When I turned 30 I decided to start taking a photo a day. I save them in Google Photos albums. If you have the link they are available to you. I make a new album on my birthday each year, to avoid having one super giant album, but it unfortunately means more than one link. Here are last year and this year so far. I got a new phone a bit ago so the photo quality jumps up suddenly.
I am fairly strict about actually taking the photo each day. Occasionally I forget and I do a make up photo in those cases. Otherwise there aren’t many rules except I have to actually take the photo or be in the photo. There is one exception to that rule which is the first photo of this year, just cause I liked Lauren’s picture so much. Other than that I don’t have many rules, to allow for creativity. There are enough Pippin pictures without me further limiting myself.
I am putting, and will keep updated, permanent links to all these albums in the sidebar. If you are in one of these pictures and you want me to take it down let me know and I’ll consider it.
Way way back in 2003 I started writing down everything I eat. The record is still quite complete, however, it is not very scientific. So, the records leave something to be desired. Still, they are interesting, to me at least.
I’m happy to announce I’ve moved their database to this website. I’ve created a rudimentary view for the public. It will allow you to chart my eating habits, and filter the list. It’s not super user friendly yet, but it might improve. Please let me know if you have requests or if you find any errors (typos and the like) in the data. I will probably put a permanent link on the sidebar somewhere soon.
This post is about Keller’s 13th chapter. In this one he argues that Jesus really did rise from the dead. Really super duper for realsies. This isn’t exactly on point, but it’s closer than a lot of the recent stuff, so that’s good.
Keller’s big trick in this chapter is to try to shift the burden of proof. At least he is overt about it. He claims that the skeptic has a lot to answer for. Specifically, we have to explain how Christianity came to be if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. Let me just say, nice try, but technically I don’t have to play. I will a little, just for the benefit of readers, but don’t let him trick you. He says that the resurrection is a “historical fact”, but it’s not. He’s got the oft translated word of a guy who says he heard it from some people 53 years after the event (Keller says 15, but that’s not what most scholars think). That’s his evidence that a miracle, something we know to be impossible, happened. Incredible, literally.
Before I get to playing Keller’s game, I want to point out something that tickles me. In discussing the letters of Paul, which are the first mention of the resurrection, he points to Paul’s claim that there are hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection. He says of Paul’s claims, “Paul could not have made such a challenge if those eyewitnesses didn’t exist.” He feels this way because it would have been easy for someone to check. Yet, on the previous page he just says, “… in the letters of Paul, which every historian agrees were written just fifteen to twenty years after the death of Jesus.” So he made up a claim and put it in a book even though its much easier for someone to check with a Google search now than it would have been to travel around the Mediterranean interviewing peasants then. He provides proof his own argument is false not one page before making it.
In general, how naive a point. That’s like saying that Lucky Charms must be part of balanced breakfast, or else they couldn’t say it on the box. Plus, even if someone did check, and wrote a scathing exposé, it’s not like it would make it into the modern bible, just like how all these blog posts probably won’t appear in the next edition of his book.
Keller’s next argument for the resurrection of Jesus being an actual thing that happened is that the records show that women were the first to see him risen, and that there’s no reason the church would have made it up that way, because of the low status of women then. First of all, it doesn’t really matter if the women are first, from that perspective, so long as there are some men to back it up as well. Second, there are all kinds of plausible reasons why it would be written that way. Perhaps the first people to make up the claim were women, and it spread from there. Or perhaps the women were chosen as patsies, in case someone found where they hid the body, none of the men wanted to take the blame.
The next bit cracks me up. Keller argues that the account must be accurate, because the empty tomb and the sightings of risen Jesus must be taken together. He says this is true because in the case of either one without the other nobody would believe it. Which is true. The body of Jesus could easily have been taken. And people are always saying they have seen the recently deceased, especially people they think is the Messiah. Keller points this out. So, what he’s essentially saying is that because two commonly explainable, and on top of that, related events occurred, it must be a miracle. That’s crazy. Here’s my own version.
