The Problem of Apathy

The Problem of Apathy

“Apathy: a state of not caring; not wanting to know; complacency; indifference; to ignore; disinterested in contemplation; anesthetized by popular culture; a postmodern intellectual narcosis; compassion fatigue; too lazy; too busy; self-indulgence; limited choices in work and leisure-time; non-reflection, non-deliberation and subconscious blocking of distressing information.” (Link)

“True friendship can afford true knowledge. It does not depend on darkness and ignorance.”
(Henry David Thoreau)

“Three passions have governed my life:
The longings for love, the search for knowledge…
I have wished to understand the hearts of [people].
I have wished to know why the stars shine.
Love and knowledge led upwards to the heavens,
But always pity brought me back to earth…”
(Betrand Russell, adapted)

The following points apply both to atheist and theists alike.

Have you ever found yourself hating people who know so much or think they know so much? I've been thinking lately about the role of knowledge in everyday life. What I mean is that I’ve been seeking along the most practical lines possible an explanation of why knowledge is important and worth pursuing. We all come across individuals from time to time (and you may be one of them) who sort of scoffs at learning and education. Perhaps you left school at an early age, struggled with learning because of a disability, you never came to realize the value of knowledge, you had a bad experience with a philosophy professor, or else you feel hopeless because, as some of my philosophy students can attest, there are so many views out there; how can we know which one is right?

-- I think modern apathy against knowledge may come down to something as simple as this: “I only want to know about those
things I want to know about." --

Most of us don’t have the time, patience, and/or ability to pursue an academic life. I want to make several points, which will later be briefly pursued in argument form.

First, we all value knowledge of those things we value the most. Second, we can recognize that our knowledge of what we value the most brings us in touch with that which we value most, and therefore, “knowledge of what is valuable to us” is inherently valuable. Third, since our knowledge of what we value is inherently valuable, whatever we want to come into contact with more intimately we must acquire knowledge in order to do so. Finally, we must learn how to bring our values into line with those things that are inherently valuable. If you don’t follow this or the argument that follows, be patient as I will try to illustrate it in simpler terms.

I don’t have the time to elaborate on this in great detail, but simply present an argument with some explanation.

1. We value knowledge of those things we value.
2. We value such knowledge because such knowledge is inherently valuable.
3. Whatever we choose to become knowledgeable of will constitute knowledge that becomes inherently valuable to us in bringing us face to face with that which we choose to become knowledgeable of.
4. There are things which our knowledge of them is more valuable than other things.

Let me re-phrase this for those who have trouble following:

1. I value my knowledge of saxophones because it helps me to play saxophone.
2. I value my knowledge of saxophones because I realize that without knowledge of saxophones I wouldn’t be able to play saxophone, and so my knowledge brings me into “relationship” with a saxophone.
3. If I chose to value piano, then my knowledge of piano would bring me into a closer “relationship” with this instrument as well. It would allow me to interact with it more fully.
4. I find it more valuable to have knowledge of saxohphones than pianos since I own a saxophone and I do not own a piano.

Now, I will apply this to a theological concept:

1. I value my knowledge of God because it helps bring me into contact with God.
2. I value my knowledge of God because without it I would not know who or what God is, what he expects, if he is real, etc.

(I should point out that I’m consciously equivocating on the meaning of value here, but not to the detriment of the argument. I think elaboration of objective vs. subjective value would not aid at this point.)

You get the picture. The point is simply this: knowledge is to the mind what eyes are to the external world. By gaining knowledge, we are bringing ourselves in tune with the real world; the world of ideas, the world of emotions, the world of relationships, the world of physical objects and laws, the realm of truth. Knowledge is not some esoteric, other-worldly way of achieving fame or success or recognition. Knowledge is not simply trivia. Genuine knowledge (that is, a belief in something which is justified and true) brings us into contact with that very thing. In essence by knowing about a thing, we carve up our mind according to the way the objects of our knowledge carve up the world.

So, knowledge by itself, is inherently valuable in that it brings us into contact with the object being known. To be even more precise, I think knowledge provides the foundation for a “relationship” between me and the object being known. It provides the basis for one to interact with, understand, see, and grasp that which we value as an object of our attention.

