Author: Jim Spiegel

Posted on

A Valentine’s Day to Remember (by Jim, Annotated by Amy)

By Jim Spiegel

Happy Valentine’s Day everybody!  For me, this was certainly one to remember.  It began, like most Saturdays, with my making pancakes for the kids.  This is one of the few culinary endeavors where my ability actually exceeds Amy’s.  This morning I nailed it again, blowing the kids’ minds, with the most fluffy and tasty pancakes this side of the Mississinewa River.  Oh yeah. (I hate to disillusion Jim, here, but I believe that my pancake skills have actually exceeded his. Since this is one of only two things he used to be able to say he could make better than me, the other being milk shakes, I won’t tell him that the children are only being polite and secretly like my pancakes better than his. Poor man.)

After breakfast, I took Bailey to his basketball game, where his team, the Longhorns, played the Golden Hurricane.  Who won, you ask?  Nobody.  Bailey plays in the Upward league where they don’t keep score.  The stated rationale for this is that it encourages fellowship and learning the game, but everybody knows that it’s to discourage parental hysterics and abuse of the referees which is so common in such leagues.  Funny—when I was little, it was us kids who needed to be restrained, not our parents. (What Jim isn’t telling you is that he knows full well that Bailey’s team lost because he is one of those parents that keeps track of the score despite the “Everyone’s a winner” attitude of the league.  Not only does he know the score but could probably give you a play-by-play account of this and every other sporting event any of our children have competed in.  Sad but true.  Just like the pancakes.)

After Bailey’s game, we headed over to Lowe’s to pick up a new shower nozzle.  Our old one was leaking and badly needed replacing.  (Again, Jim fails to give the whole picture here.  I am beginning to feel unsettled by his lack of full disclosure.  Does he mention that I have been pestering him for well over a year to fix the showerhead?  Does he describe my “temporary” solution of tying a washcloth around the pipe to keep it from spraying water everywhere?  It actually worked really well, maybe even better than his solution. Just another area where I surpass him.  It’s actually sad to see how blind he is to his own competitiveness.)  The kids were thrilled about the new nozzle, which has both spray and massage settings.  This is the first time we’ve ever seen them want to take a shower. 

In the afternoon Amy and I officially celebrated Valentine’s Day by going to see Slumdog Millionaire together.  This wasn’t just the highlight of my day—this was the highlight of my life as a filmgoer, at least since I first saw American Beauty and perhaps even going as far back as Pulp Fiction, which I recall watching with Amy before we were an “item.”  Like those films, Slumdog Millionaire weaves a redemptive theme through a lot of suffering and wickedness.  (Kind of like my life with Jim.  Despite his delusions about his culinary skills and his ultra-competitiveness, especially when I am so obviously superior, I choose to endure.)  In Slumdog, Love triumphs over evil, but without any Hollywood clichés or patronizing—partly, I’m sure, because this isn’t a Hollywood film.  We both wanted to watch it again as soon as it was over.  Pure aesthetic joy.  Kind of like my life with Amy, now that I think about it.  Happy V-Day, Honey-Bunny.  (That’s actually really nice.  Maybe I should take all that other stuff back.  Everything except the part about the pancakes, that is.  Happy V-Day, Pumpkin.)

Posted on

An Anti-Naturalist Argument from Beauty

By Jim Spiegel

The history of philosophy has seen many “theistic proofs” or arguments for the existence of God, dating at least as far back as Plato in the 4th century B.C.  Some of the standard arguments reason to God’s existence from apparent design in nature (the teleological argument), human consciousness (the argument from mind), the causal dependence of the cosmos (the cosmological argument), the existence of moral values (the moral argument), and the very concept of God (the ontological argument).

There is another line of reasoning which I believe holds much promise as an argument for theism—the argument from beauty.  While aesthetic evidence for God may be presented in a variety of ways, I prefer to appeal to beauty as an argument against naturalism.  If successful, such an argument serves, ipso facto, to prove the truth of supernaturalism, which in turn provides strong evidence for theism.  Succinctly put, my argument is as follows.  According to naturalism, the entire physical world is fully describable in scientific terms (statements about the physical world).  However, beauty and other aesthetic features cannot be captured in purely scientific terms.  Therefore, it is not the case that the whole of reality can be described scientifically.  So naturalism is false.