I go look for a cookie in the cookie jar. I know there was one there recently, but when I look, it’s empty. I ask my young daughter and she says the cookie flew into the sky with a chorus of angels. Even though there are crumbs on her lips, I believe her story, because, I mean, how could her story and the empty cookie jar line up so perfectly?
I don’t get it. He’s explained every part of the “miracle” without having to resort to an act of god. He didn’t even have to get implausible. He has written in his own book a more reasonable interpretation of events than the one he espouses in his book. Two unlikely events happening in conjunction doesn’t a miracle make.
Ok, now to playing his game some. I’m not a biblical scholar or a historian, so I’m not the best person for this rebuttal, but I’ll do a little bit.
One thing that irks me is Keller says that skeptics have to explain how Christianity sprung up overnight. Which it didn’t. I mean, it wasn’t like a major religion with millions of followers. It was a small sect for centuries. The new testament wasn’t even written until 150 AD. It wasn’t recognized as separate from Judaism for 3 centuries. So Keller’s idea of a fully formed Christian religion suddenly showing up on day 4 AD is a false target.
Once you get that out of the way there’s nothing really for the skeptic to explain. Religions form with some frequency. How do they do it? Does it require a miracle? Keller doesn’t think Mohammad or Joseph Smith had the help of true miracles, yet somehow their religions are doing alright. And then there’s all those other religions that don’t have the advantage of piggy backing on Judaism, like Scientology and Sikhism.
Keller gives it all away at the end of the chapter. He quotes N. T. Wright,
Take away Easter and Karl Marx was probably right to accuse Christianity of ignoring problems of the material world. Take it away and Freud was probably right to say Christianity is wish-fulfillment. Take it away and Nietzsche probably was right to say it was for wimps.
I can’t say I understand what’s so important about the resurrection in all those cases, but if Keller believes it he has to come up with a reason to believe in the resurrection story. Powerful motivation like that and yet he gives these weak arguments and cheap tricks. If there were good evidence to believe in the resurrection, Keller and his type would have found it. As I’ve said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. He doesn’t have it.
In contrast, his flipped script that skeptics have to explain the rise of Christianity isn’t the same. Religions coming to power gradually over centuries isn’t extraordinary. It’s somewhat common, and we have somewhat common evidence for how Christianity did what it did.
Edit: I didn’t know it at the time I wrote this post, bit it is the last in this series. Chapter 13 and the Epilogue of the book were all that remained, and they made no new arguments of substance. They focus on asserting the virtues of Christianity as opposed to other religions, starting from the premise of the existence of god.
So it’s done. No reason for god. 🙂
I climbed the Manitou Incline this morning. It has been my life long dream since when I heard it existed yesterday.
It took me about 42 minutes to get to the top, which is pretty good for a first time I think. I am not sure where exactly you’re supposed to start and stop timing so it’s not exact.
I was trying to make it a straight shot, no stops, but I couldn’t manage that. I had to take a few breathers, but I never sat down. I don’t think any of my rests were a full minute. It’s a pretty brutal little walk though. Still, my time was better than anyone I heard talking at the top, and I didn’t get passed by anyone I didn’t pass first or later. Although, some guys were carrying like 80 lb. backpacks, so that’s a bit unfair.
There is an alternate path for going back down. It’s about twice as long, but way better. I knew going down the steps wasn’t recommended, but it’s a really un-fun idea, even if I hadn’t known, I woulda taken the path.
I would go again if anyone wants. I recommend going as early as possible. And it’s not really a hike for hikes sake. Do it if you want a challenge and bragging rights. It can be done by pretty much anyone, so long as you got the time. I saw a 1 legged woman on my climb.
In this post I will be discussing the Keller’s 12th chapter. This is another chapter devoid of any claims or arguments for god’s existence. It is instead wholly devoted to arguing that Jesus had to die.
