John Frame's apologetic

In the past, Van Tilian apologists made sketchy, grandiose claims about the inadequacy of non-Christian alternatives. Oftentimes, these programmatic claims never got beyond the level of slogans. In addition, progress was often stalled by insular, repetitious debates over methodology. However, there has been some important work to redeem the vouchers. 

Much of John Frame's work has an apologetic thrust. In some cases that's more explicit and sustained. For instance:

• We Are All Philosophers: A Christian Introduction to Seven Fundamental Questions

• Nature's Case for God: A Brief Biblical Argument

• Christianity Considered: A Guide for Skeptics and Seekers

• Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief

His monograph on The Doctrine of the Word of God defends biblical revelation. His monograph on The Doctrine of the Christian Life contains a section sifting non-Christian ethics, while A History of Western Philosophy and Theology contains a wide-ranging survey comparing and contrasting Christianity to non-Christian thought. 

While much work remains to be done, in the hands of its best exponents, presuppositionalism has moved beyond slogans and methodological disputes to substantive analysis. 

Eloquence

1. It's useful for Christian writers who have the latent talent to cultivate an eloquent prose style. If you have a worthwhile message, and you want the reader (or listener) to pay attention, eloquence is a way to make them take notice. Eloquence makes the message memorable. People are more likely to reread an eloquent writer. Indeed, there are people who read certain writers just for the style (e.g. Santayana). 

In addition, a good prose style will enrich the message. For instance, the apt use of metaphor lends greater insight to the message than an abstract style. Well-chosen metaphors make the truth concrete, making it clearer to the mind.

Although they aren't great prose stylists, infidels like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have a catchy style that sells the message. We should be able to counter that and do them one better. 

The appeal of hymns by Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley, and William Cowper lies not merely in the message or musical setting, but in their poetic power. Same thing with the King James Bible, the traditional Book of Common Prayer, George Herbert, and Henry Vaughan. 

I don't think it's coincidental that fine prose stylists like Ruskin and C. S. Lewis were failed poets. While they didn't have what it takes to be successful poets, they had a poet's ear for language and eye for imagery, which infuses their prose.

2. Some Christians might object that what I say clashes with 1 Cor 2:1-5. However, Paul is, himself, an eloquent writer. I think his objection is not to eloquence, as such, but in part to oratory that's ostentatious, designed to impress rather than express–and in part to sophistical rhetoric that substitutes emotive power for truth, reason, and evidence. 

3. It's a mistake for preachers to strain to be more eloquent than they actually are. The Baptist preacher Robert G. Lee is a good example of someone who is laboring for effect. His language is pretty in a tinselly sort of way. Empty showy conceit. I'm not impugning his motives, just his taste.

Another example is Christopher Frye, in The Lady's Not for Burning. Although the language is vaguely Shakespearean, Shakespeare didn't merely string together pretty words, but picturesque metaphors. 

4. Many writers use a metaphorical word, then leave it at that. But that's generally ineffective. Because the stock of metaphorical words is so familiar, merely using a metaphorical word usually fails to conjure a corresponding image in the mind of the reader or listener. In the same vein, I notice that careless writers use other words in a sentence that jar with the metaphorical word. The writer himself didn't pause to mentally picture the metaphor behind the word. 

If you wish to take advantage of a metaphor, you need to do more than use a metaphorical word. Rather, you need to expand that into a visual description which evokes a scene or image in the mind of the reader. 

5. In addition, it's good if writers don't just have stock metaphors to draw upon, but a fresh experience of the world that supplies the stock metaphors in the first place. Go to the source. A good writer is a keen observer. 

6. Euphony is another trait of good prose. A misguided cliche one runs across in style manuals is to prefer a shorter synonym to a longer synonym. But that's bad advice. A good sentence has a certain rhythm. In that case, a writer with a good ear will choose words that contribute to the overall rhythm of the sentence. He's not choosing words in isolation. It's not just a question of how many syllables a particular word has, but how many syllables the sentence has–as well as the accentual stress. 