Here is a modified version of the argument which makes explicit a crucial assumption about the nature of beauty. 

1. Beauty is an objective quality in the world.

2. Beauty is an evaluative concept—specifically, an aesthetic value.

3. Therefore, there are objective aesthetic values.  [from 1 & 2]

4. If naturalism is true, then there are no objective aesthetic values.

5. Therefore, naturalism is false.  [from 3 & 4]

Propositions 3 and 5 each follow validly from prior premises (1 & 2 and 3 & 4, respectively).  Proposition 2 is a widely accepted observation about the meaning of the term “beauty”—that to describe something as beautiful is to recognize that it has significant aesthetic value.  And proposition 4 follows from the meaning of naturalism, which asserts that the physical world can be completely described in terms of physics (i.e. assertions about physical entities and relationships).  Clearly, beauty (and other aesthetic features, such as “ugly,” “elegant,” “insipid” and “poignant”) cannot be physically analyzed.  Thus, according to naturalism, aesthetic values cannot be a real or objective quality of things.

So, then, what about the crucial first proposition—that beauty is an objective quality of certain things?  What grounds do we have to believe this?  In my next post I will defend this claim, but for now it seems that I have at least shown that the naturalist must reject the first premise—and thus deny the reality of beauty.  That is, if my argument works, the naturalist must accept the implication that neither the world as a whole, nor anything in it, is beautiful (or ugly) in itself—from artworks such as the Mona Lisa to a Shakespearean sonnet to Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos to aspects of nature such as a tiger, butterfly, sunset, or human face.  This is a significant—I would say unacceptable—price to pay for naturalism.  But, again, as I will show later, even this option is not open to the naturalist.

Posted on

The Difference Between Children and Wild Animals

By Jim Spiegel

Amy and I love our children.  In fact, we think they are the most fascinating creatures in the world.  But it sure is a lot of work trying to civilize those little people.  “Maggie, please stop making that chirping sound.”  “Bailey, don’t make fun of your brother.” “Andrew, why didn’t you tell us you needed to poop?”  It’s as if kids were pre-programmed to create chaos and generally make life difficult for their parents.  Recently it dawned on me how much easier it would be to domesticate a wild animal (just name a species) than a human child.  And, being an obsessive list-maker, I came up with ten reasons why.  So I present that list to you now for your consideration.  Bear in mind that these items pertain to various ages, basically covering the age range of our own kids at this time:  2 to 9 years.

Unlike kids, wild animals do not…

1. Have to be taught the value of work and self-discipline.

2. Fight over unimportant matters.

3. Make random noises just to irritate those around them.

4. Say or do things solely for the sake of hurting someone else.

5. Tell lies and fabricate stories.

6. Boast and brag.

7. Grumble and complain, even when all of their needs are met.

8. Envy.

9. Try to embarrass others for sheer entertainment.

10. Excrete on their own bodies.

This might seem depressing, but I take heart in the fact that I, too, was once such a savage beast.  Somehow my parents managed to tame me, so perhaps we will have some similar success with our little wild ones.  May God keep us sane as we try.  And may he bless the efforts of the rest of you zookeepers . . . uh, I mean . . . parents out there.

Posted on

Thoughts on Why Human Sexuality is Sacred

By Jim Spiegel

Contemporary debates about human sexuality and reproduction—abortion, in vitro fertilization, birth control, gay rights, etc.—tend to be highly charged with emotion.  While it is often easy to carry on a dispassionate debate about even such life or death issues as war and capital punishment, issues in sexual ethics are much more challenging in this regard.  It is apparent why this is so when one considers the stakes.  For permissivists on such issues (e.g., pro-choicers, gay marriage advocates, etc.) personal autonomy and, by extension, a whole way of life, is at stake.  And for conservatives the sanctity of life and family itself (as traditionally understood) is at stake.  And for folks on both sides of these debates a sense of what is ultimately good for society as a whole hangs in the balance.

But for Christian moral conservatives there is a further dimension to these issues which makes them especially urgent and emotionally charged—the notion that human sexuality is sacred.  So what is it about sex such that it should be considered “sacred” or somehow religiously significant?  From the standpoint of Christian theology, of course, part of the answer lies in the fact that God ordained sex and blessed it as a means of procreation, marital unity, and pleasure. 