I have a hard time knowing how to handle these sorts of chapters. First, they are built on acceptance of all of Keller’s previous points, which I don’t, so they don’t really make any sense to me. Second, they aren’t about the topic I thought we were discussing.
I’m going to blow past a lot of objections to this chapter. Again, I’m not trying to be complete in my rebuttal to this book. Frankly, I think mentioning this chapter at all is more than technically required. So let’s just agree that everything in this chapter is premised on assumptions I’ve previously argued are ill-founded and move on.
In this chapter, Keller says a few things I think I agree with. Like, vengeance is bad and forgiveness is good. These are pretty poorly defined, even for Keller, but I can’t say I’m wholly opposed to the notion. Where Keller loses me is his reason for his belief.
Keller starts out by pointing out all the real benefits of forgiveness and deficits of revenge. Like, that you might expect reprisals from revenge, and that often time forgiveness will result in a better outcome on a societal level. For me, that’s where it ends. We’ve thought through the options and recognized that forgiveness is a good solution, at least some of time.
But Keller goes on. He talks about various modern stories with a sacrificial theme, and how emotionally stirring they are. Then he says even they don’t affect real change. He can only bring himself to actually forgive more when he considers the gospels, and how Jesus’s death is the true pinnacle of sacrifice.
This is a real problem for me. What if we found archaeological evidence that Jesus didn’t exist, or didn’t die on the cross? What if Keller reads my blog and loses faith in god? Does that mean revenge will become the better option suddenly? No. The reasoning is unchanged. The right things are still the right things. God, and Jesus in this case, are unnecessary. Just like always.
Don’t insert anything between you and your reason. It adds instability.
That’s the real lesson of this chapter, at least for me. Keller has to write a whole chapter in a book defending an ancient story just to recognize that vengeance is a bad idea. The story of Jesus dying on the cross doesn’t even have to be true for the message of forgiveness to be true. Why, then, does Keller spend 16 pages of his book on this tangential topic? These are the contortions of man with a Jesus shaped instability.
Went on a hike today. Lauren wanted to revisit Lawn Lake so she setup a short trip. We took Sidney this time.
Above Lawn Lake, are the Crystal Lakes. I left the girls, since they had each other, and made the attempt. They went back to the car. The trail past Lawn Lake is clearly rarely traveled. I saw nobody past Lawn Lake, or up at the lakes, or coming back. There were a few impediments.
But, I made it.
I also saw a few marmots and a pika. The pika wasn’t up high, though, didn’t need to go to the Crystal Lakes to see it. Couldn’t get a picture, though.
Anyway, the main point is that I walked 16.23 miles on the hike, according to my phone. I gained and lost 3,383 ft of elevation. Pedometer puts me at 40,961 steps for the day. Records all, except maybe the elevation. Just throwing that in for fun.
Lauren and Sidney were kind enough to wait 45 minutes for me at the car. I never caught up with them.
It’s been a long time since I wrote one of these. Unfortunately it wasn’t because I finally got to the good stuff in Keller’s book and was forced to address my deepest held convictions and accept his position. No, it was largely because the book is degenerating so far that it’s not even fun to write these anymore. When I started I felt like I was, at least arguably, contributing something by countering his claims. He doesn’t even bother with those anymore. Anyway, on we forge.
This post will address the entirety of Chapter 11. I have read the whole thing 3 times and there are definitely no claims or arguments or assertions of any kind pertaining to the existence of a god. So, if that’s all you’re interested in, like my previous post, you can skip this one. Further, Keller’s entire “case” in this chapter is predicated upon acceptance of his assertions from Chapter 10. So, if you read my post on that chapter and found my arguments against Keller compelling, then you can skip this post, as well. For anyone who is left, I feel obligated to do a perfunctory look at what is presented. However, it is completely off topic in my opinion, so I can’t say I care much.
