Hello, everyone. I am still quite sick, but I believe I have passed through the crisis point. Last Friday I was having difficulty breathing, and my blood oxygen level was, according to my physician, "dangerously low". (It's up a bit today, but still lower than it should be.) It's probably going to be a long recovery, but I do feel somewhat better than last week. I am sleeping 16 hours a day and subsisting on a diet of soup, soup, soup.
Now to the subject at hand. I guess you can thank me for this topic. I e-mailed Victor, and asked him whether "infinite change" at every instant might be the same thing as "changelessness". As I see it, the problem with calling God changeless is it effectively turns him into a stone, or even an idol. What got me to thinking about this was a line from an old Gordon R. Dickson SF novel, "The transient and the eternal are the same."
If God is infinitely and forever active, that might be how we can best visualize changelessness.
Soup, and loose tea. My daughter gave me a loose tea pot for Christmas, and it is a game changer. I am never going back to tea bags ever again! The difference is like that between iceberg lettuce and Romaine. No contest.
Act in the A-T sense is just what is actually existing rather than what potentially exists. A thing changes by the action of moving from potentially being something else to actually being something else. That God cannot change means He has no potential to become something else and so exists as pure act. No mixture of act and potency like we are.
Things change because of God, but God does not change.
Human language seems inadequate to express this idea. When I think "changeless", I think immobile, inert, unresponsive, sedentary, frozen. I would never apply any of those adjectives to God!
So perhaps the problem is not in theology, but in the [English] language.
If you were to ask an astronomer why the earth circles the sun he would tell you it's because of the laws of physics. So the celestial objects move and obey while the laws of physics stay unchanged. God, of course, being responsible for those laws.
Before Newton, it was common to speak of a substance with a nature and it was part of that nature that drove the substance to do what it did intrinsically. After Newton and the "laws of physics" substances were somewhat or completely denatured and were driven to do what they did by the extrinsic "laws of nature". We probably lost something after Newton.
I have skimmed (but definitely not "read") Newton's Principia, and was struck by how often Newton used similes to describe what he was writing about. "The motion of an object falling is like..."
We tend to think of Newtonian Physics as ossified, predetermined, even predestined movement. But it seems evident that Newton himself never saw them that way.
Principia was written in Latin. Did you read it in the original language or an English translation? I've only looked at English translations, but even then it was difficult because of the dated British English.
I do read Latin, but only liturgical material such as the Breviary (Divine Office). I read Newton in English. (If you can call it "reading" - it was more like skimming.) The dated nature of the language did not bother me, since I am comfortable with Middle English. I've read Chaucer and other texts (such as Piers Ploughman or the Shewings of Julian of Norwich) in the original.
What do you think of the language in the Douay Rheims Bible? I rather like it, other than the archaic variants of OT names (e.g., Noe instead of Noah, or Sophanias instead of Zephaniah). I've got the DR translation, the RSV/CE, and the King James Bible on my bookshelf, plus the Vulgate in Latin, a Russian Bible and another in Old Church Slavonic (NT only). Oh, and the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures translated into English).
As an atheist, my main interest in this topic is its intersection with cosmological arguments. For example, what would it mean for an immutable being to cause the universe to exist? I don't have anything profound to say on the topic, and I assume it has been addressed extensively by various philosophers.
The Douay Rheims may have been my childhood family bible but I don't remember for sure. I like the RSV.
I took Spanish in highschool and college but never had a chance to use it much so I'd have to start from scratch again if I had to use it to any extent. Too bad, because it would come in handy for me now.
It is a misunderstanding of creation to think of it as a singular event in the past. Catholic doctrine says creation is ongoing at every moment. Creation would in such a case not imply Divine change, since He is forever creating. That's not my thought (although I agree with it). The idea is centuries, if not millennia, old.
And remember, before creation there is no time. Time is part and parcel of creation (as is space).
I was given my first Bible at Roman Catholic confirmation in the 8th grade (age 13). My godfather recommended I read the book of Job to learn about faith. I made it about halfway through that book before I thought the god of the Jews was insane.
I took up the Bible again when I was in the military and decided to read my way through the Bible. I think I was about 18 or 19. I made it halfway through the book of Numbers and gave up.
Since then I've gone through the Bible many times. God does seem to change from Genesis to Revelation. But I have gone through so many changes, I'm not sure if it's Him or me.