But could there be something even more significant about sex which traces back to the nature of God?  One possibility is that sex and procreation actually reflect the Trinity.  Sex is an intimate communion between two persons (man and woman) from whom proceed a third person (child), and all three of these persons share the same (human) nature.  This mirrors the divine nature, which consists of an intimate communion between two persons (God the Father and God the Son), from whom proceed a third person (the Holy Spirit), and all three of these persons share the same (divine) nature.

Now this analogy might appear to break down in the fact that God the Son also proceeds from God the Father, which is not mirrored in a human marital relationship.  However, this procession is reflected in the Genesis creation account where the woman proceeds from the man, via the “rib” of Adam.  Anyway, though human sexuality and procreation are imperfect images of the Trinity (one must be careful not to go too far with such images), they are profound analogues of the divine nature all the same.  And this is one more reason why we should regard sex as sacred, from a Christian perspective.  And it helps to explain why behavioral distortions of our sexual teleology are regarded by Scripture as especially heinous and harmful.  See, for example, such passages as Prov. 6:32-33, Rom. 1:26-27, 1 Cor. 6:9.  The severity of judgment in these passages is more understandable if such acts constitute attacks on the Godhead.

Posted on

On a Certain Irony in the Case for Gay Rights

By Jim Spiegel

When it comes to the debate on human sexuality, typically it is traditionalists who are painted as enemies of freedom.  After all, they are the ones who insist that extra-marital sex is wrong and should be discouraged.  However, the central argument used by many gay rights advocates also opposes freedom but in a much more fundamental sense than traditionalism. 

Let me explain.  Consider the popular gay rights slogan “biology is destiny” and the argument which often accompanies this phrase.  The idea is that some people are “born” homosexuals, due either to certain genetic factors or neurological hard-wiring which strongly predispose them to have a sexual attraction to members of the same sex.  For this reason, the argument goes, the traditionalist view that homosexual relations are immoral is wrongheaded, not to mention insensitive.  For how can people be blamed for what they cannot control?  As Immanuel Kant said (paraphrasing Pelagius a millennium before him), “ought implies can.”  If homosexuals cannot choose to be other than what they are, then there is no sense in telling them they ought to act otherwise.

Notice that the “biology is destiny” argument really amounts to the claim that homosexuals cannot help themselves regarding both their sexual preference and their choice as to whether to have sex at all.  The implication (or at least suggestion) in both cases is that their desires are irresistible.  That is, given their biological (and psychological) make-up, they cannot act otherwise than they do.  Now there is a general name for views such as this:  determinism.  Determinists believe that all phenomena, including human behavior and choices, are caused.  Among determinists there is disagreement as to whether we are, nonetheless, free and responsible for our behavior.  Those determinists who affirm the logical compatibility of determinism and freedom are called compatibilists (or, alternatively, soft determinists).  In contrast, those who maintain that determinism rules out human freedom and responsibility are called hard determinists.

So here’s the point.  In using the “biology is destiny” argument, gay rights advocates tacitly endorse hard determinism, at least as far as human sexuality goes.  That is, they deny that human beings are free when it comes to their sexual choices and behavior.  More than this, they deny we are morally responsible in these matters.  Ironically, then, proponents of the biological argument are enemies of human freedom and in a much more profound sense than their traditionalist opponents.  They deny freedom both morally (in the sense of responsibility) and metaphysically (in the sense of the ability to choose). 

Of course, not all gay rights advocates believe, strictly speaking, that “biology is destiny,” that there is a “gay gene” or some other entirely biological determinant of homosexual orientation.  But even the skeptical gay rights folks almost always accept some sort of determinism in the matter, whether it is psychological, social, or some combination of factors including biology.  How ironic it is that traditionalists are routinely criticized for being anti-freedom when it is gay rights advocates who implicitly deny freedom in a much more radical way.

Posted on

The Real Offense in Christianity

By Jim Spiegel

In my previous post—January 8—I discussed some aspects of Christianity which might explain why people might find it so offensive—it’s supposed dangerousness, blatant irrationality, and the exasperating nature of some Christian people.  None of these factors really explain the anger and hostility so often directed at Christianity.  So what is the explanation?  Since Christianity provokes people much more than Judaism or Islam (or generic theistic belief), there must be something about Jesus himself or the gospel message that bugs people so much.  What could that be? 