-- Here’s a suggestion for escaping apathy: learn to want to know not only about the things you want to know about, but also the things
about which you ought to know about. --

As a final point, are there some things that are inherently more valuable than others in coming into contact with, that is, in coming into relationship with? It seems to me that trivia is often a case of valuing knowledge for its own sake. But, is truth something we want to come into contact with? Is the meaning of life? How about ourselves and other human beings? If they are, then it only makes sense that we ought to learn to do what it takes in order to ‘come to value’ our knowledge of those things that are most valuable. But for those who think there aren’t inherently valuable things out there worth pursing a knowledge of, consider this: if my argument above succeeds, then it shows that our knowledge of any particular area of interest and the ability knowledge has to bring us into a relationship with that thing or area demonstrates that there is at least one inherent value worth pursing: ‘knowledge of those things we value the most’. If there’s at least one, why couldn’t there be others as well? In other words, I think modern apathy against knowledge may come down to something as simple as this: “I only want to know about those things I want to know about.” Here’s a suggestion for escaping apathy: learn to want to know not only about the things you want to know about, but also the things about which you ought to know about. How we ‘come to value’ what we ought to value is another matter, and the subject of another blog.

When it comes to the everyday, practical value that knowledge has, consider the following application, as voiced by Timothy Keller in his book The Reason for God. I've extended his main point by adding something in brackets. I believe it is perfectly appropriate.

"If you don't trust the Bible [or science or experience or philosophy or theology] enough to let it challenge and correct your thinking, how could you ever have a personal relationship with God? In any truly personal relationship, the other person has to be able to contradict you. For example, if a wife is not allowed to contradict her husband, they won't have an intimate relationship. Remember the (two!) movies The Stepford Wives? The husbands of Stepford, Connecticut, decide to have their wives turned into robots who never cross the wills of their husbands. A stepford wife was wonderfully compliant and beautiful, but no one would describe such a marriage as intimate or personal. Now, what happens if you eliminate anything from the Bible [or any other relevant area] that offends your sensibility and crosses your will? If you pick and choose what you want to believe and reject the rest, how will you ever have a God who can contradict you? You won't! You'll have a Stepford God! A god, essentially, of your own making, and not a God with whom you can have a relationship and genuine interaction. Only if your God can say things that outrage you and make you struggle (as in a real friendship or marriage!) will you know that you have gotten hold of a real God and not a figment of your imagination. So an authoritative Bible [or any other solid, relevant source of information about God] is not the enemy of a personal relationship with God. It is the precondition for it." (p. 113-114)

Movie Fireproof under fire

Fireproof under fire

I just had the opportunity to see the new Church-produced movie Fireproof.

Some reviews are in, but it seems that most critics simply want to stay away from it altogether, and the movie only scored a 44% on the Rotten-meter. The movie came out over a week ago, yet RottenTomatoes.com only lists 12 reviews of the film. Compare this with the new box office release "Religulous". Apparently, this is Bill Maher's "comic look at organized belief systems around the world" and which has so far grossed less in its opening weekend, has opened in less theaters, yet scored a 65%, and a solid 79 reviews.

Here are a few "fresh" review snippets from Maher's movie:

"A facetious yet sincere documentary that makes the case for why all of the world's organized religions are not only, well, ridiculous, but also detrimental and downright dangerous."
Dustin Putman
TheMovieBoy.com

"Maher isn't unfair. Simply restating religious tenets to believers amounts to ridiculing them, but so be it."

Kyle Smith

New York Post

What I find interesting is the nature of such reviews. Is it just me, or does it seem more and more that movie critics no longer judge on the basis of quality but on content? It doesn't matter if a movie is funny or well-made and well-acted. If the underlying message doesn't appeal to the critic, it's a bad movie. If the underlying message is appealing, the movie is a success. Even if the movie is admittedly poorly made, it's the content that is often to blame. The blame is on both sides: those who support a philosophy and those who don't.

Let me give you a good example. Back in 2003, Jim Carey starred in the move Bruce Almighty, a well-made, well-acted, and downright funny movie (at the very least there were some very funny moments) in which Bruce is given God's powers to solve the problem of evil. When I first saw the movie, I loved it. I could understand how someone might not think it wasn't that funny, but despite $249 million in box office sales, the consensus was a 49% rating, certified "rotten". Why? Consider the following "rotten" reviews:

"A woefully underwritten motion picture that starts out as a dumb comedy before taking an ill-advised detour into mawkish sentimentality."

