Today IS that day...

So I have these three boys--here posing at a Wal-Mart in Wisconsin during a recent vacation (yes, we vacation at Wal-Marts). Like most boys, they're pretty competitive and there is some Oedipal thing where they'd like to beat their dad. I talk a lot of smack with them, trying to demonstrate that their dad is tough and manly. One of my favorite lines is to paraphrase Aragon in Return of the King when he is rallying the troops before the black gate. We'll get wrestling together and I'll announce: "The day will come when you boys will be able to take your father. But that day is not this day!"

Truth be told, there are several events at which I can't keep up with my boys any more. I've given up trying in video games. The controllers have just become too complicated (my video game neuro-circuitry was formed on the Atari joystick). And in board games we play pretty straight-up with each other (Connor won Monopoly last night). I've held on to physical dominance, though. In wrestling, I can still take all three at once--but now it hurts my body pretty bad. Basketball in the driveway is getting closer, but the advantage still goes to the old guy.

Today, Casey (age 14.5) asked to go to the track and race me in a mile. He's in track right now and works very hard and diligently at running. But I've been running too. He broke 6 minutes for the first time this past week. I haven't run a mile all-out in quite some time, but have done some speed work as part of my runs. So I figured it was time to give him a shot. Well, it turns out that today is the day that junior beats senior. It was very windy at the track, and I kept pace for a six minute mile for the first two laps, but on the third, turning into the wind coming down the home stretch... I died (I thought literally so for a bit). He pulled ahead and stretched it out on the last lap to a 12 second victory.

Oh well, at least I still have chess.

Bethel Alum makes it to the Show

Big news yesterday for all of you who are Red Sox fans and somehow attached to Bethel. One of our alums made it to the big leagues. Justin Masterson was drafted in the second round a couple of years ago and has been dominating AA ball. With Dice-K and Beckett ailing on the mother team, they needed some help, and Justin got the call.

He pitched six innings at Fenway against the Angels, giving up only two hits and one run. In my office at school I had purchased the internet broadcast for my computer, and at different times there was a Dean, the Director of Financial Aid, another VP, a Board of Trustees member, and the President in checking on the progress. Lots of fun (too bad the bullpen blew the win for Justin!).

Pictured here is the ball Justin signed for me. It sits on the shelf next to my autographed balls by Bob Gibson and Phil Niekro (no pressure, Justin).

When I got home, in the mail my official membership materials had come from Red Sox Nation. I'm no fair weather fan, and it's even more exciting to be a big fan of a team when someone you know is playing with them.

Expelled

Last night Meister and I made it to the new documentary Expelled. Sam wrote a Facebook note about it here last week (based only on hearsay??) to which I made only a smart-alec comment. Here is a slightly more substantial assessment:

1. It is definitely over-the-top in style. The longer it went, the more I felt like it was trying to fight fire with fire. That is to say, it was squarely within the genre of Richard Dawkins's recent work: it was flamboyant, included lots of things just for shock value, chased some red herrings, interpreted some things uncharitably (which some will say are outright mischaracterizations), etc. At times it felt more like an ad in the current political campaign. Perhaps the producers thought that was the only way they'd make a splash in our Hollywood-ized culture. And that was too bad.

2. I was disappointed there was such an overt and strong connection made between Darwinism and the Nazis (and other totalitarian states). There is no doubt that evolutionary ideas influenced Hitler; and a case can be made that the spirit of natural selection pushes a culture toward eugenics. But there is a big difference between that and the claim that neo-darwinists today in academe are just as morally reprehensible--and that is certainly what was insinuated.

3. If you strip the above qualities away from the film, it did an admirable job of exposing contemporary evolutionary theory to be what Thomas Kuhn called "normal science". There is a dominant paradigm that remains unquestioned within the enterprise of science (which includes journal publications, tenure, grants, etc.). People who are outside of that paradigm are labelled as trouble makers or worse, because they upset the balance that has been achieved in the guild. Of course there are problems within theory, but very few are willing to go outside of the theory in order to solve them and prefer to work from within.

4. They were not trying to make the point that Intelligent Design--much less creationism--is correct; rather they were trying to argue that its proponents deserve to be heard, deserve a place at the table. That is hard to argue with unless you have a view of science that is so committed to positivism that it's silly. Science is imbued with metaphysical assumptions and claims, so trying to claim that Intelligent Design proponents aren't really doing science comes back to bite just about everyone on the tush. I'm sure there are ID folks who aren't doing science, but the ones interviewed on the film (and many more that I know of) are: they're developing testable hypotheses and submitting them as the best explanation of certain facts. Ultimately, the theories will sink or swim based on their predictive power and their ability to lead to new discoveries. It just can't be substantiated that ID is merely young-earth creationism in sheep's clothing (or would it be wolves' clothing?). It just isn't the case that ID people are trying to get creationism taught in public schools with the hope that that will lead to mandatory prayer and Bible classes in schools and the dissolution of separation of church and state.