I'm glad you're doing better Star. I'm thinking it was our Anglican prayer that lead in your healing.
If you start off reading the Bible at Genesis and read each book in sequence you'll bog down soon after Exodus.
Jeff Cavins has a good plan by indicating which select books to read first to get an overview of the entire narrative. Then you can fill in the details with the other books according to where they fall into the timeline.
"I'm thinking it was our Anglican prayer that led in your healing."
I'll welcome prayers from whatever source! I even had a Muslim friend praying for me.
I've read parts of the Bible hundreds of times, but I've only gone straight through it twice ever. The first time was in Kuwait (New American translation) where it was the only book I had with me, and the second time was just a few years ago (King James translation). Other than the Gospels and Psalms (which I've read through times without number) I think the books I've read the most often are Genesis and (odd that you should have started there) Job. I think Job stands with the very greatest works of world literature, alongside Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare, for its depth of wisdom and its understanding of human nature.
As I have gone through many changes since I was 13, I have come to love Job in it's poetry about tragedy and the gift and curses of good friends. God also remains mysterious in many ways as expressed in Job and in my personal experience.
Numbers? I still don't get it.
Along the way, I found the greatest comfort in the Psalms and the Gospels. Colossians was particularly important to me for about a 3-year span in life and memorize the book and recited it from memory on my way to work everyday for a couple of years.
I settled into the Anglican Church, partly because I like theology expressed in prayers rather than in statements. It's both my temperament and my thoughts about the faith.
I don't mind atheists who try to tell me I'm wrong. That's just the free marketplace of ideas. What I don't care for are the nasty ones who specialize in childish schoolyard taunts, such as calling God "your invisible sky fairy". Give me a good argument any day... but not that.
I am reading The Greater Trumps by Charles Williams (the "Third Inkling") right now, and by an amazing coincidence, there is a great deal in it about perpetual motion being the same thing as changelessness.
Some of them care enough to spend inordinate amounts of their time to tell you you're wrong
There don't seem to be nearly as many of this type around. Many of them seemed to be teenagers by the way they reveled in their intentional lack of civility, so they grew up over the last decade. Others joined the far left and replaced religion with straight white men as the boogeyman.
The Dawkins-Harris brand seems to have been chased off the scene. This is relatively unfortunate since they were one of the few groups trying to control the A+ crowd like PZ Myers, a far more toxic group. Give me Dawkins over Myers any day.
Really? Anecdotal evidence here, but most of the diehard atheists I've known have been conservatives, right wingers, Republicans (choose your adjective), or else Ayn Rand devotees.
I've never known an antitheistic sort who voted Republican, particularly since they are so heavily tied to evangelical Christianity. The New Atheist movement was shattered by Atheism Plus, the hyper-progressive wing of the group who wanted to focus on left wing political goals while the old variety wanted to focus on bashing religion. The latter lost.
As for the prominent antitheists, Richard Dawkins hates conservatives. Jerry Coyne calls himself a leftist. Peter Boghossian is a liberal who will not vote for a Republican. Sam Harris is a Democrat and calls himself a liberal. Christopher Hitchens called himself a Marxist and supported the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and also Barack Obama. Daniel Dennett leans left. I don't know a single prominent atheist who is a Republican or conservative, nor do I know one personally. All are Democrats or even farther left than that.
Then of course Pew Research Center says 69 percent of atheists vote or lean Democrat, versus 15 percent Republican.
It seems to me your local slice of the atheist population is largely an anomaly. The vast majority are Democrats or beyond.
Lucky me then, who got stuck with the Ayn Rand crowd! I can't count the (frustrating to the max) debates I've had about the purportive literary worth and philosophical wisdom of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.
But then, where one lives might be a factor. Could it be that atheists mirror the states they live in? Red state atheists would then tend to be conservative, while blue state atheists would lean democratic.
Growing up in Arizona, it would make sense that the atheists I knew in my college days would all be William F. Buckley conservatives. Even today, conservative columnist George F. Will is an avowed atheist.
To Victor's post: I don't check blogs to read long articles. I'm guessing most visitors to blogs that cite long articles read a few sentences and then skim the rest. Long reads (books) are usually recommended by my wife or a close friend.
After skimming the article people make random comments. Then it usually breaks into politics, with Star leading the way on this one.
Ayn Rand atheist are usually libertarians. There's a difference between conservatives and libertarians, with some overlap.
From experience, atheist leftist lean toward Marxism, while Christian liberals lean toward the mainstream Democratic party.