By the same token, the next word you choose should depend on how the preceding word ends. Does it end with a vowel or consonant? Does the next word begin with a vowel or consonant? Do they combine to produce a pleasing effect? Poetic techniques like assonance and consonance should work their way into prose, albeit unobtrusively. 

It's often good to write sentences with a lilting cadence. But it depends on the subject matter. Sometimes a grating, abrasive style underscores the message. It's good to vary the style. A uniform style is monotonous. Alternate between staccato and legato. 

It would be a mistake for an author to waste his best style on everything he writes about, however, mundane or ephemeral. Best to save the best style for topics that merit a more expressive or elevated treatment. A foreground requires a background. A prosaic style for more forgettable things makes a high style more arresting by contrast. 

Ceremonial holiness

A stock objection which Catholic apologists raise to classic Protestant theology is that justification by faith is a "legal fiction". Among other things, that's a highly ironic allegation given the Catholic alternative. For the Catholic alternative is ceremonial holiness. They imagine that sacraments like baptism "infuse" the soul with the grace of holiness. But that's something they attribute to the sacrament. The purported process of infused grace is utterly indetectable and unverifiable. So they replace the "legal fiction" of sola fide with an external rite. But why isn't that a legal fiction? 

What's the goal of the prolife movement?

1. I'm on what's conventionally labeled the "incrementalist" side of the prolife movement (in contrast to abolitionists). However, I don't think casting the issue in terms of incrementalism v. immediatism is the best way to frame the issue. 

As I understand it, the usual claim is that incrementalists share the same goal as abolitionists. Both sides aim to eliminate abortion entirely. But they differ on strategy and tactics. 

2. I think incrementalists take this position in part because they are put on the defensive by abolitionists. Imagine if the incrementalist said, "As a matter of fact, eliminating abortion entirely is not my goal". 

i) Is that a damning thing to say? Well, that depends. The statement is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean I don't think we should eliminate abortion in toto. In general, that would be a morally deficient position–although even most hardline prolifers make some exceptions (e.g. ectopic pregnancies). 

ii) However, we need to distinguish between goals and ideals. A prolifer might say eliminating abortion in toto is the ideal, but not the goal, because that's an unattainable goal. Is that a scandalous thing to say?

Suppose a doctor has a patient in the early stages of MS. Is it the doctor's goal to cure the patient? No, because he doesn't have a cure for MS. Imagine if the patient became irate: "What kind of doctor are you that it's not your goal to cure me!" But that's no fault of the doctor. It's not his goal to cure the patient because he's in no position to cure the patient. It can be the goal of a medical researcher to find a cure for MS, but not the average physician. 

3. That said, there can be value in having ambitious goals. One rationale for having ambitious goals is that if you aim higher, then even if you fall short of your goal, you may come closer to the goal that if you lowered your expectations. 

Take an Olympic athlete who thinks he has a shot at winning a gold medal or breaking a record. He may push himself harder, and have a better chance of success, by aiming higher.

Or take an underdog sports team that's up against the best team in the league. The opposing team is undefeated. So the odds are stacked against the underdog team.

If the underdog team goes into the game with a defeatist attitude, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy of doom. A defeatist attitude is self-defeating. It pretty much ensures failure.

If, however, the underdog team aims high, it might score a surprise upset. Perhaps the opposing team was overconfident. The opposing team didn't bring their best game to the competition because they thought they were unbeatable.

4. However, it really depends on the examples we use to illustrate the principle. It's easy to come up with counterexamples where an ambitious goal is foolhardy. Suppose your goal is to graduate from Harvard med school. Suppose you don't have the chops to compete with the cream of the crop. You are no match for your classmates. As a result, you wash out of Harvard med school with humongous student loan bills. 