Keller’s goal in this chapter is to distinguish Christianity from all other possible forms of letting god be the center of your life. He distinguishes Christianity from other religions by saying that Jesus is the key to salvation, whereas all other religions merely teach the way to salvation. Since much of Christianity falls into this category as well Keller distinguishes between the bad stuff by calling it religion, and the good stuff, by calling it gospel. I’ll do the same in this post.
The difference between the two are great, for Keller. A religion prescribes various rules to follow to live a good life. Keller’s problems with this are many. He says that it is equivalent to selfish irreligiosity, in the end, since one will either succeed in following the rules, and therefor feel superior and entitled, or fail, and feel like a failure with nothing to lose. Apparently the fact that the religious person tried and theoretically accomplished some good in the world matters not.
This is because Keller knows that we are all sinners (We are? I thought we just put god in the center of our lives and we were set? Whatever. I’ll go with it) and cannot redeem ourselves by our own efforts. This is why Jesus died. Since we are saved by Jesus regardless of what we do in life, one feels compelled by love of Jesus to do whatever he commands. This knowledge is called the gospel. Keller describes how it makes it impossible to feel superior to others, since you know we are all sinners, and yet we cannot feel low, since we are loved by God who saved us. Keller says that following the gospel is actually very difficult, despite not having to follow any teachings, because one is in perpetual debt to, and love with, god, there is no end to what he can ask.
Okay. So, Keller’s completely abandoned the word “Reason” from the title of his book now. Everything in this chapter is just asserted with no rationalization or evidence or whatever. But why nitpick about such things when he’s clearly shown me the path to salvation? Well, primarily cause he hasn’t. Keller’s gospel is useless. He says we are “called to do” what God wants us to do. Well, how exactly does that work? I mean, how can I distinguish what god wants me to do from what I want me to do? Maybe god is calling me to write this rebuttal to your ridiculous book, and I’ve just mistakenly thought is was my own idea the whole time. Keller’s gospel doesn’t have any basis in reason and it’s wholly unnecessary. There’s nothing gained from the gospel that can’t be had with a complete lack of belief in a god.
The reasonable course for Keller would be to abandon the notion of a god. Since he can’t seem to do that, he’s (and apologists throughout the ages) concocted a way of pretending there is a god and he is following his will, while still ignoring anything he disagrees with or finds inconvenient. This, largely, is laudable. Replacing 1st century morality with 21st century variety is a good idea. However, doing so because a god “called you” to, is not. Just get rid of god altogether and do it because you figured out it was the right thing. That way there’s no way you could possibly interpret your own selfish interests as the “call” of god. Thinking for yourself is a good idea. Knowing you’re thinking for yourself is also a good idea.
Arguments on the internet are often vicious and pointless. When people wonder why, the anonymity of the internet is usually the reason given, and the wondering stops there. Recently, I’ve had an idea on the subject that, I think, might describe additional contributors.
Due to the asynchronous nature of internet arguments, every response is expected to be more fleshed out. Any time spent asking a question and waiting for a response seems like a waste of a post. So, in a real life argument, one party might simply ask, “What?” in response to something the other party says, whereas on the internet the responder would likely make some assumption about what was meant and respond accordingly. This is one additional contributor.
This problem is compounded by a quirk of the nature of argument. There is a spectrum of ways to “win” a debate. For the purposes of this sentence “win” is defined as making the other person stop talking. On one side of the spectrum is the perfectly crafted, air tight logical argument, backed up with rigorous sources and an official looking stamp. The opposite side of the spectrum is an expulsion of gibberish and nonsense, incomprehensible to the opponent, and so, impossible to respond to.
The thing about this spectrum is that everyone hates to walk away from an argument feeling like their opponent used something on the nonsense end of the spectrum, especially if they’re not sure if the opponent knows that’s what they did. We always suspect, when someone spews incomprehensible nonsense at us on the internet, that they think they’re making a rational argument. They had time to think of that response before typing it, it’s not like they got flustered in the heat of the moment and said something they don’t mean. The idea of conceding, or appearing to do so, in that situation is infuriating to most people. As a consequence internet arguments are harder to get away from than real life arguments.