Bill Buckley was a devout Roman Catholic and conservatives. I remember reading National Review at my local library. His son Christopher Buckley was a writer for the magazine. Circa 2012 Christopher said he no longer believed in the faith and is going to vote for Obama and gave up writing for National Review. This is a 20-year-old memory so you may want to look it up.
My comment about the atheists I knew being mostly conservative was in answer to Kevin's comment that they were in large part leftists. So how did I "lead" there?
And my lighthearted comment to papalinton was nothing more than a complement to his home country of Australia. Nothing political there! One has to be merciful when dealing with papalinton. I am convinced that, if there is any justice in the afterlife (and there most undoubtedly is), he is one of the most Heaven bound individuals I have come across in my time, despite his militant atheism.
My introduction to Ayn Rand was by reading the Sword of Truth fantasy series by Terry Goodkind (I emphatically do not recommend reading it even if you enjoy fantasy).
The protagonists are violent sociopaths who happily slaughter anyone who has a problem with their policies, because they know they are RIGHT, while the main villains are a parody blend of radical Islam and Communism. The main character preaches objectivism for pages at a time. It is truly one of the worst things I have ever read, and if Goodkind was inspired so much by Rand that his heroes would be the villains in any other book, then that doesn't say much for objectivism.
My oldest son was greatly influenced by reading all of Ayn Rand. He is a Christian believing that the church should take care of people in need and the big government liberals are just cowards because they don't want to make personal sacrifices to help the poor.
Needless to say, all the conversations around my dinner table during the holidays are interesting.
My wife the kids and their spouses were all formed by the Christian faith, the politics are contentious.
After dinner we play a few board games (son #2 always ropes us in to family strategy games) and depart with love and hurt feelings until we get together again in a few weeks.
Politics (as opposed to "news") is virtually never discussed in my family, mainly because everyone pretty much agrees with everyone else. Such discussions are only interesting when people have differing viewpoints.
Card games (such as Uno, Zeus on the Loose, or Sleeping Queens) are preferred to board games. Regardless, I stink at them all.
I've been introduced to a whole new genre of board games. I grew up on Monopoly, Life, Sorry--basically games of chance.
Nowadays these board games cause you to think and strategize. Unlike video games, you have to engage with everyone at the table. Politics, theology, philosophy, everything gets thrown in the mix while you're trying to win the game.
One person always wins the game. No one ever wins the debate. That's what we all expect everytime we get together.
Kevin, The Dawkins-Harris brand seems to have been chased off the scene. This is relatively unfortunate since they were one of the few groups trying to control the A+ crowd like PZ Myers, a far more toxic group. Give me Dawkins over Myers any day.
By contrast, I find the Dawkins/Harris group to be more toxic. They are much more dismissive of traditions they don't share.
Limited Perspective, I've been introduced to a whole new genre of board games. I grew up on Monopoly, Life, Sorry--basically games of chance.
Nowadays these board games cause you to think and strategize. Unlike video games, you have to engage with everyone at the table. Politics, theology, philosophy, everything gets thrown in the mix while you're trying to win the game.
Some of the really good games in that genre go way back. There is no luck in Diplomacy, but you should only play it with people who you don't care about or those who you will love no matter how much they betray you. I'm a big fan of the 18xx genre (railroad business games, nothing regarding pornography).
What did your kid introduce you to? There's a decent chance I've played it.
Dawkins, though an unapologetic proponent of the "Let's humiliate them" school of thought, proves to be surprisingly civil when it comes to face to face debates/conversations. (Watch his discussion of faith with Rabbi Sacks on YouTube.) Harris is a bomb thrower, and I suspect he would gladly throw all believers into reeducation camps. But the worst of the lot is Boghassian, who simply refuses to honestly refer to the beliefs of those he disagrees with.
We've played Coup and Codenames a few times I think. Settlers of Catan, Castles of Burgundy, and Tiny Towns come to mind. There's more that don't come to mind.
When I say games of chance growing up I mean until about the 8th grade. After that was Risk in Highschool, which is a little more than chance. Around 1980, when I was a high school dropout and juvenile delinquent, a cousin introduced me to Avalon Hill's Squad Leader. This game had some following when I was in the Air Force 1981-1985.
Post military, I went back to mundane dice board games that we played when the kids were little.