I suspect (as some readers intimated in their comments) that the resentment really has to do with the implications of Jesus’ crucifixion—the idea that he had to die (and resurrect) for our sins.  This implies, of course, that there is something wrong—terribly wrong—with humans which needs fixing.  Specifically, we need to be forgiven, and our offenses are so egregious that they called for a blood sacrifice.  And not just any blood-sacrifice.  Killing a toad or even an AKC-registered poodle wouldn’t do the atoning work.  In fact, not even a human child sacrifice would do.  No, it had to be the execution of a morally perfect person—God incarnate.  Now if that isn’t insulting to our pride as a species, I don’t know what is. 

Of course, this moral insult is well-deserved, if we are as naturally depraved as Scripture teaches.  But for those who think there is nothing wrong with human nature (despite the constant wars, human trafficking, ethnic cleansing, child molestation, and countless other evils all over the globe), I can see how this would seem ridiculous and even be a rather annoying claim.  Indeed, as the Apostle Paul said, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing” (1 Cor. 1:18). 

Lest we forget, the Christian story is also a profound compliment—that God loves us so much as to provide that sacrifice himself.  Again, to quote Paul: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21).  And, as it turns out, this is the only way to reconciliation with God, as Jesus declares, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).  Yet this, too, is a blow to human pride, as it implies that we cannot save ourselves; even the most perfect repentance, apart from Christ, would be ineffectual in avoiding God’s judgment. 

So whatever else might bug people regarding Christianity, the ultimate source of offense is human pride.  People are offended by Jesus because his crucifixion represents both a divine condemnation of our sin and a statement that we cannot escape that condemnation on our own.  Again, I do see why this would bother people who think the Christian message is false.  If the Christmas and Easter stories are fictions, then our worldview is merely a profound insult; and as Paul says, “we are to be pitied more than all men” (1 Cor. 15:19).  But if Jesus really was the God-man and really did die and rise from the dead for us, then, well, that is wondrous—mind-boggling, in fact, and should make us very, very glad.  Far from being offensive, it is the best possible news.

Posted on

What’s So Offensive About Christianity?

By Jim Spiegel

This past holiday season saw more stories of communities using “holiday trees” instead of Christmas trees and retailers insisting that their employees not say “Merry Christmas” to customers, out of a concern not to offend people.  Some folks are disturbed by Christianity—much more so, it seems, than by the other major theistic traditions of Judaism and Islam.  So far I haven’t heard anyone complain about public use of the phrase “Happy Hanukkah” or “Happy Ramadan.” 

The last few years have also seen a marked upsurge in Christian-bashing, as bloggers and pop culture figures have become more brazen in their criticisms and lampooning of Christianity.  You don’t have to listen or read very long to see that this is not just a matter of intellectual dissent but visceral disgust.  The fact is—increasingly it appears—many people find Christianity offensive.  Why is this so? 

Let’s consider some possibilities.  Perhaps it is because Christian ideas and values are dangerous.  Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and other new atheists think so, based on their observations that many terrible things have been done by religious people, including Christians.  They seem to overlook the myriad social goods that Christians have contributed throughout history and that Judeo-Christian values are foundational to the very concept of human rights (Nicholas Wolterstorff’s book Justice is the latest scholarly demonstration of this fact). The argument of Hitchens, et al. pivots on abuses of Christian teachings, not the doctrines themselves.  A crucial but common mistake.  Of course, notwithstanding all of this, the perception that Christian ideas are dangerous might still explain, in part, some people’s offense.

Another possibility is that people are offended by how pushy and aggressive some Christians are when it comes to their beliefs  This can be very annoying, as people are made to feel more like marketing target than persons.  This is actually one of my own pet peeves about the evangelical world.  But lots of non-Christians in our society are pushy with their beliefs as well.  Plenty of professors and entertainers are aggressive worldview proselytizers.  Every marketer pushes her products.  Every lobbyist presses her agenda.  Even scientists and auto mechanics proselytize others to win converts.  Evangelistic Christians might be more of a nuisance to some people than these other zealots, but, again, this doesn’t seem to explain the degree of offense that so many people feel in regards to Christianity and its adherents.  (In fact, renowned illusionist and atheist Penn Gillette regards such evangelistic fervor as admirable.  Check out a remarkable anecdote here.)