Suppose, if you aimed lower, you could graduate from a perfectly reputable, but less prestigious med school. By aiming too high, you missed out on both. You flunked out of Harvard, and you blew the opportunity to become a physician by attending a less demanding med school.

In addition, some Harvard students commit suicide because they just can't cut it, and they are too ashamed to face their pushy, ambiguous, disappointed parents. 

To take another example, some competitive athletes suffer injuries at the gym. They push their body to the limit, hoping their body will adapt, but they push their body beyond the limit. They suffer injuries that require surgery. As a result, they may never get back to where they were before the injury.

And they weren't injured in the game. They didn't get to that point. This was conditioning to prepare themselves for the game, but as a result of the injury, they had to drop out.

So overly-ambitious goals are counterproductive. You don't end up with more. You end up with less–or nothing at all. Indeed, you may be worse off than when you started. 

5. One of my concerns with making the total elimination of abortion the goal is whether setting the goal there is the justification for opposing abortion at all. Does the warrant or rationale for saving babies depend on having as a goal the total elimination of abortion? Is it not worth the effort if that's an unattainable goal?

To take a comparison, historically, Christians have been in the vanguard of founding orphanages. Should the goal be to have enough orphanages to care for every abandoned child? Suppose we lack the resources for that laudable project. Imagine someone setting a quota or threshold: unless we can save all orphans, or 90%, we won't build any orphanages! Let them all die on the street!

Rather that stipulating an artificial goal, we should just do as much as we can. Saving babies isn't predicated on the prospects of winning, as if it's not worth the fight if you lose. You do the best you can. To revert to the illustration, if you can only save a fraction of abandoned children, that's heartbreaking, but it hardly means you throw in the towel and refuse to save the few you can.   

6. We should distinguish between targets and goals. Instead of having a utopian goal which may or may not be attainable, we should have targets. Not making the total elimination of abortion your goal doesn't mean you stop short even if you were making steady progress, and could achieve even more reductions in abortion. 

We don't know what the future holds. If you secure one target, you move onto the next target. One might say the elimination of abortion is the goal if it's possible to eliminate abortion. If it's not possible to eliminate abortion, then that's not the goal. There's no obligation to pursue or commit to impossible goals. A problem with a setting hard-n-fast goal is that we don't know in advance if that's attainable. 

7. Abolitionists accuse incrementalists of faithlessness, but there's no biblical promise that God will eliminate all or most evil during the church age. There's no biblical promise that God will eliminate murder during the church age. To some extent we find out what's possible by doing what we can.

Veggie tales

1. I'm not against vegetarianism or veganism per se, but I'm not against meat-eating either. However, humans are omnivorous. Ideally we should have a varied diet (e.g. lean meats, green leafy vegetables, Butterfinger cookie dough cheesecake bars fried in a vat of lard).

2. That said, some strict vegetarians and vegans act like they're morally superior to people who eat meat. They turn their personal choice into a moral crusade against people who aren't vegetarian or vegan. They become zealots for vegetarianism or veganism.

On that front, Tim Hsiao has defended eating meat. Speaking of Tim Hsiao, I just want to note it's hard not to appreciate his artful photos taken at fine dining institutions across the nation such as (to pick a random example or two) steakhouses and burger joints.

3. What's more, some strict vegetarians and vegans act like the medical science is on their side. That vegetarianism and/or veganism represent the side of the intellectual sophisticates. I've even heard some argue humans evolved to eat plants. That we're fundamentally herbivores. That sort of thing. It's usually at this point when I roll my eyes and order a hamburger: In-N-Out, give me your double-double please. On second thought, let's make it a 5x5. Thanks!