I know son #2 plays more elaborate board games, but for the sake of all of us he chooses something that's quick to learn, gives rookies a fighting chance, and allows everyone to argue about everything.
Yes, my brother Richard made the game board. The misnamed "World Conquest" was endlessly fascinating, because there was almost never a winner as such, but rather the various players struggled to maintain their hold on the spheres of influence they had carved out. Kind of like the real world. It was rare for any player to be totally knocked out, although he might be doomed to be a second rate power, at the mercy of whatever alliances he could forge.
Boy, does that bring back some fond memories.
The game would never have been popular on the mass market. It was basically endless hours of jostling for position, but extremely seldom executing a truly decisive maneuver.
Too bad the article didn't mention Aristolte's Unchanged Changer or the NeoPlatonic One. God being unchanging is not just a Christian concept.
ReplyDeleteSo you have at least One comment.
Certainly, atheists should see little reason to comment on this topic.
ReplyDeleteHello, everyone. I am still quite sick, but I believe I have passed through the crisis point. Last Friday I was having difficulty breathing, and my blood oxygen level was, according to my physician, "dangerously low". (It's up a bit today, but still lower than it should be.) It's probably going to be a long recovery, but I do feel somewhat better than last week. I am sleeping 16 hours a day and subsisting on a diet of soup, soup, soup.
ReplyDeleteNow to the subject at hand. I guess you can thank me for this topic. I e-mailed Victor, and asked him whether "infinite change" at every instant might be the same thing as "changelessness". As I see it, the problem with calling God changeless is it effectively turns him into a stone, or even an idol. What got me to thinking about this was a line from an old Gordon R. Dickson SF novel, "The transient and the eternal are the same."
If God is infinitely and forever active, that might be how we can best visualize changelessness.
Soup, and loose tea. My daughter gave me a loose tea pot for Christmas, and it is a game changer. I am never going back to tea bags ever again! The difference is like that between iceberg lettuce and Romaine. No contest.
ReplyDeleteThe classic theological position is that God is pure act with no potency and so no potential to change. So God is pure act, not a stone.
ReplyDeleteIsn't act the same thing as change? (unless the act is infinite, i.e., every possible act at every instant)
ReplyDeleteAct in the A-T sense is just what is actually existing rather than what potentially exists. A thing changes by the action of moving from potentially being something else to actually being something else. That God cannot change means He has no potential to become something else and so exists as pure act. No mixture of act and potency like we are.
ReplyDeleteThings change because of God, but God does not change.
Human language seems inadequate to express this idea. When I think "changeless", I think immobile, inert, unresponsive, sedentary, frozen. I would never apply any of those adjectives to God!
ReplyDeleteSo perhaps the problem is not in theology, but in the [English] language.
If you were to ask an astronomer why the earth circles the sun he would tell you it's because of the laws of physics. So the celestial objects move and obey while the laws of physics stay unchanged. God, of course, being responsible for those laws.
ReplyDeleteBefore Newton, it was common to speak of a substance with a nature and it was part of that nature that drove the substance to do what it did intrinsically. After Newton and the "laws of physics" substances were somewhat or completely denatured and were driven to do what they did by the extrinsic "laws of nature". We probably lost something after Newton.
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteMost scientists are well aware that the "laws of nature" are descriptive, not prescriptive. that's why they are continuously subject to revision.
I have skimmed (but definitely not "read") Newton's Principia, and was struck by how often Newton used similes to describe what he was writing about. "The motion of an object falling is like..."
ReplyDeleteWe tend to think of Newtonian Physics as ossified, predetermined, even predestined movement. But it seems evident that Newton himself never saw them that way.
Principia was written in Latin. Did you read it in the original language or an English translation? I've only looked at English translations, but even then it was difficult because of the dated British English.
ReplyDeleteI do read Latin, but only liturgical material such as the Breviary (Divine Office). I read Newton in English. (If you can call it "reading" - it was more like skimming.) The dated nature of the language did not bother me, since I am comfortable with Middle English. I've read Chaucer and other texts (such as Piers Ploughman or the Shewings of Julian of Norwich) in the original.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the language in the Douay Rheims Bible? I rather like it, other than the archaic variants of OT names (e.g., Noe instead of Noah, or Sophanias instead of Zephaniah). I've got the DR translation, the RSV/CE, and the King James Bible on my bookshelf, plus the Vulgate in Latin, a Russian Bible and another in Old Church Slavonic (NT only). Oh, and the Tanakh (Hebrew Scriptures translated into English).