5. I think my favorite moment of the film was when Stein was interviewing Richard Dawkins and asked what he'd say if he dies and meets God. Dawkins kind of himmed and hawed a bit and said, "I guess I'd give the same sort of answer as Bertrand Russell did to that question: Why didn't you give more evidence of your existence?" The scene then cut to Stein's narration saying something like, "Maybe he did... maybe God left evidence of his intelligent design of creation, but scientists aren't willing to look for it."

Book update

Like many of you out there, I enjoy the company of books. Last weekend Chad and I made a trip to Chicago hook up with the good folks at The Chapel. On the way there we stopped in Hyde Park to cruise a few of the used book stores. I acquired the following:

• Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum (on the very strong recommendation of Samwise after having enjoyed The Name of the Rose.


• Harry Prosch, Michael Polanyi: A Critical Exposition (because I'm interested in learning more about him as the second-hand things I've picked up about him resonate with my evolving thinking about epistemology).


• Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character (I had decided to procure all of his books that I could find).


• Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, The Truth about God (basically the same reason as above).


• Robert Hellenga, Philosophy Made Simple (A novel that looks to be in the same vein as Sophie's World--all it needs is the accompanying board game for philosophy parties at my house!).


• David Edmonds and John Eidinow, Wittgenstein's Poker (a reconstruction of an encounter between Karl Popper and Ludwig Wittgenstein (and a threatening poker) at a meeting of the Cambridge Moral Science club in 1946).


• Niall Griffiths, Stump (I couldn't pass up a novel with my family moniker as the title; evidently it is about a guy with an amputated arm... it won the Welsh Book of the Year award in 2004... uses some variation of the F-word in almost every paragraph).

Not sure if I'll ever read them all, but I enjoy being in their company.

An interesting thought

While out on my run this evening, I was listening to a "Speaking of Faith" podcast with Martin Marty. It was a pretty interesting discussion of religion in American life, and there are probably lots of things worth commenting on. But one interesting things stood out to me in particular: He referenced a (hitherto unknown to me) Dutch philosopher named Eugen Rosenstock-Heussy (which took some doing to find how his name was spelled).

He claimed (according to Marty) that the history of learning in the western world can be written in three Latin phrases:
1. credo ut intelligam (I believe in order to understand). This is what led to the birth of universities in the middle ages.
2. cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). Here is the skepticism that characterizes modern thought.
3. respondeo etsi mutabor (I respond although I will be changed). Truth has a social character and we learn by conversing with each other.

I like this kind of thing. I like it when historians can impose a structure on the past in such a way that it gives meaning (or brings out meaning?). I suppose I feel more comfortable when there is structure. Of course there is a lot more to be filled in, but these claims are the like the joists (or are they rafters?) upon which the rest of the planks can be laid to make the roof.

(sorry for all the parentheses)

Is it live?

Last night I dropped my son off at the Skillet concert in Elkhart where he was meeting his cousin. I brought my computer along and went somewhere for a couple of hours to kill the time. After the battery ran out, I drove back to the venue, thinking that it may about be over. When I pulled up in front of the auditorium, there were about 100 kids outside milling around and smoking. I sat there for a bit watching, and came to the realization that there were two opening acts (1000 foot crutch and someone else), and that it was probably in between acts at the moment. I also noticed that these people were going in and out without showing tickets or otherwise being regulated. So, I wondered if it was like a baseball game where after the sixth inning you can come and go as you please.

So I wandered in with the smokers and got to see the show. I'd seen Skillet a couple of times at Cornerstone and even have them listed in my favorite music section of Facebook. It's good hard rock with some pretty cool string sections. Lots of strobe lights and lasers and smoke in concert. Very loud. Not the most profound of lyrics (e.g., "you're better than drugs"), but still enjoyable.

The music is pretty heavily produced, though, so when you're watching it live, you're never really sure how much is just coming from the apple computer that is sitting on top of the keyboards. They had a violinist with them, but pretty obviously he couldn't have been make all that sound. And the bass player is also the lead singer, and about half the time he's romping around not even pretending to play (but the music doesn't seem to suffer). Nobody seems to care, though, because it sounds so professional.

I suppose that lack of caring is what has allowed video churches to thrive. It doesn't matter that the speaker isn't really there; we can watch it on the screen and get a more professional version than we would if we had to have a speaker that came out of the actual body of believers we're in the same room with. There's one local church who seems to be contemplating doing the entire service through video (not just the speaker, as many places do). I wonder, "Why not just have it piped to my TV and I can stay in bed?" It's not like we fellowship with the people around us while we're watching the "show" anyway (aside from the obligatory, "Turn to the people around you and tell them you're glad they're here" which takes place after the first music set).