James Berardinelli

ReelViews

"I was really rooting for Bruce to ignore the responsibilities and give God the holy middle finger."

Josh Bell

Las Vegas Weekly

"It starts in darkness, moves into safe Liar Liar-type territory, and ends with boring Significance."

Jeffrey M. Anderson

Combustible Celluloid

Not all the reviews are along these lines, and it would be difficult to pin down the true motives for dislike of the movie. Honestly, I can remember few times I was in tears laughing as hard as when I saw Steve Carrell shouting gibberish as that news reporter, though.


But, "boring significance"? Is this what society thinks of even the mention of profound philosophical and religious ideas in movie making? It's not like they are actually arguing forcefully for them. Apparently so when the philosophical-religious conclusions aren't in line with the critic's ideology. I need to be careful and not say that only religious skeptics and liberals are guilty of this kind of thing. Christians and other conservatives often are, as well. People today haven't just lost the motive to evaluate objectively, but they've lost the ability, I think. It's a valuable skill to be able to put one's personal convictions temporarily to the side in order to deal with a subject objectively. For example, my favorite movie of all time climaxes, in a sense, with the shaking fist of a man against God, and seems to conclude that since God is not good, and there is no justice in the world, that vengeance against God is better than submission to him: Amadeus. I disagree, but I love the movie.

I have a point in here somewhere, so stay with me as we consider some of the reviews for Fireproof:

"Fireproof stops becoming relatable to us all and only to the already, or easily, indoctrinated."

Ed Gonzalez

L.A. Weekly

"Fireproof isn't merely preaching to the already converted; it's helping to further alienate the unconverted and the skeptical."

Ken Hanke

Mountain Xpress (Asheville, NC)

"Unfortunately, the emphasis on what God wants has a way of overwhelming who Caleb and Catherine are as characters."

Robert Abele

Los Angeles Times

What did I think of the movie? I liked it. I actually liked it a lot. If you don't agree with Christian values, you'll either be drawn to it, or else you'll hate it. I completely understand if someone didn't like it for these reasons. I think it's hard to be completely unmoved by it. Do I think it could have been done better? Yes, I do, without having to change the story. But, even their previous production Facing the Giants, scored only a 9%, and although I found Fireproof a stronger message and more appealing, I thought Facing the Giants was a little bit better in terms of production quality.

But, instead of a movie review, I just want to make a final point to all this rambling. My point is that in discrediting movies like Bruce Almighty and Fireproof for their religious sentimentality, preachiness, and "boring significance", aren't these critics undermining their own position? Aren't they preaching their own opinions? If they are against preaching or championing one's personal philosophical or religious views, are they not doing the same, except by demeriting philosophical and religious thought?

In other words, it's hard to discredit a movie for trumpeting philosophical and/or religious opinions when the critic's own review is the trumpeting of his own philosophical and/or religious opinion, namely, that movies that trumpet philosophical/religious opinions are undeserving. It's called being hoist by one's own petard.

ApologeticsTalk - Episode 2 - The Problem of Hypocrisy

ApologeticsTalk

Episode 2 - Apologetics in everyday conversation
(C) 2008, W. Peter Freund

“The problem of hypocrisy”

INTRODUCTION: The premise for these dialogues is that the application of apologetics is better caught than taught. The following is a fictional conversation between Peter, the Christian, and Bob, who is an atheist with a troubled past. The content is loosely based off the arguments found in Keller’s chapter on hypocrisy from “Reason for God.”

Peter: So, what do you think about the things I said about evil and God last week, now that you’ve had time to think about them?

Bob: I see your point about God and evil. God can’t prevent us from doing evil because then we wouldn’t be free. I think there are some other things in my mind that you didn’t answer, but I’ve got a new argument for you, based on evil.

Peter: Shoot.

Bob: Well, how about the problem of evil within the church.

Peter: How about it?

Bob: (laughs) How about the fact that Christians are supposed to be good, and yet there are all these scandals that we’re always hearing about on the news. Like the Catholic priests molesting children, and the televangeliars stealing peoples’ money so they can live in mansions.

Peter: Televangeliars. Funny.