4. As far as the medical science goes, strict vegetarians and vegans can often suffer from nutritional deficiencies. For example, take vitamin B12 deficiency. That's one of the most common deficiencies in strict vegetarians and vegans.

a. Plants don't make B12. At best, some plants can absorb B12 like Venom absorbing Spider-Man, but that alone wouldn't be sufficient enough B12 for a strict vegetarian or vegan diet. Not unless we're talking about chowing down forests! (Save the animals or save the rainforests - a moral dilemma for vegheads?) The primary reason is because plants don't have the necessary enzymes for B12 synthesis.

b. B12 comes from animals and animal products. Meat, eggs, cheese, dairy, and the like.

c. If humans are fundamentally herbivores, then (to take one issue) why do humans lack the gastrointestinal fermentation processes which support the growth of B12 synthesizing microorganisms (e.g. bacteria, algae) when these are present in herbivores? Also, where's my extra stomach? (Ruminates the illusive ruminant.)

d. B12 is needed for the body to make DNA, red blood cells, nerves, among other things.

e. B12 deficiency can be pernicious. Strict vegetarians and vegans often don't realize they have B12 deficiency until it sneaks up on them after it already caused some damage (e.g. anemia, tingling or numbness in hands or feet, memory loss, losing the ability to keep veganism to yourself).

f. Hence strict vegetarians and vegans need to supplement their diet with B12 (among other things). Typically that comes in the form of higher doses of multi-vitamins with B12, foods fortified with B12, and/or weekly B12 injections. However, after age 50, give or take, it becomes more difficult for the body to absorb B12 through fortified foods.

5. Obtaining B12 (among other necessary nutrients) without eating meat or animal products is typically something a Westerner living in the comparatively affluent West can afford to do. You don't see too many people in developing nations who are vegans. And the ones who are vegans typically happen to be the ones who are likewise comparatively well-to-do in their own nations.

6. In fairness, some people overeat meat. (So says the guy who orders 5x5s at In-N-Out.) However, that's a separate issue.

Which side has the most to lose?

1. There's a perennial dispute between Christians and atheists, where each side thinks the other side has fundamentally mistaken priorities. Both sides think the other side suffers from an irredeemable lost opportunity. Atheists think Christians fritter away the only life they're going to get in their vain hope for a pipe dream that will never materialize. Given that there is no heaven, hell, resurrection, or world to come, the only rational course of action is to make the most of our one unrepeatable opportunity rather than wasting time lamenting our mortality. 

Conversely, Christians think atheists fritter away the opportunity to gain eternal bliss by clinging to this fleeting life. They think atheists suffer from a massive lack of perspective. Who's right?

2. On the one hand, it's hard to see what Christians have to lose even if they're mistaken. I say that for the sake of argument, not because I think there's a realistic possibility that they are mistaken. I'm just addressing the atheist viewpoint on their own terms. 

i) What exactly, are Christians missing out on? The cliche example is promiscuous sex. But bracketing morality, what's so great about promiscuous sex? Is promiscuous sex more fulfilling than monogamous sex? Was Hugh Hefner's life characterized by contentment and joy? Or was it more like drinking salt water, where you're more thirsty after you had a sip than before, and every time you have a sip, you're increasingly thirsty? The very fact that highly promiscuous men are so promiscuous is evidence that their sexual lifestyle is chronically unsatisfying.  

ii) Moreover, most guys never have the opportunities of a Hugh Hefner or Warren Beatty. Even if you'd like to sleep with every beautiful woman you see, that doesn't mean every beautiful woman would like to sleep with you. You must be able to bring something extra special to the table to have that kind of entree. The buy-in for a seat at that table is way above the pay grade of most lumpen. 

iii) In addition, isn't there something ridiculous about rampant promiscuity? If you could cover her face, could you tell the difference? Does the sex feel different from one babe to the next? Aren't they essentially interchangeable? 

iv) Furthermore, male sexual prowess declines with age. Erogenous zones become less sensitive. So that at a strictly sensual level, sex offers less and less. 

v) Finally, do atheists generally lead happier lives than Christians? Not that I can see. So it doesn't seem like a big sacrifice to be a Christian on that score.

vi) Admittedly, there are duties that atheists can shirk if. They can abandon an ailing family member if that crimps their style. But that means the appeal of atheism is nihilistic. 