As an atheist, my main interest in this topic is its intersection with cosmological arguments. For example, what would it mean for an immutable being to cause the universe to exist? I don't have anything profound to say on the topic, and I assume it has been addressed extensively by various philosophers.
ReplyDeleteThat's my comment on your blog post. :)
The Douay Rheims may have been my childhood family bible but I don't remember for sure. I like the RSV.
ReplyDeleteI took Spanish in highschool and college but never had a chance to use it much so I'd have to start from scratch again if I had to use it to any extent. Too bad, because it would come in handy for me now.
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteIt is a misunderstanding of creation to think of it as a singular event in the past. Catholic doctrine says creation is ongoing at every moment. Creation would in such a case not imply Divine change, since He is forever creating. That's not my thought (although I agree with it). The idea is centuries, if not millennia, old.
And remember, before creation there is no time. Time is part and parcel of creation (as is space).
Starhopper says:
ReplyDelete"So perhaps the problem is not in theology, but in the [English] language."
Naahhh, Bob. The problem definitely lies in the theology.
Well, we now know that at least one thing is changeless, Papalinton, and that's you. :)
ReplyDeleteI do, however, admire your country's turning away Djokovic at your border, for essentially being an ass.
I was given my first Bible at Roman Catholic confirmation in the 8th grade (age 13). My godfather recommended I read the book of Job to learn about faith. I made it about halfway through that book before I thought the god of the Jews was insane.
ReplyDeleteI took up the Bible again when I was in the military and decided to read my way through the Bible. I think I was about 18 or 19. I made it halfway through the book of Numbers and gave up.
Since then I've gone through the Bible many times. God does seem to change from Genesis to Revelation. But I have gone through so many changes, I'm not sure if it's Him or me.
I'm glad you're doing better Star. I'm thinking it was our Anglican prayer that lead in your healing.
I'm also thinking it's Star that turned this post political:
ReplyDelete”I do, however, admire your country's turning away Djokovic at your border, for essentially being an ass."
If you start off reading the Bible at Genesis and read each book in sequence you'll bog down soon after Exodus.
ReplyDeleteJeff Cavins has a good plan by indicating which select books to read first to get an overview of the entire narrative. Then you can fill in the details with the other books according to where they fall into the timeline.
"I'm thinking it was our Anglican prayer that led in your healing."
ReplyDeleteI'll welcome prayers from whatever source! I even had a Muslim friend praying for me.
I've read parts of the Bible hundreds of times, but I've only gone straight through it twice ever. The first time was in Kuwait (New American translation) where it was the only book I had with me, and the second time was just a few years ago (King James translation). Other than the Gospels and Psalms (which I've read through times without number) I think the books I've read the most often are Genesis and (odd that you should have started there) Job. I think Job stands with the very greatest works of world literature, alongside Homer, Virgil, Dante, and Shakespeare, for its depth of wisdom and its understanding of human nature.
As I have gone through many changes since I was 13, I have come to love Job in it's poetry about tragedy and the gift and curses of good friends. God also remains mysterious in many ways as expressed in Job and in my personal experience.
ReplyDeleteNumbers? I still don't get it.
Along the way, I found the greatest comfort in the Psalms and the Gospels. Colossians was particularly important to me for about a 3-year span in life and memorize the book and recited it from memory on my way to work everyday for a couple of years.
I settled into the Anglican Church, partly because I like theology expressed in prayers rather than in statements. It's both my temperament and my thoughts about the faith.
Another change for me is I don't really care if someone is an atheist. Go live your life, I don't care.
ReplyDeleteAnother change for me is I don't really care if someone is an atheist. Go live your life, I don't care.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter that you don't care. Some of them care enough to spend inordinate amounts of their time to tell you you're wrong.
I don't mind atheists who try to tell me I'm wrong. That's just the free marketplace of ideas. What I don't care for are the nasty ones who specialize in childish schoolyard taunts, such as calling God "your invisible sky fairy". Give me a good argument any day... but not that.
ReplyDeletebmiller,
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter that you don't care. Some of them care enough to spend inordinate amounts of their time to tell you you're wrong.
Most atheists are happy to leave believers alone as long as those atheists aren't expect to voice belief.
I am reading The Greater Trumps by Charles Williams (the "Third Inkling") right now, and by an amazing coincidence, there is a great deal in it about perpetual motion being the same thing as changelessness.