Bob: Yeah, but the crusades and all the evil done in the name of Christianity isn’t funny. If God exists, then why is there all this evil in the church among God’s own people? It’s total hypocrisy! It’s crazy!

Peter: I agree with you that the world is full of hypocrites. But, define hypocrite for me. You don’t mean someone who believes one thing, but secretly believes something else, do you?

Bob: No, that’s just contradictory. What I’m talking about is when someone says one thing, but then does something else.

Peter: Can you be more specific?

Bob: Yeah, it’s when someone says we’re supposed to love others, but then they go and steal from them.

Peter: I’m sympathetic to what you are saying, but why exactly does this discredit Christianity or belief in God?

Bob: It’s obvious… the people who are supposed to be God’s people are just imposters. They say one thing and then do something completely contradictory.

Peter: I understand. But now you’re just re-stating what you already said and what people already know. Where’s the argument? Even Christians are familiar with the reality of hypocrites in the church. In fact, Jesus spends a lot of time addressing hypocrites. They troubled him, too.

Bob: Fine, but that just shows how inauthentic Christianity is. That Jesus himself cares is fine. But, I don’t see how you can honestly be a Christian with so much hypocrisy.

Peter: I think you’re dancing around the issue. You still haven’t told me exactly why hypocrisy is a problem.

Bob: It’s a problem because it’s a contradiction.

Peter: So, you mean that if a person says they believe X, but then behave like they actually don’t believe X, this is contradictory?

Bob: Yeah, exactly.

Peter: OK. So, let me try to apply that to some examples… A lawyer might say he cares about the truth, but lies to defend his client. A mother might say she wants to set a good example for her child, but yells at her child too often. An atheist might say he believes that God doesn’t exist, yet he gets angry at God for allowing evil in the world, or he prays for help when he’s in trouble.

Bob: Yeah. Except with the atheist example, that’s not a true atheist.

Peter: But, that’s the whole point! All of these are simply examples of someone who says they believe one thing, but then they don’t act on that belief. They actually act against the belief. But, here’s the problem. Here’s what I don’t get about the objection to God based on hypocrisy: it’s contradictory, but so what?

Bob: Well, but if God exists then it shouldn’t be like that!

Peter: Now, we’re getting somewhere. So, what you’re saying is that if God existed, then Christians would act like Christians, and atheists would act like atheists?

Bob: Yeah.

Peter: Since when does God’s existence depend on the imperfect behavior of human beings?

Bob: What do you mean?

Peter: I mean that hypocrisy only shows that some people either (1) don’t really believe what they say they believe, or (2) people just make a lot of mistakes. God’s existence or non-existence depends is completely independent of our beliefs about it.

Bob: (silence)

Peter: But, this isn’t just true about Christians. It’s true of everyone! Even you! For example, have you ever heard of an atheist who went to church, prayed, or read the Bible?

Bob: Well, sure.

Peter: Then, God has to exist!

Bob: Why?

Peter: Because of the hypocrisy of atheists. It’s the same argument you used against me, but now I’m turning it around. By your reasoning, if anyone acts hypocritically, then that invalidates what they believe to be true.

Bob: But, those aren’t real atheists!

Peter: What do you mean by ‘real’?

Bob: I mean they don’t really believe what they say they believe.

Peter: Maybe those aren’t real Christians, either.

Bob: Obviously.

Peter: But, if that’s obvious, then how can you complain that God can’t exist based on the argument that non-Christians who pretend to be Christians should act like Christians? That doesn’t make any sense.

Bob: Well, I’m not, but real Christians should act like Christians. That’s what I’m talking about.

Peter: But, in either case it doesn’t matter what people believe. It matters what is true. People have always believed things that are false. And, there have always been people who failed to believe things that are true. This is beside the point.

Bob: But, if Christians are God’s chosen people, then shouldn’t act the way they do.

Peter: Who says?

Bob: Well, the Bible says. Obviously.

Peter: Actually the Bible says that all people have fallen short. Paul even says….

Bob: Wait, I did some research this week and in 1 John 2:4 it says “The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”

Peter: Yes. But, it does not say that Christianity is false if a Christian fails to keep God’s commandments. You’re confusing belief with reality. All this passage shows is that the truth isn’t in that particular kind of person, not that God isn’t in reality. Ironically, it says just a little further back in 1 John: “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.” So, every Christian sins!

