ethnically selective when it comes to the stories they follow and pump up to the level of a national phenomenon.  Would this story have been so widely reported if the people involved were not white, attractive, or upper middle class?  Perhaps this point is so obvious that it shouldn’t need to be made.  And yet, sadly, it does need to be made.

3. Erosion of Trust in the Legal System — As writers and public figures have been commenting on the Anthony case, we’ve repeatedly heard them lament the lack of justice for little Caylee.  Indeed, this is something to grieve.  But there is something else to grieve here, whether warranted or not (and I don’t think it is), and that is how this case will affect public trust in the American legal system.  Add this one to the acquittals of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson as a landmark trial whose outcome undermines that trust.

Posted in News | Tagged | Leave a comment