Concerning the Tradition of Long Hair and Beards: Igumen LukeAnyone looking at photographs and portraits of clergy in Greece, Russia, Rumania, and other Orthodox countries taken in the early twentieth century will notice that almost without exception, both the monastic and married clergy, priests and deacons, wore untrimmed beards and hair. Only after the First World War do we observe a new, modern look, cropped hair and beardless clergy. This fashion has been continued among some of the clergy to our own day. If one were to investigate this phenomenon in terms of a single clergyman whose life spanned the greater part of our century one would probably notice his style modernize from the first photographs up through the last. Read More →
Television: Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal & CanadaWe have not yet felt the huge after-shock of the coming of television which in a short while has managed to secure a niche for itself in almost every home. Its powers of persuasion and attraction have proved to be practically supernatural and are coupled with a subtle and awesome ability to corrupt. Today, the priesthood cannot and must not ignore the phenomenon of television a phenomenon unrivaled in the extent of its influence over the human soul. Without exaggeration, a campaign against it must be our immediate and primary concern because every day and every hour its effects are being felt in our own homes. So let us look at television objectively, see the good and the evil in it, and only then will we be in a position to make use of its positive aspects and to reject the negative. Read More →
Concerning Fasting: Bishop Ignatius BrianchaninovOrthodox Life, Volume 2 #2, March/April, 1951
The head or chief of the virtues is prayer; their foundation is fasting. Fasting is constant moderation in food with prudent discernment in its use. Proud man! You think so much and so highly of your mind, while all the time it is in complete and constant dependence on your stomach. The law of fasting, though outwardly a law for the stomach, is essentially a law for the mind.
Arguments from InabilityI often hear people assume that a proposition is false or worth rejecting because some aspect of it might be difficult to explain. This seems fallacious. For any given proposition X with aspect Y, our inability to explain Y doesn’t justify the conclusion of ~X.
WRT Objective Moral Values, ReduxThough I’m a Christian of some sort, I believe moral agnosticism is the only honest response to the question of whether or not objective moral values exist. On my worldview, objective moral values are nothing more than God’s decrees. Sure, as a theist, I believe God and His decrees exist, and in fact I can “test” the truth of their existence by noting the results when I follow them and when I don’t, but I’m of the opinion that the question is not empirically resolvable – in short because you need to know if the valuer exists before you can know if their values exist.
The Distinction Between Assent & BeliefJeffrey Jordan wrote a thought-provoking response to Schellenberg’s Divine Hiddenness Argument (hereafter DHA). First and foremost, hats off to Jordan for producing such an interesting read. There is a wealth of material to chew on and incorporate into other (a)theist arguments contained in that post. I recommend reading it with a notepad or text editor handy, because it will get your gears turning for sure.
I intend to explore the DHA in further detail in upcoming posts, but for now I just wanted to share a little snippet that I find highly relevant and often overlooked in (a)theist dialog: the distinction between belief and acceptance.
Objective Moral Values as Boolean ParametersA clear definition of “objective” temporarily aside, the question “do objective values exist” cannot be definitively answered until we know whether or not God or some “Creator” exists. If we think of values as nothing more than parameters for behavior, then objective values for morality are really no different than the objective parameters a programmer sets for his responsive web design. There are *real* rules that determine *real* behavior for *real* things in both cases. Subjectivity does not exist in web programming.
An Apple Is A Failed Orange: Boghossian’s ErrorSo this Peter Boghossian guy seems to be the atheist du jour since I went on hiatus. I’m not surprised that John W. Loftus sings his praises. Loftus has a penchant for finding bad atheist arguments and running with them, and his latest crusade to end philosophy of religion seems no different. In fact, it’s based mostly on Boghossian’s rhetoric. Why should we end philosophy of religion? Because faith is a failed epistemology! That, in a nutshell, is Loftus’ answer. If it seems laughable, don’t blame me. As usual, Loftus gives no good arguments, no evidence, no good reason, just… rhetoric.
Tidying Up The CodebaseAfter a long hiatus I decided to tighten up the code. Out with the old, in with the new. Since the blog still gets traffic despite being dead I figured I could at least make things nicer for mobile and tablet readers. I still need to add the categories and some flair, but the basics are up-and-running. As far as blogging goes, during my year-long blog hiatus the main thing I kept hearing about was this Boghossian guy and his ideas about faith. It doesn’t surprise me that Loftus is pumping this guy up. It seems the outspoken atheists still mis-characterize faith as a “failed episemology” among other things. I think they’re conflating faith and revelation, personally, but more on that later. I just wanted to make sure things still work around here tech-wise before ramping up again.
Question #9: Could the Laws of Science Be Evolving?NOTE: this post was previously titled, “Why Aren’t the Laws of Science Evolving?” I changed the title after I realized that the previous title implies the very assumption being challenged :)
Rupert Sheldrake recently asked this question in his banned TED talk. I think it’s an excellent question that deserves serious inquiry. All observations I’m aware of converge: everything is evolving, except the laws that dictate the evolving! This ties right into the classic Aristotleian delineation: that which moves do so at the behest of something which does not move. Interesting, isn’t it?