I've probably watched the movie Planes, Trains and Automobiles at least five or six times, and it's just as laugh-out-loud funny each time. It is about a man (Steve Martin) who tries to get home to his family for Thanksgiving, and everything that can go wrong goes wrong on his trip, including the fact that he always ends up with an annoying shower ring salesman as a companion (John Candy). But I don't think it's just the comedic genius of John Candy and Steve Martin that appeals to me. I watch that movie to truly appreciate the fact that I am not out there experiencing a trip of nightmarish proportions. I'm experiencing it vicariously, yes, but with the power to instantly end the experience via the click of a remote control and go to sleep in my own bed--a power I woefully lack when I'm actually out there braving airports and delayed flights. So that movie is more than just mindless entertainment to me--it's a complex psychological experience.I've been having the opposite psychological experience since I woke up this morning, after finding out that my daughter Chelsea has been stuck at the Reykjavik airport on her way to Norway--about sixteen hours now. She will hopefully arrive in Oslo by 2:30 a.m., barring further delays. After much time talking with relatives on the phone, communicating with Chelsea through email, and researching hotels on the Internet, she has a hotel room by the airport and will be picked up by my dad when she checks out tomorrow at noon. Hurrah for the Internet for making long distance helicopter parenting possible!
Not that Chelsea needs helicopter parenting. She pretty much planned this year abroad entirely by herself--figuring out how to get her college credits transferred, how to get a Norwegian social security number and passport (she has dual citizenship), learning the culture and language, and following the Norwegian news. She has lived and breathed Norway for the past year.
She has also carefully researched the Norwegian fashions. (In case anyone is wondering, Converse high tops are a must have if you are planning a trip in the near future--the more colors the better.) A couple of days before she left, after too many trips to the mall to buy and return shoes and stuff, I warned her against going to Norway with a Norwegianer-than-thou attitude, by telling her about my Italian friend back when I studied in Norway my junior year in college. His real name was Giorgio, but when he moved to Norway he exercised the exceedingly poor judgment of legally changing it to Jørgen. He wore traditional Norwegian sweaters all the time and spoke Nynorsk (the version of written Norwegian that combines dialects and which is used in more traditional parts of the country). He was far more Norwegian than those of us who were born there, and of course we thought that an Italian born-again Norwegian was too funny.
Chelsea explained that she was in no danger of becoming like Jørgen because although she had worked very hard to become as Norwegian as possible, she wouldn't look like she had tried too hard. She would look like she effortlessly blended, instead of screaming, "I am American!"
Chelsea explained that she was in no danger of becoming like Jørgen because although she had worked very hard to become as Norwegian as possible, she wouldn't look like she had tried too hard. She would look like she effortlessly blended, instead of screaming, "I am American!"
Maybe true. But even with all the right footwear, the best laid plans of mice and men and college girls can go awry. Several months ago when we made the reservations, Chelsea didn't need a meddling mother to tell her that a ten-hour layover in Reykjavik (which has now turned to sixteen) was too long and that she should go through London instead. She loved Iceland almost as much as she loves Norway (and yes, I think the past tense is probably correct, although I haven't asked her about it).
I just got on Flight Stats and found out that her flight out of Iceland has taken off. Yay! And it will arrive at 2:30 a.m. local time. Not so yay--especially since we left for the San Francisco Airport at 6:45 a.m. yesterday, and her trip will take a grand total of 37 hours. But at least it should be over soon.
So I think I'll take a deep breath (after I call and double-check Chelsea's hotel reservations in Oslo) and watch Planes, Trains and Automobiles again tonight.
UPDATE at 7:30 p.m. Pacific Time: She is now in her hotel room and the lady at the desk was nice enough to offer to let her check out at 2 p.m. tomorrow, so she can sleep in.
UPDATE at 7:30 p.m. Pacific Time: She is now in her hotel room and the lady at the desk was nice enough to offer to let her check out at 2 p.m. tomorrow, so she can sleep in.
211 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 211 of 211I will just conclude by pointing out that in their article the McGrews address an argument similar to your statistical argument--Alvin Plantinga's Principle of Dwindling Probabilities. He argues that the probability of theism sets an upper bound on the probability of the resurrection, because Christianity entails theism but not vice versa. Although you may want to read it yourself, the McGrews reply by saying essentially that although it is true that God would have to exist in order to raise Jesus from the dead, the evidence for the resurrection also has bearing on the probability of theism.