I wonder where it is headed...

Running and Pharisees

We had a little mini-vacation last weekend, and one of the stops was at an outlet mall. I took a couple of the boys to an arcade and gave them each two dollars to blow while Chris did a bit of shopping. Then I sauntered over to the Nike outlet store (because there weren't any bookstores) and stumbled into a whole bunch of nice running gear for cheap.


I promise not to turn this into a running blog, but will venture one more for now:
Two things that have been interesting motivating factors for me during this last 8 months' renaissance of running in my life: good running gear (nice shoes, hi-tech moisture wisking shirts, etc.) and an on-line running log. The log, which as I mentioned is linked to the sidebar of this blog, has been particularly important. I really like keeping track of how far I've run and how long it took me. This particular log has the capability of during a google map of your routes that show distance and elevation (from our house to the river, there is a 175ft drop in elevation). You can track how many miles a particular pair of running shoes has on them, what the temperature was during your run, your weight and heart rate, etc. It is to the point that until I log a run and then check the various graphs that can be generated to see totals and comparisons and so on, it doesn't really count as a run.



I suppose that I lean pretty heavily toward performance and results. I can't help but see where a particular run stacks up with the other runs of that particular course (even if I'm not trying to run for speed). I just like to know. Does that make me a competitive person? I probably would have made a pretty good Pharisee.

Running and Mind

So, in the new book I talked about last time, there are some pretty interesting essays. Some don't really have a lot to do with running, but just use running to illustrate some other favorite idea (like the one by my benefactor about dualism). Others, though are quite interesting and insightful pieces about running. One of them in particular, "Phenomenology and Running" was very nice.

Throughout the twentieth century there were, broadly speaking, two dominant camps of philosophical thought: analytical and continental. Analytical philosophy emphasized logic and scientific method and rigorous argumentation; in my less charitable moments I describe continental philosophy as "touchy - feeling" or "fuzzy". In some of my past philosophy classes I used to do something that was probably unfair to continental philosophy: I'd bring my copy of Heidegger's Being and Time and open randomly and read a paragraph and ask students if they understood anything. Of course no one did. I'd say, "See, these continental folks are just spouting words and trying to create impressions without really analyzing their concepts." (One could just as easily do the same with analytic texts like Principia Mathematica, but I'd not mention that).

Anyway, this running article was on phenomenology--usually a topic of interest to continental types. But I really enjoyed it. It was a discussion based on Merleau-Ponty (a continental philosopher of whom I don't think I've ever read a word) about how becoming a runner changes the way you perceive the world, the way things appear to you to be (which is what phenomenology is all about). There are some obvious things like how runners can tend to view the world in miles and minutes and pace when they didn't before. The really interesting discussion was how focusing on running makes it harder, but when you occupy your mind with something else (like listening to lectures, as I often do), the body sort of runs on autopilot.

The author (I've forgotten his name now and the book is two flights up) was concerned that this spoke in favor of separate mind and body substances when his hero Merleau-Ponty wanted to say something like "our bodies are the expression of mind in the world; they are the way we experience the world." I'm going to toy around with this a bit, because it fits my theory that I had started to propound back in an entry during my first blogging stint.

Running and Philosophy

For those of you reading this on the blog site, you'll notice on the side bar my there is a feed from the running log that I keep. I was a high school cross country runner, and as an adult have been an occasional road runner. A dean at my college and I flirted with ramping up for a possible marathon run last winter (in a tropical climate), but neither of us made it. My cute wife (see the picture (in a tropical climate) on the sidebar) and I did do the Columbus Half-Marathon last October (see results here). That was a lot of fun.

Last week, was our annual Bethel Philosophy Lectures; the speaker was Charles Taliaferro. At supper I learned that he had been a contributor to the book, Running & Philosophy (Blackwell, 2007). He sent me a copy of the book this week. Thanks Charles! I'll do some reading in it this weekend as the Stumps go away and report back.

More highlights from philosophy classes past

Yesterday afternoon, Chad Meister and I had our bi-annual debate in his Metaphysics class about God's foreknowledge and our freedom. It started six years when I wrote a response to a page that he had written that was inspired by Minority Report. Essentially I claimed that there is a distinction to be made between God (or pre-cogs, or MacBeth's witches) foretelling an action that is made with significant emotional involvement (like denying Christ three times or shooting the supposed abductor of my son) and some perfectly mundane, free choice.

