No Signs of Intelligence at the New York Times

According to this New York Times article:

There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place.

Camels probably had little or no role in the lives of such early Jewish patriarchs as Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, who lived in the first half of the second millennium B.C., and yet stories about them mention these domesticated pack animals more than 20 times. Genesis 24, for example, tells of Abraham’s servant going by camel on a mission to find a wife for Isaac.

These anachronisms are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history.

I get this mental picture of “too many camels.”  It wouldn’t take many to be “too many” at my house.  Then I picture my copy of the Bible on the table.  I see little camels being squeezed out of it because there are just “too many camels in the Bible” and the must, of course, get out of there and go somewhere.  (Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

Seriously, it is the same old story of Bible + archeology + news media always equaling something stupid.

The story reports that two archaeologists from Tel Aviv University excavated at an ancient copper smelting camp in Israel and Jordan.  There, they did not find evidence of domesticated camels until long after the time of the patriarchs.  Which logically implies that the Biblical reports of the patriarchs using camels must be wrong, doesn’t it?  That’s what the article states, but logic in the report is shoddy to absent.

I am neither an archeologist, nor the son of an archeologist, but I am not quite a complete idiot.  Lack of evidence does not prove a negative, not logically, at least.  This excavation might suggest that camels were not used at this particular location this early, but that tells us nothing definitive about other locations.  A general conclusion drawn from two instances does not a good inductive argument make.  No matter what you think about the Bible, logic is logic.  Perhaps the Bible is all wrong about camels.  Perhaps there are “too many” of them mentioned in the Old Testament, at the wrong times and the wrong places.  But absolutely nothing in this article shows that to be the case.

But realizing that requires logic, something that seems to be lacking at the New York Times.

God, the Ultimate Fan

This is from a Christianity Today interview with William Lane Craig:

As football fans prepare for the big game, what thought would you want to leave them with?

I think the overriding thing I want to say is God's providence rules all of life, even down to the smallest details. Nothing happens without either God's direct will or at least his permission of that event. That includes every fumble, every catch, every run. All of these things are in the providence of God, and therefore, we should not think that these things are a matter of indifference. These are of importance to God as well even though they seem trivial.

Craig is a well-known philosopher/theologian/apologist in evangelical Christian circles.  Much of what he writes will make your head hurt.  So who am I to disagree with him?  Nevertheless, I do disagree, sort of . . .

I agree with his general statement, “Nothing happens without either God's direct will or at least his permission of that event.”  So it is true that, in this sense (which allows for much in the way of “permission”) God does rule all of life.  But this is not a good reason to conclude that we should not think things involved in each play of the Super Bowl might not be of at least relative indifference to God.

That we decide something like a football game will consume our attention, and for many, their resources, does not mean that God is necessarily concerned with every detail of that event – things like which team converts a key third down, for example.  Perhaps God is a football fan, of sorts – how could we ever know that since He has decided to reveal nothing about it to us?

I have no doubt that God, as our Creator and Sustainer, has some level of interest in almost everything we do.  But everything that God has revealed about Himself would indicate that, while He is completely aware of human spectacles like the Super Bowl, they are not the sorts of things about us that are in the important category to God.  To give Craig his due, earlier in the interview he implied this, but here I thinks he jumps far beyond the evidence he presents for his conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with watching and enjoying a sporting event of almost any kind.  But a sporting event, especially of the professional kind, is staged primarily to amuse ourselves.  Again, some amount of amusement is not wrong.  But in all likelihood, for many people, the kinds of things surrounding something like a Super Bowl that would most concern God would be matters other than the details of game play.

God is concerned about those who wasted more of their resources on sports than on the kingdom of heaven.  God might think it important that so many people can think of nothing but a sporting event for several weeks, to the exclusion of their knowledge of and relationship with Him.  God might very interested in the fact that some of us think more of our favorite sports hero than we do of Him.  God could well think it quite important that so many of the events surrounding a Super Bowl include all sorts of rank immorality – sometimes, especially, the half-time show.

Therefore, Dr. Craig, I must disagree, sort of.  (P.S. – I plan to watch the game tonight, at least until it gets boring, which I don’t expect this one will.  I will even enjoy some of the creative commercials.  I won’t watch the half-time shows.  Even when they are not tawdry, or even pornographic, they are too often just idiotic.)

What Is Required to Change a Mind?

Have you heard about the big debate coming up?  It’s happening here in my geographical backyard, but caught my attention for many reasons.  In this post commenting on this debate event about creation and evolution Bart Gingerich says:

People are not coming into the event with the mindset of “I will keep my mind open and may very well change it after hearing these arguments.”