They apply Plantinga's argument to the following two propositions:
A Alvin Plantinga exists
B Alvin Plantinga sent me an email on March 3, 2007.
Although Plantinga would have to exist to send an email, so B would necessarily be false if A is false, B is evidence for A and would raise the probability of A. So if I start out saying that without further information there is less than a .5 probability of A, and I go to my computer and find an email from Plantinga, then B raises the probability of A. It doesn't lower it, as Plantinga claims in his argument.
If you're saying that you think Clay Jones is treating this argument like a deductive argument, then you are right to object to that, but Bayesian inference is inductive reasoning. It is used to calculate how much each piece of evidence should strengthen our belief in some hypothesis.
I don't think your statistical analysis is the correct way of looking at this issue, because each piece of evidence adds to the probability of the resurrection. What you are essentially arguing is that the more evidence is added the less probable some hypothesis, which is clearly false.
I think a dwindling probability approach would apply to the following situation: Let's say the probability that a Professor of Philosopher named Alvin Plantinga teaches at Notre Dame is less than .5--then if you add another proposition (he lives in a house rather than an apartment) then the total probability goes down even if the probability of him living in a house is .9. And the probability that he is married may be .8, etc. But the probability that all these factors are true would necessarily be lower than any one of them by itself.
But the historical argument for the resurrection is different because each piece of evidence increases the probability of the resurrection. (Or, if we had evidence that Paul was a charlatan, it would decrease the probability.)
I don't say this to raise another issue, but just to let you know that the McGrews do address an argument similar to yours in case you're interested.
What you are essentially arguing is that the more evidence is added the less probable some hypothesis, which is clearly false.
Of course I don't want to raise another issue either . . . but . . . No. I'm not arguing that at all.
The thing is that the evidence is pretty well fixed. It consists of a collection of ancient stories that are highly problematic in terms of authorship and sources. The odds that we are ever going to be able to add to the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection are slim to none. It is what it is.
What the "minimal facts" approach tries to do is to bypass the problems with the sources by extracting intermediate "facts" and basing the resurrection argument on the grounds that the facts are "widely accepted." Unfortunately, adding additional facts based on the same highly problematic evidence does nothing to change the probabilities.
It reminds me of the hocus pocus that Wall Street performed to turn "no doc" "pick-a-payment" liar loans into AAA mortgage backed securities. Unfortunately for the world economy, sows' ears are not so easily turned into silk purses.
Thom Stark's book, The Human Faces of God, does an excellent job of arguing for Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet. And in the process he destroy's N.T. Wright's(and people like Anette) attempt to save Jesus from being wrong about his return in the lifetime of his followers.
And interestingly enough, Stark is a Christian.
Hi Anonymous aka kilo papa aka JesusSaves aka TruthOverFaith! How are things in Little Rock?
(By the way, I would appreciate it if you'd stop with the spam in the other thread. I'm getting tired of having to delete it every morning.)
And in the process he destroy's N.T. Wright's(and people like Anette) attempt to save Jesus from being wrong about his return in the lifetime of his followers.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion, not an argument.
And interestingly enough, Stark is a Christian.
Oh, yeah? Well, I believe in free enterprise and low taxes . . . and interestingly enough, I'm a communist (actually I'm not).
If someone rejects the central claims of Christianity, in what sense is he a Christian?
The word "Christian" can be gutted of almost all its meaning and still be used to describe someone. I said in another thread that I grew up with an ideological anti-Christian bias, and interestingly enough, I was a Christian.
So your point about Stark being a Christian adds no weight to your assertion. A liberal Christian can be indistinguishable from someone who self-identifies as agnostic or even atheist.
Well, Anette, congratulations on being nominated to decide who is really a Christian and who is just fooling themselves!!!!
That's quite an honor!!!
Did any sane people get to vote?
I sincerely hope that Mr. Stark doesn't cry himself to sleep at night over the fact that Anette think's that he's going straight to everlasting hell with them danged atheists!!, all because he doesn't meet up to her high "Christian" standards!
Hey, maybe you could contact Mr. Stark and explain to him why his brand of Christianity doesn't really meet the necessary standard. I'm sure he'd greatly appreciate having the error of his ways explained to him so that he can run screaming from his life of sin and jump right on to Anette's Salvation Train!!! Woooo, Woooo!!!
Oh, and you really should let a little light into your sad Jesus-brain by reading Stark's book.
You don't really have to be a slave to Stone Age-level lunacy for your entire life.