3. On the other hand, having convinced themselves that this life is all you get, I think most atheists are impatient or irate at Christians who fixate on the meaning of life questions. What's the point of harping on how bad it is if that's the undeniable reality? There's nothing you can do about that.

But by cushioning themselves from the full implications of their position, by pushing that into the back of their minds, by refusing to allow the implications to become unbearable, they deny themselves the incentive to consider the possibility that atheism is false and Christianity is true. Because they don't push their own position to the limit, there's no overriding motivation to change course. They can muddle along because they never really take it to heart. They pull back to spare their feelings. The issue loses urgency because they sedated the pinched nerve of nihilism. 

Pacifism and abolitionism

It's been a while since I've commented on AHA, but as I noted in a recent Facebook discussion,  AHA has conflicting principles. The ultimate priority for abolitionists isn't to save babies but to preserve their imagined sense of moral purity. They regard incrementalism as ethically compromised. 

This means that when push come to shove, if the abolitionist strategy resulted in a thousandfold increase in abortions (or infanticides), abolitionists would continue to support it because their imagined sense of moral purity trumps saving babies. It's not about saving babies at all, but keeping their hands clean (as they define it). If incrementalism saved more babies than abolitionism, they'd opt for saving fewer babies or none at all, rather than saving more babies but getting dirt under their fingernails in the process. They will only save babies if they can keep their white gloves pristine. They sacrifice the lives of babies to preserve their puritanical scruples rather than sacrificing their puritanical scruples to save the lives of babies.

There's a direct parallel between pacifism and abolitionism. A pacifist deems it intrinsically wrong to take life to save life. He makes no distinction between the life of a murderer and the life of the murder victim. If he had a chance to shoot the sniper in the clock tower who's gunning down little kids in the park, he will let all the kids be shot to death because his priority isn't saving innocent lives but keeping his hands clean (as he defines it). He will dismiss arguments for the right of self-defense as "pragmatism," "consequentialism," "situation ethics," "moral relativism". He will categorically dismiss the lesser-evil principle or the end-justifies-the-means.

That's directly parallel to abolitionists, only their target isn't the right of self-defense, but incrementalism. Like the pacifist, they'd rather keep their hands clean (as they define it) than save innocent lives. 

Reforming Apologetics (Introduction)

https://www.proginosko.com/2019/06/reforming-apologetics-introduction/

Mirror, mirror, on the wall

i) One objection to a timeless Creator is that causes precede effects. But is that necessarily the case? For instance, when I stand in front of a mirror, I cause my reflection to move. But is there a temporal delay between my action and the corresponding image in the mirror? It appears to be simultaneous or instantaneous. 

Perhaps, from the standpoint of physics, there's an indetectable delay in the transmission of light from my body to the reflection. However, I'm not sure if that's the case. Given the speed of light compared to the distance between my body and the mirror, is there a measurable delay?

That raises the question of whether a light beam is a continuously dense stream. Is the transmission of light infinitely divisible into ever smaller intervals? By contrast, what if is light granular, so that below a certain scale or threshold, there are no intervals? This goes to the famous particle/wave duality in physics. Admittedly, in this example, cause and effect both take place in time, so it's not strictly analogous to a timeless Creator, but I'm just addressing the specific objection that causes necessarily precede their effects. 

ii) Parenthetically, this example illustrates the limitations of empiricism. Does the reflection cause me to move or do I cause the reflection to move? Does my shadow cause me to move or do I cause my shadow to move? We intuitively understand that there's a relation of asymmetrical dependence, but that's not given in the phenomenon of reflected motion. To judge by appearances, it might be symmetrical or it might be the case that my shadow causes me to move! 

Imagine a science fiction story in which the motion of the shadow or reflection is primary while your corresponding motion is secondary! You move because the image in the mirror made you move in his direction! The shadow makes you move in tandem with the shadow! 

iii) Although that's backwards in physical reality, there's a sense in which, in relation to predestination, I'm the man in the mirror. What I do is a direct reflection of God's plan. I'm the shadow cast by God's light. 