Bob: But, how can you be a Christian and be sinful? That’s a complete contradiction!

Peter: Actually, it’s not. Christians are pretty much the same as everyone else. They are just forgiven.

Bob: Yeah, yeah, I’ve seen that bumper sticker, too.

Peter: Just because it’s a cliché, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Bob: So, what’s your point?

Peter: My point is that there are people out there who say one thing and do another because they don’t really believe what they say they believe. But, what you’re worried about is true Christians who actually believe one thing but do something else, right?

Bob: (pause)… yeah, exactly!

Peter: So, this is the category I talked about earlier. It is that group of people that simply make mistakes. Everyone does things they wish they hadn’t done, because every single person is more complicated than a machine. Machines do exactly what they are told, assuming they are working correctly. People, though, have desires and will-power, and so they often do things simply because they really wanted to do it or else because they are sometimes rebellious.

Bob: Ok… but don’t people always act on their beliefs?

Peter: I see where you’re going with this, but that’s a discussion for another day. But, let me say at least this much. If people always acted on their beliefs, then when someone says one thing but does something else, that shows they believe two contradictory things at the same time!

Bob: Or else what they say isn’t as important as what they do. Maybe what people do shows more about what they believe than what they say? The proof is in the putting. I hate clichés, though.

Peter: I agree. In fact, that’s kind of what the book of James says… But, that issue aside, what I was saying was that people make mistakes because people aren’t perfect. Everyone at some time or another acts against their better judgment. But, this doesn’t mean that what they judged to be true in the first place wasn’t true in the first place. The Bible is in complete agreement. That is why Jesus never made perfection the true mark of a Christian, but love.

Bob: I never thought about it that way before… But I always thought that Christians were saved by doing good works, and isn’t God supposed to empower you and make you perfect?

Peter: Perfection, according to God, is not about always doing right, because not even atheists can always do what is right, it is about measuring up to God’s moral standards. God’s standard go far beyond simply our actions. It’s also about our character and what’s in our heart. In all these areas, we fail. But, Jesus allows us to measure up, because Jesus vouches for us before God the Father. We’re not morally perfect, but Jesus is.

Bob: Yeah, but isn’t there still some kind of contradiction in all this?

Peter: Probably. Because people just act contradictory sometimes. It’s because we’re not God. We all fail eventually, and then we all continue to fail, at least some of the time. But, let me ask you a question.

Bob: Shoot.

Peter: If God can’t exist because Christians sometimes do evil, then does God exist because atheists sometimes do good?

Bob: Hmmm….

ApologeticsTalk - Episode 1 - The Problem of Evil

ApologeticsTalk
Episode 1 - Apologetics in everyday conversation
(C) 2008, W. Peter Freund

“The Problem of Suffering & Evil”

INTRODUCTION: The premise for these dialogues is that the application of apologetics is better caught than taught. The following is a fictional conversation between Peter, the Christian, and Bob, who is an atheist with a troubled past. The content is loosely based off the arguments found in Keller’s chapter on suffering and evil from “Reason for God.”

Bob: I hate politics these days. There's so much dishonesty going on. In fact, the whole world is going into the gutter.

Peter: Good thing God will one day step in and make things right.

Bob: God? Are you kidding? Everyone knows that God has been disproven centuries ago.

Peter: That's news to me. How so?

Bob: Well, come on. The problem of evil, for example. It's obvious. No Christian has been able to solve it yet.

Peter: Maybe, maybe not. But, first of all, how do you even know I'm a Christian? Maybe I believe in God, but not the God of Christianity. Regardless, I know the problem you're talking about. But, let me ask you a question: why do you think evil is such a problem?

Bob: Well... If God exists then why isn't he doing anything about it? It seems to me pretty insensitive on God's part to just stand there as all these evil things are taking place.

Peter: Are you referring only to evils happening now, or to evils in the past also?

Bob: That's a good point. There were a lot of worse evils in the past, like the holocaust, and the Crusades.

Peter: So, you think God should step in and do something about all these things?

Bob: Yes.

Peter: But, I thought you were an atheist, that you didn't believe in God.

Bob: Yeah. I mean how can God be real if he doesn't do anything about evil?