Thirdly, people might be offended by Christianity because they perceive it as obviously false, a blatant flouting of reason.  This seems to be what bugs Bill Maher in his controversial documentary Religulous  as well as the creators of The God Who Wasn’t There.  But, again, this doesn’t quite explain the level of disdain and even hatred that some people display towards Christianity and Christians.  When someone is as badly deluded as Christians are, according to these critics, the proper emotional response is not hatred but pity.  I don’t see a lot of pity on the part of the new atheists and anti-Christian critics.

My pastor recently suggested that the primary offending element is the suggestion, implicit in Christian theology, that there is a moral authority to which one is accountable.  There’s probably some truth to this.  In our culture the idea that one must live according to someone else’s standard, even if that Someone is God himself, is offensive to some people.  The problem with this answer is that it can’t explain why Christianity appears to offend people more than other theistic traditions, most notably Judaism and Islam.  Mention Moses or Mohammed with approval in a public context—or even quote either of them as an authority on some issue—and no one raises an eyebrow.  People may disagree with you, but they won’t try to censure you or get you fired.  But if you bring Jesus Christ into the conversation or—if you have the temerity—affirm his moral authority on an issue, then, well, look out. 

So what is it about Jesus Christ that is so offensive (if, indeed, it is not just his followers but Jesus himself who bugs folks so much)?  I will address this question in my next post but, in the meantime, I’d be happy to hear your own thoughts—in response to this question or anything else I’ve said.

Posted on

Happy New Year (Whatever that Means)

By Jim Spiegel

When I exchanged “Happy New Year” greetings with someone yesterday, I found myself thinking “What a relief that I can use a holiday salutation which is not potentially offensive because it implicitly endorses my religion—Christianity.  Unlike “Merry Christmas,” a phrase containing the messianic title of the One whose birth we celebrate, “Happy New Year” is free from any such reference.  But then, as I reflected, it occurred to me that even this phrase potentially endorses Christianity—at least if we refer to the new year as 2009.  For what does that number signify but the (approximate) number of years that have passed since Jesus Christ was born.  It is, after all, A.D. (Anno Domini—“Year of our Lord”) 2009.  So now I’m wondering when someone will begin a serious public campaign to change the current dating system because it tacitly honors Jesus as the chronological reference point of world history.

Of course, this has already been addressed in scholarly circles by the “Common Era” system, in which the abbreviations “B.C.” and “A.D.” are supplanted, respectively, by “B.C.E.” (“Before the Common Era”) and “C.E.” (“Common Era”).  However, this change is merely nominal, as the dates used are the same as ever, the pivotal reference point still being the birth of one Jesus of Nazareth.  So is there a different historical event which would be a more broadly acceptable alternative?  In the 1790s, supposedly, there was a movement in France to make the French Revolution the key chronological marker.  Obviously, that never caught on.  Perhaps something like Aldous Huxley’s fictional suggestion of “A.F.” (“After Ford”) would be more appropriate.  In Brave New World the “Ford” dating system made pivotal the year (A.D.) 1908, when the first Model-T was made.  Huxley rightly saw how modern technology would change the world (and how we think about the world).  But, with the benefit of hindsight (and some reasonable foresight), we might settle on the computer as a more impactful technology.  Perhaps we could dub 1936 as the pivotal year (marking the introduction of the Z1 Computer, a primitive machine useful for basic calculations).  This would have the natural appeal of allowing for continued use of “B.C.” (“Before Computers”) and implementation of “C.E.” (“Computer Era”), which would represent a sort of compromise between the Christian and Common Era dating systems, at least ostensibly.  That would make this year 73 C.E., and it would also mean that Jesus himself was born in the year 1936 B.C. (or, adjusted for historical precision, perhaps something like 1939 B.C.).