Merry X-mas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ToF,
I never said he's not a Christian--I'm in no position to make that judgment. I merely said that your point about him being a Christian adds no weight to your assertion. And if you are correct that he thinks Jesus was merely a failed apocalyptic prophet and not the Son of God, then this would be the equivalent of a communist who believes in free enterprise. In what sense is he a Christian then? Does he admire the moral teachings of Jesus? So does Richard Dawkins.
By the way, Merry Christmas to you as well!
"If someone rejects the central claims of Christianity, in what sense is he a Christian?"
And then you say, "I never said he's not a Christian--I'm in no position to make that judgement."
Well, it sorta sounds like you just might be questioning Mr. Stark's heart and soul regarding his stated Christian faith. Which, as you say, you're in no position to do.
"In what sense is he a Christian then?"
Perhaps you might be open to expanding your knowledge of other people's statements of faith by reading their works?
Stark has a fantastic online critique (300 pages!) of a Paul Copan book that might at least give you a sense of his ability to argue a position and articulate a point.
Are you a C.S. Lewis fan?
“It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.
Was C.S. Lewis also not a true Christian?
ToF,
"If someone rejects the central claims of Christianity, in what sense is he a Christian?"
And then you say, "I never said he's not a Christian--I'm in no position to make that judgement."
Well, it sorta sounds like you just might be questioning Mr. Stark's heart and soul regarding his stated Christian faith. Which, as you say, you're in no position to do.
You appear to be questioning Stark’s Christian faith. You said, “Oh, and you really should let a little light into your sad Jesus-brain by reading Stark’s book.” The clear implication is that Stark does not have a “Jesus-brain,” and his book may even help cure my Jesus-brain.
Hmmm. I sure hope he’s not paying you anything for your advertising! ;)
I just asked you a question that you have yet to answer: In what sense is he a Christian? I had a few online discussions with a very nice German scientist who self-identified as a Christian atheist. If you asked me in what sense he was a Christian I would say that he is not a Christian in the biblical and traditional sense because he’s an atheist, but he tries to follow the moral teachings of Jesus.
"In what sense is he a Christian then?"
Perhaps you might be open to expanding your knowledge of other people's statements of faith by reading their works?
Stark has a fantastic online critique (300 pages!) of a Paul Copan book that might at least give you a sense of his ability to argue a position and articulate a point.
In a world where I had unlimited money to purchase books and unlimited time to read them, I would probably add that book to my list, but I don’t live in that world. So the next best thing is to ask you to summarize his position.
Was C.S. Lewis also not a true Christian?
C. S. Lewis most certainly believed that Jesus was God (remember his Liar, Lunatic, or Lord discussion?), while Thom Stark says on his website, “I don’t believe that Jesus is God.” The deity of Jesus is a central teaching of Christianity, and if Stark doesn’t believe that Jesus is God, then like the German scientist he is not a Christian in the biblical and traditional sense.
And while I don’t question Stark’s “ability to argue a position and articulate a point,” I do have to wonder what basis he has for believing anything about God (e.g., that He is good and loving) if he thinks the God of the OT was an immoral deity created by humans and Jesus was a mere human. My faith in the goodness of God is grounded in large part on the revealed character of Jesus, in whom “all the fullness of Deity dwells in human form” (Colossians 2:9).
Are you a C.S. Lewis fan?
I think Lewis was an exceptional writer and a creative thinker, and I have read most of his books, but at times he makes logical leaps and fails to substantiate his premises. Your quote is a case in point. If you scroll back, you’ll see that DagoodS and I discussed the ways in which Jesus used the word “generation” in the Gospel accounts, and we agreed that He didn’t always use it to mean those presently alive. However, Lewis seems to take for granted that the word is only used in that sense.
I am richly blessed for the opportunity to stumble on your blog site Grace and Miracles. Your blogs, personal testimony and inspirational depth are remarkable. May the Lord and Spirit of His Son Jesus continue to bless, use and guide you in all your ways! My name is Steve Ibeawuchi, a minister of the Gospel and veteran missionary to the Indian subcontinent. I live in Egg Harbor Twp., New Jersey with my little kids Ruby and Derek. They love the Lord too. Once again, thank you! Rick and the kids are blessed to have you in their lives, my Sister.
stevechuku@hotmail.com
Thanks so much for your kind words, Steve!
Blessings to you on your ministry and missionary work in India!
Post a Comment