Just a thought.
For those of you following along you will know we are to to a new chapter on sin. I read the whole chapter in search of an argument for the existence of god, or against the non-existence, and there is none. So, if you’re only interested in the question of the existence of a deity, you can skip this post, and chapter 10. This post will be a tangent to address some of the tangents in Keller’s redundant filler.
Keller does a few things in this chapter. He starts by defining sin not simply as breaking rules, but as putting anything but god in the center of your life. From there he implicitly asserts that one can not live without a center to ones life, or with many, and that putting anything there but god will lead to personal unhappiness and various other maladies.
Keller can define sin however he likes, but that is about the only thing in this chapter that I agree with, other than his points against straw men. Keller spends a lot of time pointing out that things can go badly if you build your entire life around your career, or children. I agree, but I don’t agree with Keller’s assertion that they, and similarly deleterious life centers, are the only alternative to god.
One alternative is the Buddhist method, of living a center-less life, and attempting to lose ones ego. Perhaps this sounds more difficult than centering your life around god, but I don’t think so. I think it’s just harder to trick yourself into thinking you’re doing it right.
Somewhat of a corollary to this is to make everything the center of your life. Keller says that if you make your family the center, you will care less for other people’s families, and if you make your nation or race your center, you will become nationalist or racist. This is not a problem if you make everything the center, all life. This has the same end result as the previous method, I think, since in both cases you try to become “one with the universe”.
One could also center your life on a process, like science. If one built a life on a way of acquiring knowledge, which is what science is, and not on the knowledge itself, one is not subject to having their identity questioned when new evidence comes to light. There is virtually no chance of empiricism itself being invalidated, although all conclusions drawn from it must be held as potentially incorrect. This solution is not utopian, since one would still be subject to feeling superior to those who interpret the data differently, although at least two empiricists can have an argument and potentially do experiments to come to a conclusion, unlike those who are not empirical at all, who could not be argued with.
I also don’t see why one couldn’t take a middle of the road approach. Instead of no center, or an everything center, have a lot of things center. I think in practice this is a pretty common route. Most people don’t pin their entire identity on one aspect of themselves, but on many. This approach would not be as secure as the first three I mentioned, but it is not as unstable as Keller’s straw men. Especially if one were conscious about it and could replace or increase the number of things in one’s center.
I’m sure there are many other fine alternatives that I haven’t thought of.
So, I don’t think Keller’s right about the way people build their lives, and have to, but even if he is, does building one’s life around god fix anything? Well, it certainly would fix some things. Keller is right that building a life around god is better than building a life around a lot of other singular things (other than those mentioned above), I think, because god is designed to be a center. God is all forgiving and loving and such, which is just what one would need. And, in a practical sense, if everyone centered their life on god and not on their nation or race, there would probably be less nationalism and racism. However, I do not think utopia would arise. I see no reason why, just as centering your life on your family makes you care about other families less, centering your life on god wouldn’t make you care about other gods less, and through them the people that hold those gods. This is a problem that will never be escaped either, since god is so nebulous and personal, people will always be splintering into groups that disagree with the other groups about what god is. If you believe you have the true god, and know what he is like, then you cannot help but feel superior to those that disagree. And people who build their whole lives around a single concept, as Keller points out, are vulnerable when that concept is threatened, and will react forcefully. Since there is no way to settle differences between groups, I don’t see what makes what Keller argues for different from zealotry, and I don’t see how zealotry leads to anything but violence.
So, Keller’s assertions are wrong, there are many good alternatives to building your life around god. Also, building your life around god is fraught with the danger of zealotry. Also, since god is such a nebulous concept, it seems to me it would be easy for one to think they were building a life around god, but actually be deceiving themselves. Finally, even if building a life around god were a good idea, this is not evidence that any god exists, let alone any particular one.