Apart from this particular debate, this brings up interesting questions about our worldviews (that whole collection of ‘big ideas’ that we use to understand ourselves and the world around us) and particular items of data we run into as we live (claims people make to us, things we experience, and the like).

It is unlikely that a single debate will change many minds on large questions like these.  Worldviews don’t, and probably shouldn’t, change quickly or too easily.  If they did, we would be intellectually anchorless, so to speak.  For example, if you are a Christian, your favorite pet dies, and someone tells you “If God really existed He wouldn’t let your Fido die” – should you just give up your Christianity based on that?

All the ‘big ideas’ of the Christian faith actually inform Christians how to think about new things we encounter.  And for many people in our culture, “evolution” is not just a part of biology.  It is a worldview that helps inform many people how to think about EVERYTHING.  It is their justification for how they approach all of life.  Who would really expect that to change based on one debate?

This is not to say that worldviews can never justifiably change based on new things we learn.  But we typically need to learn a lot, over a rather long period of time, to change our minds about the big bundle of views that interpret the world around us.  There is a kind of reasonable inertia to any person’s worldview (examined or not) that should not surprise anyone.

Of Books, Poverty, and the Like

I ran across an article at Tech Crunch that illustrates why it is so difficult to gain and maintain liberty, at least in the area of economics. (There is more to liberty, but freedom of exchange is essential to it.) The reason is simple: people are often ignorant of how human economic interaction works. Sometimes this ignorance is the result of holding faulty ideologies. Whatever the details of the author’s thinking (which are not all stated in the article), it is an interesting example of what results from this.

The revealing title of the article is “The ‘Anti-Amazon Law’ Is About To Become A Reality In France, But It’s Not A Bad Thing.” With the title, the fun – and the stupidity – have just begun.

This is all about the selling of books in France. It seems that since 1981 the government has established a minimum price for books there. This official price is stamped on books, and it is illegal to sell them for less. (Already, freedom-lovers cannot wait to move to France to enjoy the abundance of “liberty” there!) But wait, it gets worse.

This official book price law allowed for a little wiggle room. You could, if you wished to be a book discounter, sell your book for 5% less than the official, government-imposed minimum price. (Let freedom ring!)

But along came (never quite stated, but implied) evil Amazon. They (thank the almighty French government, may it be praised forever) were required to abide by the official book price requirements just like everyone else. But Amazon came up with a little twist: they discounted by the allowed-by-the-benevolent-state 5%, BUT . . . they also offered free shipping on every order, all the time.

Drat those wicked Amazonians! But, to the rescue came the French Minister of Culture (and, we might add, economic stupidity). She says she has nothing against Amazon, but that horrible free shipping must stop. Thus shall the goodness of government intervention prevail, making life better for everyone.

Everyone, that is, except all those people who want to buy books. What the French Minister of Culture has decreed is, economically speaking, that consumers shall have fewer books. And that, of course, is certain to make any culture better – especially the French culture, I suppose.

Let’s turn to some of the author’s comments. First, “many bookstores chose to take advantage of this exception, but 5 percent was a reasonable price difference.” What, exactly, makes a price difference “reasonable”? What is implied is that too large of a price difference is automatically unreasonable. But economically speaking, this translates into “the ability of people to buy more books is unreasonable.”

Try this one: “Amazon won’t be able to offer free shipping for books in order to protect independent bookstores.” Here, economically speaking, this means “consumers should have fewer books so independent bookstores don’t have to compete in the marketplace.”

The author ends the article by wondering about the effects of the French government’s dictatorial powers. The article ends with this amazing statement: “So the real question isn’t whether the law is going too far, but whether it will be enough to save the 2,500 independent bookstores in France.” Again, in economic terms: has the French government taken enough books out of the hands of consumers to make its dictatorial policy work, or will it need to reduce book consumption even further?

But alas Americans, this sort of economic stupidity is not limited to France. For many decades American consumers of sugar have been forced by our benevolent government to pay more for sugar that the world market would require. All that means is that we have been able to afford less sugar, or less of something else, than we would have otherwise.

This is a common practice of many governments, and we are all the poorer for it.

Dirty Word

Here is an interesting little debate found recently USA Today:

A defense lawyer in Tennessee earned the ire of the prosecuting attorney for referring to the prosecution as “the Government” during trials. Here is what she said:

"The State has noticed in the past few years that it has become commonplace during trials for attorneys for defendants, and especially Mr. Justice, to refer to State's attorneys as 'the Government,' " she wrote in her motion. "The State believes that such a reference is used in a derogatory way and is meant to make the State's attorney seem oppressive and to inflame the jury."