So I composed a thought experiment in which I stop at Krogers and buy ice cream on my way home, having to make a choice between the vanilla and the mint chocolate chip (each of which I like equally well). But then suppose that God made a video of that future choice appear on my computer before I left work for the grocery store. I claim that revealing that to me would be enough for me to want to choose oppositely to what is on the video when I actually get to Krogers. Meister claims, then, that that is a flat out contradiction because the video shows what will happen, and so I couldn't choose otherwise (though he still claims it to be a free choice). Then I fall back on some Back to the Future-inspired space-time continuum gobbledy-gook about it being a different future than the one shown on the video tape (which was not a picture of the "me" that had knowledge of the video tape). And so it goes to where I say that God knows the future and we have free will, so long as he keeps his knowledge of our future free choices to himself. That's where the discussion has ended the last three times.

This time, however, I think we made some progress (or at least advanced the discussion a bit more). Meister's strong intuitions are that I cannot do otherwise than I will do. And I'm happy enough to affirm that, but I fear there is a problem when what I "will" do is revealed to me. Because that in some sense "fixes" the future. And my strong intuition is that I can still do otherwise when I get to that future choice if I really do have free will.

So I feel that there is a linguistic problem with our analysis. For Meister asks (with the law of non-contradiction lurking close by), "Is it possible for you to do otherwise than what you will do?" I want to claim that that is an incorrect verb tense and that we don't have a verb tense that works here. For in some sense it is like asking about an action that is already done, "could you have done otherwise?" to which we say "yes, but I didn't and can't undo it now." But that doesn't really work for that future action... I think I can "undo" my future free choice because it hasn't happened yet. Thus the video is not really of the actual future (or it is set).

And then I have to claim that there is a perspectival thing going on here, because it is my knowledge of my future free actions that causes the problem. I'm happy to affirm that God can know about them through simple foreknowledge without that causing the space-time continuum dilemma.

Someday I might try to write this more coherently...

"It's simple symbolic logic, captain"

Because I'm kissing administration goodbye but still wanting a regular paycheck of some sort, they need to find something productive for me to do around here. For next fall that will include teaching Symbolic Logic.

Because this blog seems to get more reading as a Facebook note that appears there through the miracle of electronic wizardry, I'm hoping that a small commercial for the course might hit an appropriately targeted audience there of potential PHIL301 students. Also, at the joint Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics class last week with Taliaferro, there was some concern being propagated about Symbolic Logic being a difficult class; I thought I should address this concern as well.

I try to sell the course as a rigorous set of calisthenics for your minds. It is rarely the case that anyone taking it really needs to learn the symbols of first-order predicate logic for utilitarian reasons; but learning to use those symbols trains you to think in a certain way, and learning to think in that way is advantageous to just about anything you do in life (I'm not completely thrilled that I've fallen back on a utilitarian argument of sorts after all, but there it is).

In the interest of full disclosure, I always start my courses by reading some of the student evaluation comments from others who have taken the course from me. I'll give some of that here in order to get the buzz going. These are actual comments from actual people (which contrasts with what you'll get from Prenkert!! (though I'm not unaware that I'm still constructing my own narrative here)). Here is a fair representative sample of what students have said about the class over the last four times I've taught it:

"This class is very challenging. The content is difficult, but Stump is very good at making sure that students are understanding. I find this class interesting and "fun", at least, as fun as it could be. This was a very welcome breath of fresh air as far as difficulty is concerned."

Sometimes I felt as if I were sure to drown like a Viking Child thrown into the water of symbolic logic. Dr. Stump is a very good professor and this class was taught as well as any course I have taken. The class is hard for certain, but it has undoubtedly improved my thinking skills.

"This is the hardest class I've taken in my four years at Bethel.
I've never worked so hard in a class and not done as well as I would have
liked. The one redeeming quality of the class is that Stump teaches it,
but even that has failed to make the class bearable. This is not really
Stump's fault I guess. I just really hate and don't understand the content
of the course. It would be nice if Stump was more accessible--he's too
busy being an important Vice President--again I guess there's not much that can be done about that."

"Pensees are a definite plus--we miss them when they're gone. After
the Friday with the singing, the class has been way too relaxed and
lenient. Before, it was taken more seriously and I learned more."

"Good class; too picky on tests; doesn't give me points back when I whine;
it's better than Greek class; allegiance of professor to Red Sox is
unacceptable."

"I enjoyed this class, you did a good job ob of making foreign concepts
understandable. I came in with no logic experience and having no math
since my freshman year, but again you helped make it understandable. The
course was just difficult enough."

As to the difficulty of the course, the overall GPA of the grades I've given for the last several courses is higher than the average GPA of our student body. So, I'll spin that data to say, if everyone would take this class, our overall GPA would go up!!

I look forward to having you in class next fall.