ReplyDeleteA "cracking good read" and well worth your time.
Yeah, I don't like being asked to voice things I don't believe either.
ReplyDeleteSome of them care enough to spend inordinate amounts of their time to tell you you're wrong
ReplyDeleteThere don't seem to be nearly as many of this type around. Many of them seemed to be teenagers by the way they reveled in their intentional lack of civility, so they grew up over the last decade. Others joined the far left and replaced religion with straight white men as the boogeyman.
The Dawkins-Harris brand seems to have been chased off the scene. This is relatively unfortunate since they were one of the few groups trying to control the A+ crowd like PZ Myers, a far more toxic group. Give me Dawkins over Myers any day.
"Others joined the far left"
ReplyDeleteReally? Anecdotal evidence here, but most of the diehard atheists I've known have been conservatives, right wingers, Republicans (choose your adjective), or else Ayn Rand devotees.
I've never known an antitheistic sort who voted Republican, particularly since they are so heavily tied to evangelical Christianity. The New Atheist movement was shattered by Atheism Plus, the hyper-progressive wing of the group who wanted to focus on left wing political goals while the old variety wanted to focus on bashing religion. The latter lost.
ReplyDeleteAs for the prominent antitheists, Richard Dawkins hates conservatives. Jerry Coyne calls himself a leftist. Peter Boghossian is a liberal who will not vote for a Republican. Sam Harris is a Democrat and calls himself a liberal. Christopher Hitchens called himself a Marxist and supported the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and also Barack Obama. Daniel Dennett leans left. I don't know a single prominent atheist who is a Republican or conservative, nor do I know one personally. All are Democrats or even farther left than that.
Then of course Pew Research Center says 69 percent of atheists vote or lean Democrat, versus 15 percent Republican.
It seems to me your local slice of the atheist population is largely an anomaly. The vast majority are Democrats or beyond.
Lucky me then, who got stuck with the Ayn Rand crowd! I can't count the (frustrating to the max) debates I've had about the purportive literary worth and philosophical wisdom of Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.
ReplyDeleteBut then, where one lives might be a factor. Could it be that atheists mirror the states they live in? Red state atheists would then tend to be conservative, while blue state atheists would lean democratic.
ReplyDeleteGrowing up in Arizona, it would make sense that the atheists I knew in my college days would all be William F. Buckley conservatives. Even today, conservative columnist George F. Will is an avowed atheist.
ReplyDeleteTo Victor's post: I don't check blogs to read long articles. I'm guessing most visitors to blogs that cite long articles read a few sentences and then skim the rest. Long reads (books) are usually recommended by my wife or a close friend.
ReplyDeleteAfter skimming the article people make random comments. Then it usually breaks into politics, with Star leading the way on this one.
Ayn Rand atheist are usually libertarians. There's a difference between conservatives and libertarians, with some overlap.
From experience, atheist leftist lean toward Marxism, while Christian liberals lean toward the mainstream Democratic party.
My own observation.
Bill Buckley was a devout Roman Catholic and conservatives. I remember reading National Review at my local library. His son Christopher Buckley was a writer for the magazine. Circa 2012 Christopher said he no longer believed in the faith and is going to vote for Obama and gave up writing for National Review. This is a 20-year-old memory so you may want to look it up.
ReplyDeleteCirca 2007
ReplyDelete" with Star leading the way on this one"
ReplyDeleteHuh?
My comment about the atheists I knew being mostly conservative was in answer to Kevin's comment that they were in large part leftists. So how did I "lead" there?
And my lighthearted comment to papalinton was nothing more than a complement to his home country of Australia. Nothing political there! One has to be merciful when dealing with papalinton. I am convinced that, if there is any justice in the afterlife (and there most undoubtedly is), he is one of the most Heaven bound individuals I have come across in my time, despite his militant atheism.
My introduction to Ayn Rand was by reading the Sword of Truth fantasy series by Terry Goodkind (I emphatically do not recommend reading it even if you enjoy fantasy).
ReplyDeleteThe protagonists are violent sociopaths who happily slaughter anyone who has a problem with their policies, because they know they are RIGHT, while the main villains are a parody blend of radical Islam and Communism. The main character preaches objectivism for pages at a time. It is truly one of the worst things I have ever read, and if Goodkind was inspired so much by Rand that his heroes would be the villains in any other book, then that doesn't say much for objectivism.