This brought a response from the defense attorney. He filed a motion requiring the prosecution to refer to him as “Defender of the Innocent” or perhaps “Guardian of the Realm.” The whole thing was dismissed because the judge said the word “government” isn’t derogatory.

Of course, no judge could be impartial in such a matter, every judge works for the government.

I try to stay out of the way of “government” in general. To be fair, I have had some experiences with “government” that I would call neutral. But even the neutral experiences are often what I would term “annoyingly neutral.” Most of my direct experiences with governments have been negative. Try as I might, I cannot remember even one positive experience when dealing directly with “government.”

So I must overrule the ruling of the judge in this case. With me, at least, the very term “government” is quite derogatory. I wish it were not so. I can imagine arrangements of government that would make it less so, perhaps. Making “government” smaller would make it better. Does that imply that none at all, at least in the versions we are accustomed to, would be best? We can debate that one.

But for now, given all the governments with which I must deal, calling something “the Government” is about the most derogatory handle I can imagine.  It’s along the lines of “scum-suckin’, low-down, double-dealing, no good, no account, two-faced, liar.”  Doesn’t that sound like a recent list of “Government” policies and activities?

Don’t Replace–Eliminate

Yesterday I heard a very interesting interview on radio. The host of the morning talk show interviewed a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from southern Indiana. The topic was “Obamacare.”

The House member seemed to be a rather “conservative” (vague, I know, but I will use it for now) Republican. The talk show host seems to be, at least when I have heard him, something of a dissenter from the usual “center-leftist” political orthodoxy we find frequently in power and in the media today.

I was a bit shocked by what I heard. What follows is not exact, but close enough to convey the thoughts accurately:

Interviewer: Do the Republicans have a proposal to replace Obamacare?

Rep: Yes. A few parts of it are good. For example, people like that fact that it requires health insurance policies to be portable. And that feature is very inexpensive. We think there are a few things like that which are worth keeping. But much of Obamacare needs to be changed.

If this is what conservative Republicans think, then we are doomed to Obamacare and many other things even worse.

Perhaps some people do like portability in health insurance. If enough people like that feature, someone will eventually sell it. If the government requires it in all policies, that is just a cost that must be added, even for those who don’t care about portability.

But the worst of the matter is this: once you concede that it is appropriate for governments to demand that you buy health insurance that is portable, you have conceded the very principle that makes Obamacare appropriate. If it is appropriate for government to demand portability, it is appropriate for government to demand anything at all related to health insurance.

Many so-called “conservative” Republicans don’t seem to understand that individual liberty ends wherever any government requirement begins. Things like Obamacare do not need “replacement” – not if you are interested in freedom. Such things need to be eliminated.

Those who wish to offer a true alternative to the present course of government cannot consistently do so by advocating some “toning down” or “tweaking” of laws that defy the free economic choices of people. Liberty requires that such laws, programs, and policies be completely and forever eliminated.

Cincinnati Bell and the Problem of Monopoly

I pause today to sing the anti-praises of Cincinnati Bell.  The company would be more aptly named if the “B” were to become an “H.”  (Yes, I just had yet another bad experience with them.)

It’s not that there are not nice people there when calling for service is required.  True, most of them seem to have English as a second language.  But unless the accent is so extreme that I can’t understand, that does not really bother me.

What does bother me is the fact that the “customer experience” when calling Cincinnati Bell seems designed to make it difficult to impossible to solve problems when problems arise.  Layers of menus insulate callers from anything beyond cookie-cutter help.  Representatives who don’t understand various problems greet you with polite, but mostly very unhelpful “help.”

Why is it that when I call other, even larger, companies with vast customer service divisions, problems are solved quickly, pleasantly, and usually relatively easily?  Consider just two examples:  Charles Schwab and T.D. Ameritrade.  Both are very large companies which are required to work within all sorts of (often unnecessary) government regulations.  Yet I almost enjoy needing to call them when I have a problem.  They are not just polite – they are downright neighborly-sounding – but they fix problems quickly, efficiently, and with very little effort on my part.

Why this difference?  One thing comes to mind.  Schwab and Ameritrade are thinking about Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, and many other choices I have for their financial services.

Cincinnati Bell, at least for those of us who need a land line in my area, has been granted a monopoly by the government.  For that kind of service, they have no competitors, and competition is not even allowed.

Monopoly is, contrary to propaganda otherwise, something only governments can grant.  Governments either claim monopolies for themselves in certain areas, or grant monopolies to favored providers in other cases.  Governments love monopolies because a monopoly granted by government is always controlled by government, and governments crave control.

Does this suggest anything to anyone about things like “ObamaCare”?