Codex and canon

i) On occasion I've discussed how ancient Greek MSS are a neglected evidence for the NT canon. Here's some documentation in that regard:

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/05/13/text-collections-and-an-emergent-nt-canon/

http://jbtc.org/v23/TC-2018-Dormandy.pdf

ii) Catholic apologists try to dilute this evidence by pointing out that a few MSS contain non-canonical books. But Dormandy explains how that's a misleading comparison. To begin with, it's a rare phenomenon. In addition, the noncanonical books are appended at the end, which differentiates them from the canonical books.

iii) Finally, the basic job of a scribe is to copy preexisting material. So these MSS provide evidence that books of the NT were already circulating in collections. It wasn't the scribe who combined these writings; rather, he copied multiple works onto the same MS because they were already grouped that way in the exemplar he transcribed. 

The great dictator

In The Great Dictator, Charlie Chaplin used two x's instead of a swastika to avoid getting demonetized on YouTube:

The Meg formula

I watched the movie The Meg on Netflix. I thought it was supposed to be campy, which might have made it fun, but it was mostly serious, which made it boring. Then it got worse. Midway through the film I started rooting for the megalodon shark to eat everyone. It was a bad movie, but not bad so it's good (e.g. Plan 9 from Outer Space). Just plain bad.

However, maybe my low opinion of the film is due to being American. By contrast, the movie was a success abroad. It seemed primarily catered to the mainland Chinese. It mainly takes place in a super hi-tech underwater research center off the coast of China. Shanghai as I recall. The main scientist in charge of the lab is Chinese. The main love interest is Chinese. She has a cute little daughter. China and the Chinese are positively depicted for the most part. It looks like The Meg made approximately $145 million domestically. Its production budget was $130 million so it would've been considered a commercial failure (making "only" $15 million) had it only been distributed domestically in the US. However, The Meg made approximately $385 million internationally. So its grand total was a little over $530 million. The largest percentage of any nation in the total looks to be mainland China ($153 million). Overall The Meg did quite well commercially, largely thanks to international audiences. (Source is Box Office Mojo.)

I guess it's no surprise, but many movies now seem to be made primarily with the international market in mind. Often the Asian and especially Chinese market. Another example is the Pacific Rim series of movies. I presume the main reason is because that's where all the money and potential money is. Of course, this makes sense from a business perspective. However, what happens if (say) an American film production's business collides in significant enough ways with American values? Or even undermines American values? Suppose it becomes quite lucrative for an American studio to film and distribute communist Chinese propaganda.

Of course, this has wider implications than the entertainment industry. For instance, consider how tech companies like Google and Apple try to do business in China. In the US, these big tech companies rail against all sorts of social injustices. However, in China, these same companies tolerate human rights violations and other ethical issues as the price of doing business in China. At what point does business stop becoming "just business"? Remember when Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil"?

Thinkspot

Per the Joe Rogan podcast this week, I'm backing a new platform called thinkspot, currently in Beta. Get on the waitlist here, exciting announcements coming very soon. https://t.co/3xQ78Iqc0h

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) June 10, 2019

1. Amanda Prestigiacomo writes:

Thinkspot.com, the author revealed, will be a space where creators can monetize their work and users can engage in thoughtful debate without worrying about the ubiquitous Big Tech censorship plaguing conservative and right-of-center users on platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.

Speaking to popular podcast host and comedian Joe Rogan last week, Peterson explained that Thinkspot’s terms of service will uphold free speech principles. “Once you’re on our platform, we won't take you down unless ordered to by a court of law,” he said.

The forthcoming platform, currently in beta testing, will be a subscription service where creators can monetize their work.