Star, I always appreciate someone helping me understand their comments. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteMy oldest son was greatly influenced by reading all of Ayn Rand. He is a Christian believing that the church should take care of people in need and the big government liberals are just cowards because they don't want to make personal sacrifices to help the poor.
ReplyDeleteNeedless to say, all the conversations around my dinner table during the holidays are interesting.
My wife the kids and their spouses were all formed by the Christian faith, the politics are contentious.
After dinner we play a few board games (son #2 always ropes us in to family strategy games) and depart with love and hurt feelings until we get together again in a few weeks.
Politics (as opposed to "news") is virtually never discussed in my family, mainly because everyone pretty much agrees with everyone else. Such discussions are only interesting when people have differing viewpoints.
ReplyDeleteCard games (such as Uno, Zeus on the Loose, or Sleeping Queens) are preferred to board games. Regardless, I stink at them all.
I've been introduced to a whole new genre of board games. I grew up on Monopoly, Life, Sorry--basically games of chance.
ReplyDeleteNowadays these board games cause you to think and strategize. Unlike video games, you have to engage with everyone at the table. Politics, theology, philosophy, everything gets thrown in the mix while you're trying to win the game.
One person always wins the game. No one ever wins the debate. That's what we all expect everytime we get together.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThe Dawkins-Harris brand seems to have been chased off the scene. This is relatively unfortunate since they were one of the few groups trying to control the A+ crowd like PZ Myers, a far more toxic group. Give me Dawkins over Myers any day.
By contrast, I find the Dawkins/Harris group to be more toxic. They are much more dismissive of traditions they don't share.
Limited Perspective,
ReplyDeleteI've been introduced to a whole new genre of board games. I grew up on Monopoly, Life, Sorry--basically games of chance.
Nowadays these board games cause you to think and strategize. Unlike video games, you have to engage with everyone at the table. Politics, theology, philosophy, everything gets thrown in the mix while you're trying to win the game.
Some of the really good games in that genre go way back. There is no luck in Diplomacy, but you should only play it with people who you don't care about or those who you will love no matter how much they betray you. I'm a big fan of the 18xx genre (railroad business games, nothing regarding pornography).
What did your kid introduce you to? There's a decent chance I've played it.
Dawkins, though an unapologetic proponent of the "Let's humiliate them" school of thought, proves to be surprisingly civil when it comes to face to face debates/conversations. (Watch his discussion of faith with Rabbi Sacks on YouTube.) Harris is a bomb thrower, and I suspect he would gladly throw all believers into reeducation camps. But the worst of the lot is Boghassian, who simply refuses to honestly refer to the beliefs of those he disagrees with.
ReplyDeleteOne Brow,
ReplyDeleteWe've played Coup and Codenames a few times I think. Settlers of Catan, Castles of Burgundy, and Tiny Towns come to mind. There's more that don't come to mind.
When I say games of chance growing up I mean until about the 8th grade. After that was Risk in Highschool, which is a little more than chance. Around 1980, when I was a high school dropout and juvenile delinquent, a cousin introduced me to Avalon Hill's Squad Leader. This game had some following when I was in the Air Force 1981-1985.
Post military, I went back to mundane dice board games that we played when the kids were little.
I know son #2 plays more elaborate board games, but for the sake of all of us he chooses something that's quick to learn, gives rookies a fighting chance, and allows everyone to argue about everything.
ReplyDeleteStarhopper: I remember one board game you were pretty good at. But I think the map for it has been lost.
ReplyDelete(It was basically an expanded version of Risk called the World Conquest Game).
Yes, my brother Richard made the game board. The misnamed "World Conquest" was endlessly fascinating, because there was almost never a winner as such, but rather the various players struggled to maintain their hold on the spheres of influence they had carved out. Kind of like the real world. It was rare for any player to be totally knocked out, although he might be doomed to be a second rate power, at the mercy of whatever alliances he could forge.
ReplyDeleteBoy, does that bring back some fond memories.
The game would never have been popular on the mass market. It was basically endless hours of jostling for position, but extremely seldom executing a truly decisive maneuver.
On more than one occasion, we would play straight through the night, until morning.
ReplyDeleteLimited Perspective said...
ReplyDeleteThere's more that don't come to mind.
I've played all the ones you listed, some of them well. It's been decades since I played Advanced Squad Leader.
My wife has learned several of the crayon rails, and the whole family does deck-building. It's a good time.