Somehow I don’t think this proposal holds much promise for catching on either.  On the whole, human civilization is just too thoroughly committed to the Christian dating system.  As a Christian, of course, this is okay by me, since I think it makes sense to regard God’s incarnational entrance into human history as the central event.  But should non-Christians be bothered by this?  Should they take offense by expressions such as “Happy 2009” as some are by expressions like “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Easter”?  If so, then perhaps we should qualify our “Happy New Year” salutation somehow.  How about this:  “Happy New Year, Whatever the Word ‘Year’ Might Mean to You.”  Ah, now doesn’t that have a pleasant, inclusive ring to it?  Hmm…  Lets see if it catches on.

Posted on

The Best and Worst of 2008

By Jim Spiegel

As you probably know, this was our first year to blog, and we have been pleasantly surprised with all the attention and activity our posts have drawn.  Thanks for reading and, if applicable, posting comments.  It’s been a blast.  To close out the year we decided to do our first joint-post.  Where our opinions differ, we’ve included separate entries.

Best Film Experiences:

  • Amy: Lars and the Real Girl—This is a sweet and original movie with great performances. I don’t know if it was my ultimate favorite for the year, but like those who vote for the Oscars I sometimes suffer from long-term memory loss with regard to movies.
  • Jim: Born into Brothels—Yes, it was made in 2004, but I didn’t see it until this past year. What a remarkable display of the life-changing power of art. Inspiring and heart-rending. And, while I’m on the subject of documentaries, I’ll recommend one that was released in 2008: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Who would have thought that the ID perspective could be so entertaining? To the critics who panned it as “propaganda,” I say you’re only proving Ben Stein’s point!

Worst Film Experiences:

  • Amy: Tropic Thunder—I cannot say anything derogatory regarding the performances, but this movie made me feel like I needed to take multiple showers afterward. I will never listen to the recommendation of a Blockbuster employee again.
  • Jim: Bobby—This film has more contrived scenes than an episode of Baywatch (and almost as much cleavage), and it’s been a long time since I’ve seen a movie with such self-conscious directing.

Best Musical Experiences of the Year:

  • Amy: Sara Bareilles’ Little Voice—This is my soundtrack when hanging on by a thin thread. Just crank it up and feel a few decades younger (until the children find you, that is).
  • Jim: The Killers’ Day and Age, Bob Dylan’s Tell-Tale Signs, and a half-dozen different albums by the most underrated band in rock history: The Kinks.

Favorite Songs of the Year:

  • Amy: “Human” from the Killers’ Day and Age. It’s the only song whose entire lyrics I have learned since we started having kids, with the exception of “Yahweh” by U2. Both are daily offered up as prayers of desperation as I cruise the back roads of Indiana in a mini-van that sounds like an airplane struggling to take off.
  • Jim: “Red River Shore” from Dylan’s Tell-Tale Signs. This song is one of the Bobster’s most poignant ever. It will break your heart in more ways than you can count. Thank you, God, for endowing this man with such creative genius.  Amen.

Best Sports Moment of the Year:  Brankle Construction’s championship in the Upland Coaches’ Pitch Baseball League.  There were plenty of life-lessons to go around as Brankle (Bailey’s team, coached by Jim) dramatically triumphed over the haughty and hitherto undefeated Pratt Construction team in the playoff semi-final—essentially a little league baseball version of the Giants-Pats Super Bowl.

Worst Sports Moments of the Year:  The Detroit Lions dubious record-breaking 0-16 season.  They’ve set the mark for futility.  Now let’s see if they can set the mark for biggest single-season turnaround.

Most Satisfying Read of the Year:

  • Amy:  North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell.  Gaskell takes social justice issues, adds insightful cultural observations, and wraps it all up in a beautiful love story.
  • Jim:  Degenerate Moderns by E. Michael Jones.  Jones’ provocative (and well-argued) thesis is that modernism (e.g., Rousseau’s political philosophy, Margaret Mead’s cultural anthropology, Freud’s psychology, and even Picasso’s artistic vision), was the result of rationalized sexual misbehavior.  While he can be overweening at times, Jones can also be profoundly insightful.

Political High Point of the Year:  The election of Barack Obama as U.S. President.

Political Low Point of the Year:  The election of Barack Obama as U.S. President.