“We’re hoping we can really add dialogue to the podcast and YouTuber world,” explained Peterson. “We’re also gonna do the same things with books, so if you buy an e-book on the platform, you’ll be able to annotate publicly. ... We can do that with books that are in the public domain, too.”

“We’re hoping that we’ll be able to pull people who are interested in intelligent conversation, specifically, into this platform, maybe start pulling them away from YouTube and some of the less specialized channels — that, plus our anti-censorship stance,” he added.

2. I expect liberals and progressives to attack Thinkspot (if they haven't already) despite still being in beta. However, if so, then this might give Thinkspot more publicity. Just like how Jordan Peterson became a sensation.

3. I presume Thinkspot will seek to employ people who agree with their vision. Or at least who won't attempt to undermine their vision. That could create jobs for conservatives and the like-minded.

Democracy

When conservatives complain about liberal tolerance giving way to the illiberal imposition of liberal hegemony, they're often just elliptically saying that democracy is unacceptable in liberalizing, minority-conservative societies.

— Will Wilkinson 🌐 (@willwilkinson) June 10, 2019

i) Our system of gov't isn't a pure democracy but a Constitutional democracy (or republic, to be precise). We have a Bill of Rights. 

ii) Liberals routinely subvert the democratic process by resorting to judicial dictatorship. 

I was a teenage fundamentalist

There's a stereotypical kind of person who frequents the internet. They're like stock character in fiction (e.g. the wicked stepmother), only they really exist. I recently said to one of them: As I recall, you're one of those dime-a-dozen "I used to be a teenage fundamentalist" who then goes through the "angry young man" phase where he feels the need to tell everyone how he was snookered by those troglodytes, then breathlessly shares his unsolicited insights, which he acquired 15 minutes ago. Maybe in 20 years or so, if you outgrow your juvenile reactionary script, you'll have something useful to say, but forgive me if I don't see you the way you see yourself.

The quaternity argument

Call it the Quaternity Argument:

1. If something intentionally communicates using a human language, it is a self.

2. According to the Bible, God intentionally communicates using various human languages.

3. Therefore according to the Bible, God is a self. (1,2)

4. According to the Bible, God is the Trinity.

5. Therefore according to the Bible, the Trinity is a self. (3,4)

6. Each Person of the Trinity is a self.

7. None of these are numerically identical: Father, Son, Spirit, Trinity.

8. Each of these is divine: Father, Son, Spirit, Trinity.

9. Therefore, there are at least four divine selves. (5-8)

https://trinities.org/blog/the-quaternity-argument/

That's simple-minded. The Trinity isn't something over and above the three persons that communicates in distinction to the three persons. The Trinity just is the three persons. It isn't the Trinity communicating in contrast to the three persons–individually or in combination. The Trinity doesn't operate independent of the three persons. For a philosopher of religion whose specialty is the Trinity, Dale is hopelessly muddled-headed about the concept of the Trinity. He can't even grasp what the position represents. A hack philosopher. Call it the Dale is out of his depth argument. 

The demon-puppet objection

https://trinities.org/blog/some-additional-thoughts-about-my-demon-puppet-objection/

i) It's hard to make sense of Dale's analogy. Unless you're a physicalist, a body without a soul is a corpse. If a demon takes possession of a fresh corpse, then it's merely piloting a human body. The combination isn't a human being. But from the standpoint of a Cartesian dualist, a body without a soul isn't a human being anyway, whether or not the body happens to be co-opted by a demon. So the demon part of the analogy is superfluous. 

ii) At best the analogy would only apply to Apollinarian Christology. On that view, one could indeed say the Son is merely piloting a human body. The combination isn't a human nature. But so what? W. L. Craig excepted, most Christians reject Apollinarian Christology. 

iii) Of course, the Incarnation isn't supposed to be reducible to a human nature. That's a necessary but insufficient condition. The combination isn't supposed to be just a human nature, but a union of two natures. 

iv) So Dale then has to stipulate that the demon deactivates the soul. Okay, it's his thought-experiment, so he can tweak it however he pleases. If the soul is deactivated, then the demon is merely piloting a body. The combination isn't functionally human. But a body with a deactivated soul wouldn't be a human being anyway. Demonic possession doesn't add anything in that respect. 

v) More to the point, the Incarnation doesn't deactivate the soul. In the Incarnation, the soul is fully functional. A union of the Son with an intact soul and body. 