Peter: Well, don't you agree that something can exist, even if it doesn't conform to our expectations?

Bob: What do you mean?

Peter: I mean that just because God doesn't act the way we want him to doesn't mean he doesn't exist. That would be like saying I don't believe in my wife's existence because she does things I don't like.

Bob: But, if God were real, it's obvious he would do something about all the evil.

Peter: Who says?

Bob: Well, for one, you Christians are always saying that God is good, and that he loves people. But, obviously, he doesn't love them enough to protect them from evil.

Peter: That's true. But, from a Christian point of view, the problem of evil is a different problem. It's the problem of simply trying to understand why God allows the kinds and amounts of evils he does. We trust he has a reason, and that it is compatible with him being good, but we just don't know what the reason is. But, we're talking about your philosophy, not mine. Why do you believe God can't exist because of evil?

Bob: Because if God existed, he would be powerful enough to prevent evil and he would be all-knowing, so there simply wouldn't be evil, but there is, so God doesn't exist.

Peter: But, isn't it possible that God himself is evil, and that he doesn't desire good at all?

Bob: Well, God pretty much is. I mean why doesn't he do something??!!

Peter: But, again, this is the kind of thing someone who believes in God says, not someone who doesn't believe in God. You're talking as if God really exists, and not only that, you seem angry at God for the way things are. But, how can you be angry at a God who doesn't exist?

Bob: It's just stupid. I get angry when I hear stupid ideas. And, I just think the idea of God is stupid. How can he be good when there is so much evil? You're dodging my question.

Peter: How do you define evil?

Bob: Ummm..... Well, how do you define evil?

Peter: I'm interested in your definition more than mine, because you are the one with the problem of evil. I don't have a problem of evil.

Bob: OK, evil is murdering innocent people, torturing, hurricanes that kill, tsunamis that wipe out thousands of innocent people, dishonesty, I could go on an on.

Peter: I agree. But, what makes these things evil. You are just giving examples.

Bob: Well, they're all evil, that's what makes them evil.

Peter: But, that's just a circular argument. That's like me saying the reason I think God is good is because God is good.

Bob: OK, well, these things are evil because they shouldn't be that way.

Peter: Says who?

Bob: What?

Peter: They shouldn't be that way according to who? Who says they shouldn't be that way?

Bob: Well, I do.

Peter: So, if you don't like something then it is evil? So, if you happen to hate broccoli, then that makes broccoli evil?

Bob: Well, for me it does.

Peter: But, the problem of evil is not that God can't exist because Broccoli exists. The problem says that God can't exist because the world is not going according to plan, right?

Bob: Yeah, I guess so.

Peter: OK, so how do you define evil?

Bob: Evil is when things don't go the way things are supposed to go.

Peter: Right, but according to who? Who says there is a right way things are supposed to go?

Bob: Mother nature.

Peter: But, in nature, whatever is, just is. There is no right or wrong. If a wild animal kills another, it doesn't murder the animal, it kills it, and when apes take from each other they aren't stealing from each other.

Bob: Yeah, but apes aren't human beings.

Peter: But, if atheism is true, then human beings are nothing more than animals. And, if we're nothing more than animals, then we're part of the natural world, and in the natural world, everything that happens is simply natural. There is no objective standard for moral duties, for moral values, and moral accountability. Everything that is, just is.

Bob: But, that doesn't mean it should be that way.

Peter: I agree. But, the word "should" only makes sense if there is a way things ought to be, but nature has no such standard. Only God provides such a standard for how things ought to be because he created the world to work a certain way, he holds us accountable, and his very nature is loving and just.

Bob: But, it's obvious the world is full of evil. I don't have to give you a sophisticated explanation of evil in order to see it.

Peter: Yes: Exactly! The world IS full of evil, but if it is the case that evil can only exist if there is good, and if it's true that good can only exist if there is an ultimate objective standard of God, which is God, then the fact of evil actually proves that God exists!

Bob: Well, I don't have time to get into a big debate about this, but if you're right, then wouldn't it follow that God exists, but is evil?

Peter: Only if it were true that God could create a better world than this one.

Bob: Well, even I could create a better world than this one.

Peter: How could you do that if you don't even know what the word "better" means. God's definition of "better" may just be way off from your definition. It's like the broccoli example. You might think broccoli is evil, but that's just a mistake.