Most Preposterous News Event of the Year:  The “pregnant man” story.  Only in a culture where a significant minority believes that gender can be socially (or physiologically) constructed could such a claim pass as anything but a joke or an abuse of language (or both).  Its yet another confirmation of Richard Weaver’s thesis that the demise of Western culture begain with the rejection of essences.

Recurrent Theological Theme of the Year:

  • Amy:  When you ask God to deliver you from difficult circumstances, it doesn’t mean He will beam-you-up-Scotty.  Rather, He will preserve you through the storm.  As hymnist John Keith put it, “When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie, my grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply; the flame shall not harm thee; I only design thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine” (“How Firm a Foundation”).
  • Jim:  The importance of maintaining high regard for the classical Christian creeds (especially the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds) and the imprudence of treating disputable theological issues as if they were creedal.

Most Satisfying Shared Experience of the Year:  At least when it comes to the professional aspect of our relationship, it was definitely doing this blog together.

  • Amy:  I love you, honey-bunny.
  • Jim:  I love you, too, honey-bunny.

New Year’s Resolutions (regarding Wisdom and Folly):

  • Amy: 1) to explore less of my mommy-can-you-get-me-a-drink side and more of my I-read-interesting-books-and-watch-artsy-foreign-films side and 2) to leave more room in my opinions for respectful disagreement with those I respect and an escape hatch that offers the option of (gasp) changing my mind.
  • Jim: 1) to explore atheism as a philosophical and psychological phenomenon and 2) to continue to do my best to overlook insulting, patronizing, or condescending comments on our posts, while resisting the temptation to delete them! Thankfully, there were very few of these (among the hundreds submitted). Nearly all reader comments were constructive, even when critical. Thank you! And to all of you, may God bless you with a healthy and happy (in the Aristotelian sense of eudaimonia) year in 2009!
Posted on

Want to Get Rich? Major in Philosophy!

By Jim Spiegel

A recent PayScale Inc. study on college graduates across the disciplines revealed some surprising facts about the earning power of a Philosophy degree.  Fifty different bachelors’ degrees were compared in terms of average incomes for recent graduates and for those a decade after graduation.  The study found that the highest average percentage of salary increase is achieved, that’s right, by Philosophy majors—a whopping 103.5%.  In terms of raw numbers, Philosophy majors’ average salary upon graduation is $40,000, and ten years later the average jumps to $81,000.  And when average salaries in the 75th and 90th percentiles of all majors are compared, Philosophy graduates are actually near the top—neck and neck with electrical engineers and computer scientists—averaging $168,000 in the latter case.  Hard to believe?  Perhaps.  But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things.

So much, then, for the tired cliché:  What can you do with a Philosophy major?  Evidently a lot, even in terms of income.  As I reflected on this data—which I must admit, surprised even me, though probably not as much as most folks—I did a mental inventory of my own former students whose careers I’ve monitored over the years.  These impressive numbers began to make more sense, even on my anecdotal scan:  Several of my former students are attorneys, thriving financially while (I like to think) helping to redeem a field which, well, needs some redemption.  Some are college professors like me, enjoying the best job in the world while making a decent living.  Others work in publishing, as marketers, editors, and, in one instance, as a literary agent.  A few others started their own businesses and are doing quite well, thank you, beating the business majors at their own game.  All of these folks and others like them drive the numbers up, averaged against the income of other Philosophy majors who now serve as pastors, missionaries, or non-profiters—whose income is more modest but whose vocation is no less rewarding, all things considered. 

How to make sense of this?  Why would a Philosophy major, of all things, be so lucrative over the long haul?  Again, just a little reflection explains what should have been more obvious.  In Philosophy one develops several skills which are crucial for success in whatever field one ultimately chooses to pursue:  critical thinking, conceptual analysis, problem-solving, and skills in oral and written expression.  Try to think of a career in which excelling in these areas will not put one at a distinct advantage over one’s peers.  Add to this the fact that Philosophy majors tend to be more morally circumspect than most, having been trained in the art of moral-decision making and especially encouraged to be persons of integrity.  Put these ingredients together and you have a pretty good recipe for success and even leadership in most fields.

So the next time you hear someone insinuate the impracticality of a Philosophy major from a career standpoint, you can set them straight.  You might even dare to inform them that if they really want to make the big money, then they should be a Philosophy major!