So his thought-experiment is hopelessly confused. Rather than illustrating the Incarnation, his thought-experiment illustrates Dale's intellectual impediments as a philosopher. He's just not up to the challenge. 

Missionary syndrome

http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2019/06/missionary_syndrome.html

Who is your favorite philosopher?

Cameron Bertuzzi at Capturing Christianity asks: who is your favorite philosopher?

Of course, one could name famous philosophers across the ages like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Peter Abelard, Leibniz, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Reid, Paley, Gosse, Nietzsche, Sartre, Wittgenstein.

Alternatively, one could name modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Bas van Fraassen, Richard Swinburne, Tim and Lydia McGrew, David Chalmers, John Searle, Thomas Nagel, Saul Kripke, Hilary Putnam, Graham Oppy, John Haldane, Peter Geach, Elizabeth Anscombe, Bertrand Russell, Alasdair Macintyre, Charles Taylor, David Oderberg, William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Gary Habermas, William Dembski, Doug Groothuis, Win Corduan, Greg Welty, James Anderson, Paul Manata, Tim Hsiao.

Perhaps some might even consider a place for "philosophers" like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, James Sire, Dallas Willard, Peter Kreeft, Ayn Rand.

However, I'd like to take a different tack and name a philosopher that seems woefully underappreciated today. My favorite philosopher is the ancient Chinese sage Sum Tin Wong. Wong founded an influential school of Eastern philosophy that may not be well-esteemed among contemporary professional philosophers but that has a wide following in many regions of the world. For example, consider the tremendous influence of Wong's disciples who played Mencius to his Confucius: He He, Ai Bang Mai Ni, and No Khi Ding. Not to mention Wong's school has left us with a plethora of wit and wisdom such as "May you live in interesting times", "Snowflake in avalanche never feel responsible", "Lucky numbers 60, 2, 2140, 857, 10, 23", and "About time I get out of this cookie". In addition, many Westerners have been indirectly influenced by Wong. Consider the likes of Yogi Berra, Charles Barkley, your local bartender, and the masterminds behind the NYT best-sellers The Shack and The Secret.

My deep and abiding hope is more professional analytic philosophers will take Sum Tin Wong and his school of philosophy at least as seriously as they take continental philosophy.

China's "long march" to world hegemony

Hugh Hewitt interviews Victor Davis Hanson on China. The entire interview is interesting, but what follows below is an excerpt from sections I found to be informative. I don't necessarily agree with everything.

---

HEWITT: Well, you came to mind because of an extraordinary speech that was given on May 21 by President Xi Jinping of China. And he went to the geographic location of where the long march began 80-plus years ago, Jiangxi Province, and he told a cheering crowd, "now there is a new long march and we should make a new start." That's significant, I think, Dr. Hanson, and I wanted to go through with you today what the long march was, what happened in China during World War II, and where we are now as a result of both of those things. Let's start with the Long March...

HANSON: I think one thing to remember is that when he [Chinese President Xi] mentions the Long March where he was almost exterminated, Mao, and then subsequent we have a war that took 16 million, and then subsequently the Civil War, which took another 7 or 8 million, Xi is saying that we're victimized, we've all been counted out during the Long March, the war, the civil war second phase, and we're going to fight to the end.

And so I think that's the message. We should also remember it suggests to us that this myth that the Chinese Communist apparatus somehow liberalizing as it becomes wealthier and as trade becomes freer is not true. They still see themselves as hard Stalinists that have been picked on and victimized and will prevail against overwhelming odds.