Bob: It's obvious that there are lots of evil things that don't have to be here.

Peter: Well, let me ask you a question, then: have you ever done anything wrong, or committed any acts that are at least a little bit evil?

Bob: Well, sure. But, so?

Peter: Could you imagine living in a world where all your freedoms were taken away and you couldn't do anything?

Bob: I would hate that.

Peter: But, the only world in which evil doesn't exist is one in which God locks us up and prevents us from doing evil, whether it be evil actions, thoughts, or words.

Bob: But, God could never stop us from exercising our free will! That's impossible.

Peter: Exactly!

Bias and poll prefacing

Something I've noticed on NBC, particularly the Today Show. I haven't done enough study of this to conclude definitively on this issue, but there seems to be a liberal bias present in the way that the results of close polls are reported. On a number of occasions, when a Republican candidate is in the lead, words such as "but it is still within the margin of error" or "it's essentially a dead heat" are used to preface the results. But, when a Democrat is in the lead, the wording changes to "he has a narrow lead" or "he is winning" are used ("he" referring to the Democratic candidate).

It seems to me that NBC tries, or at least tries really hard to LOOK like they are trying, to report un-biased, so I am wondering how CBS and ABC fare on this issue of poll prefacing.

What is even more disturbing to me (and this is nothing new) is the prefacing that is done with more substantive issues. For example, the recent CBS interviews with Palin. At particular points, it seems clear that her answers were lacking, but when asked which newspapers she regularly reads, CBS and others concluded that since she failed to mention one, therefore, she must read none. What a strange conclusion, though.

Bias, whether it is conservative or liberal, bothers me. It bothers me because I care about knowing the truth.

UPDATE 10-6-08: This morning on the Today show, Chuck Todd reported Obama as having around a 4-8 point lead in certain states/polls. On a previous occasion several weeks ago when McCain had the same lead in a particular state/poll it was described as within the margin of error. I'll just wait and see.

UPDATE 10-7-08: Today reports 48% to 46% Obama "in the lead" in national poll.

"These are a few of my fav---ooorite---links..."

Dallas Willard: LINK

UPDATES

We have added a few days, but filled in some more details of the first 5 days, so scroll down for updates.

Friday: Day 7 - Vog.

Friday, we went to visit Volcano's National Park for a brief visit and saw Mt. Kilauea as it is now actively spewing smoke and sulfur dioxide into the sky. In fact, there is something called "vog" out here which people have to monitor. Schools actually close when the sulfur dioxide levels get too high. This relatively little crack in the volcano's crater allows enough to spill out over time so that when the wind is right, it all drifts into Hilo. Now's a good time to mention that we're actually staying in Hilo, HI while we are here. High levels of vog irritate the lungs and eyes and can be a big health hazard for certain people. One evening when we came back, we could smell it in the air. It smells like someone just lit a match, or lit off a firework. At night, the crack in Kilauea (pron. kill-a-whay-a) glows bright red, and this kind of eruption has been relatively recently, in the last 2 months. The time before that was years ago, though the volcano has been active for a long time. There are all these steam vents throughout the park where underground water is heated by hot rocks and then release steam out of vents in the ground.

Safety tips if you ever visit Hawaii:
1. Don't fall on volcanic rock. It cuts like razor blades. I just bumped my hand lightly against some of it and my hand was bleeding for the whole afternoon.
2. Rip current can pull you out when snorkling
3. Watch out for jellyfish and man of war (see my updated post for Monday)

After the volcano, we went to the lava rock cafe, had some fresh mahi mahi, a local winery, and yes, Isaac did whine at the winery. Then we went to tour the Mauna Loa macadamia nut farm, got some manga and coconut macadamia nut ice-cream, and then we came back and had supper at Danica's cousin's house, where we are staying.

Day 6 - A date.

Danica and I finally had a little date during the day. We went to see the new Narnia movie. We thought it was pretty good, but I thought it could have been better. I think if you view it as part 2 to the first movie, it was good, but incomplete on its own. Not unlike LOTR, of course.

Afterward we went to a little restaurant called Pesto Cafe and ordered smoked salmon fettuccine and french bread with shrimp, crab, and cheese baked over the top with a sweat potato salad. Creme Brulee' and cheesecake with coconout crust and passion fruit sauce. It was as good as it sounds.

Hawaii Trip: Day 1-5

Saturday: Day 1 - What a flight! 21 hours either in the air or in airports! We were fortunate enough to have free seats available on several, but not all the flights out to Hawaii for Isaac's car seat. The long trip from Los Angeles to Honolulu luckily had a free seat, so we could actually put Isaac in his car seat. He was a monster for a part of the time, but he did fine with the pressure from ascent and descent.

Sunday: Day 2 - God at work. We attended Hilo Missionary Church for the morning service. Of all places, in this tiny church in Hilo, HI I was amazed to see that the IVP apologist and author Dr. James Sire would be delivering a talk on Worldviews the very next evening. It's ironic because we keep bumping into each other: I sat next to him at an IVP training conference, he spoke at UW-Whitewater where I went to school, I took a 3 week class from him for credit at Talbot School of Theology, and now I bump into him here of all places. He even thought it was surprising. Danica and I were just talking about how I need to start thinking about writing and publishing. As it so happens, he is the former editor in chief for InterVarsity Press. We had a good talk afterward and writing and publishing and he is even willing to look at some of my work and give some advice. Also, there is an issue he is dealing with which I have materials he wants me to email him. During church, the sermon was done by a filmmaker who testifies to God's miraculous activity in Japan. Talking to him afterward, I realized he and one of my relatives who travels to China need to talk.

UPDATED: Sunday night, Danica's uncle Dave got some fresh caught mahi mahi and ono fish. He took it out back, behind his house, threw it on a wood slab, cut it up, and then handed me a few of the raw fish pieces to eat, raw! It was yummy, but could use some wasabi. Danica's cousin Trini cooked up the rest of the mahi mahi and some of the ono, but left the rest of the ono raw (it's called sashimi when it's just the raw fish). So, I've been eating a bunch of raw ono since then. We also cracked some macadamia nuts in Dave's backyard and ate mac nuts. I also got introduced to lychee. They are little round fruits that taste like a combination of watermelon and cantalope. We had tuna sandwhiches Doris made from ahi tuna she canned herself.

Monday: Day 3 - Richardson's Beach. Got to snorkel alongside giant sea turtles. I ran into one face to face and had to push off of its shell to distance myself.

Tuesday - Wednesday: Day 4 -5 The Beach House. We spent 2 days at a beautiful beach house that is situated directly against the rocky shore line, lined with tide pools. It was great snorkeling. I saw many fish, and even an octopus going past, a pufferfish, and many crabs. I tried in vain for about 2 hours to catch a crab with patience and some metal pinchers used to flip food on the grill. I did catch a crab and through it into a net, but it scurried back out. I ended up finding a small hermit crab, and Isaac loved to watch it walk. He squatted down and watched it inquisivitely. I turned it on its back, and Isaac reached down and meticulously righted it, so it could walk. Jeff detatched a large electric propeller from a surfboard and said I could hold it and it would propell me along while snorkeling. It worked great! I was brave enough to go out further with the propeller, because the currents were strong and I was concerned about being pulled out to sea. We went to a farmer's market and got a fresh coconut, drank the milk from it and ate the inside. We also picked up a bunch of fresh papayas and had a bunch of authentic Hawaiian food for lunch and dinner.

Tuesday: Day 4 - UPDATED: That evening we went out to eat at a Japanese restaurant called Nihon. I ordered a plate with Terriyaki butterfish, sashimi, some other Hawaiian vegetables, and Saki. Danica had shrimp tempura. The bowls were top heavy, and so I bumped my bowl of miso soup and spilled the whole thing over the table. Also I should add, "stupid chopsticks!". Besides that it was great. For dessert we had amazing pineapple shaved ice and green tea ice cream. It all sounds like something you could order at Shogun, but the fish is SO much more fresh. It was really good!






I stopped by a Fillipino restaurant and asked where could find some Balut, a delicacy in their country, but a horrible food concept. It consists of eating a partially formed baby chicken/egg raw! You just slurp it down like a raw oyster, and apparently let he egg rot in the ground for a while. I am going to try to summon the courage to eat one tomorrow. Wish me luck! At least I am on anti-biotics still for my sinus infection.