thestream--2020-07-11--Children, the Church, and the Culture War

A few days ago , a colleague shared comments he and his wife get when people find out they have seven kids : “ Are they all yours ?
” “ Were they all planned ?
” “ What are you , Mormon ?
” And , most awkward of all : “ You know what causes that , right ?
” This kind of reaction to large families , which I ’ ve gotten with only four kids , reveals the assumptions about children that largely go unquestioned in our culture , even in the Church .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children are a choice .
This was not always so .
The introduction of reliable contraception , especially the pill , made it possible to divorce the inherent connection between sex , marriage , and procreation .
The cultural journey through the sexual revolution went something like this : First , we wanted sex outside of marriage .
That required having sex without the threat of babies .
Then we wanted babies outside of marriage , and today , even babies without sex .
Somewhere along the way , the idea of marriage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ became common too .
Even among Christian couples , the idea of not only delaying children but choosing to not have them at all is , in many circles , non-controversial .
In previous generations , an intentionally childless marriage would have been unthinkable .
Infertility , as so many couples are painfully aware , is tragic .
Intentional infertility is considered a choice today .
Another assumption that controls our cultural thinking is that we have children in order to fulfill adult longings .
This shift goes hand in hand with seeing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happiness , rather than as an institution to protect and enable the next generation .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
When kids are thought of in terms of personal fulfillments , how we go about “ obtaining ” them becomes less important .
Or not at all .
And so , the sexual revolution is punctuated by ethically problematic reproductive technologies and intentionally single-parent households , not to mention same-sex households who want children even after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In short , after seeking the moral acceptance of sex without marriage or sex without children for so long , we now seek moral acceptance of having children without marriage or even without sex .
Left out of our moral calculations is what happens to children who primarily exist to fulfill adult longings .
We will soon know .
According to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau , America has gotten older faster over the last ten years than at any other time in history .
Since 2010 , Americans over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population .
Meanwhile , the number of those under 18 actually shrank between 2010 and 2019 .
If this continues , by 2035 , senior citizens will outnumber minors in America in an unprecedented “ top-heavy ” arrangement with all sorts of social , economic , and political instability .
This news comes at a moment many Christians are already wondering what America their children will inherit .
No matter what we do or how we vote or even who is appointed to the Supreme Court , it seems , our culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-Christian direction .
In response to a recent disappointing opinion from the Supreme Court , Pastor Kevin DeYoung proposed a new “ culture war strategy.
” Writing at The Gospel Coalition , DeYoung urged Christians to “ have more children and disciple them like crazy.
” As my Tennessee friend might say , it ’ s not rocket-surgery .
The heated reactions to DeYoung ’ s blog post , especially from other Christians , shows just how counter-cultural it has become to embrace the inherent created connection between sex , marriage , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Of course , the reason Christians of all people should welcome children into our lives and even into our troubled times is not ultimately to win a culture war .
As DeYoung acknowledged , children are a blessing from the Lord .
Full stop .
They aren ’ t means .
They are ends : They are signs of living hope , votes of confidence in God ’ s sovereignty , and the most basic and constant opportunity to love others as Christ loves us .
Jesus told his disciples : “ Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and do not hinder them , for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.
” Ours is a culture that hinders children , instead of welcoming them .
That we look at God ’ s blessings as mere lifestyle choices , even as punchlines for wisecracks and mockery , marks that we are a dying culture .
And maybe a dying Church .
Christians of all people should have no hesitation challenging our culture ’ s bad assumptions about children and welcoming them as blessings .
But to do so , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ start with the household of God .
John Stonestreet serves as president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview .
He ’ s a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture , theology , worldview , education and apologetics .
G. Shane Morris is an assistant editor and columnist at BreakPoint .
Originally published on Breakpoint.org : BreakPoint Commentaries .
Republished with permission of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview .

A few days ago, a colleague shared comments he and his wife get when people find out they have seven kids: “Are they all yours?” “Were they all planned?” “What are you, Mormon?” And, most awkward of all: “You know what causes that, right?”
This kind of reaction to large families, which I’ve gotten with only four kids, reveals the assumptions about children that largely go unquestioned in our culture, even in the Church.
It is widely assumed, for example, that children are a choice. This was not always so. The introduction of reliable contraception, especially the pill, made it possible to divorce the inherent connection between sex, marriage, and procreation.
The Sexual Revolution
The cultural journey through the sexual revolution went something like this: First, we wanted sex outside of marriage. That required having sex without the threat of babies. Then we wanted babies outside of marriage, and today, even babies without sex. Somewhere along the way, the idea of marriage without children, intentionally I mean, became common too. Even among Christian couples, the idea of not only delaying children but choosing to not have them at all is, in many circles, non-controversial.
In previous generations, an intentionally childless marriage would have been unthinkable. Infertility, as so many couples are painfully aware, is tragic. Intentional infertility is considered a choice today.
Another assumption that controls our cultural thinking is that we have children in order to fulfill adult longings. This shift goes hand in hand with seeing marriage as fundamentally an institution of adult happiness, rather than as an institution to protect and enable the next generation.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
When kids are thought of in terms of personal fulfillments, how we go about “obtaining” them becomes less important. Or not at all. And so, the sexual revolution is punctuated by ethically problematic reproductive technologies and intentionally single-parent households, not to mention same-sex households who want children even after entering an intrinsically sterile sexual union.
New Moral Dilemmas
In short, after seeking the moral acceptance of sex without marriage or sex without children for so long, we now seek moral acceptance of having children without marriage or even without sex. Left out of our moral calculations is what happens to children who primarily exist to fulfill adult longings.
We will soon know. According to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau, America has gotten older faster over the last ten years than at any other time in history. Since 2010, Americans over 65 have become the fastest-growing segment of the population. Meanwhile, the number of those under 18 actually shrank between 2010 and 2019. If this continues, by 2035, senior citizens will outnumber minors in America in an unprecedented “top-heavy” arrangement with all sorts of social, economic, and political instability.
This news comes at a moment many Christians are already wondering what America their children will inherit. No matter what we do or how we vote or even who is appointed to the Supreme Court, it seems, our culture and country continue to drift in an anti-Christian direction.
A New Strategy
In response to a recent disappointing opinion from the Supreme Court, Pastor Kevin DeYoung proposed a new “culture war strategy.” Writing at The Gospel Coalition, DeYoung urged Christians to “have more children and disciple them like crazy.” As my Tennessee friend might say, it’s not rocket-surgery.
The heated reactions to DeYoung’s blog post, especially from other Christians, shows just how counter-cultural it has become to embrace the inherent created connection between sex, marriage, and children, even within the Church.
“Ours is a culture that hinders children, instead of welcoming them.”
Of course, the reason Christians of all people should welcome children into our lives and even into our troubled times is not ultimately to win a culture war. As DeYoung acknowledged, children are a blessing from the Lord. Full stop. They aren’t means. They are ends: They are signs of living hope, votes of confidence in God’s sovereignty, and the most basic and constant opportunity to love others as Christ loves us.
The Christian View
Jesus told his disciples: “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Ours is a culture that hinders children, instead of welcoming them. That we look at God’s blessings as mere lifestyle choices, even as punchlines for wisecracks and mockery, marks that we are a dying culture. And maybe a dying Church.
Christians of all people should have no hesitation challenging our culture’s bad assumptions about children and welcoming them as blessings. But to do so, tragically, we’ll have to start with the household of God.
John Stonestreet serves as president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. He’s a sought-after author and speaker on areas of faith and culture, theology, worldview, education and apologetics.
G. Shane Morris is an assistant editor and columnist at BreakPoint.
Originally published on Breakpoint.org: BreakPoint Commentaries. Republished with permission of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.


thestream--2020-07-11--Former College Football Player and Marine Catches Toddler Dropped From Balcony of Burning Apartment

A former college football wide receiver and Marine made the catch of his life earlier this month when a 3-year-old boy was dropped from a balcony of an apartment engulfed in flames .
Phillip Blanks , 28 , heard some noise on July 3 outside an apartment complex in Phoenix , Arizona .
When he heard someone yell “ fire , ” he ran outside barefoot to see what was happening .
It was then that he saw an apartment on fire and a woman getting ready to toss her toddler over the balcony .
“ He was twirling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he told ABC7 Eyewitness News .
“ His head landed perfectly on my elbow .
His ankle got twisted up as I was diving .
The guy who was there with me — it looked like he wasn ’ t going to catch him .
So that ’ s why I stepped in .
I just wanted to make a better catch.
” Blanks said he ’ d prepared for this day through his football and military experiences .
“ I think God has put me on this path for that.
” Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
After dropping her son , 30-year-old Rachel Long ran back inside to save her daughter .
Long died in the fire .
Another good Samaritan kicked in the apartment door and rescued the little girl .
Both children were taken to the hospital with burns , but are expected to survive .
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream .
You can follow her @ NancyFlory3 , and follow The Stream @ Streamdotorg .

A former college football wide receiver and Marine made the catch of his life earlier this month when a 3-year-old boy was dropped from a balcony of an apartment engulfed in flames.
Phillip Blanks, 28, heard some noise on July 3 outside an apartment complex in Phoenix, Arizona. When he heard someone yell “fire,” he ran outside barefoot to see what was happening. It was then that he saw an apartment on fire and a woman getting ready to toss her toddler over the balcony.
“He was twirling in the air like a propeller,” he told ABC7 Eyewitness News. “His head landed perfectly on my elbow. His ankle got twisted up as I was diving. The guy who was there with me — it looked like he wasn’t going to catch him. So that’s why I stepped in. I just wanted to make a better catch.”
Blanks said he’d prepared for this day through his football and military experiences. “I think God has put me on this path for that.”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
After dropping her son, 30-year-old Rachel Long ran back inside to save her daughter. Long died in the fire. Another good Samaritan kicked in the apartment door and rescued the little girl.
Both children were taken to the hospital with burns, but are expected to survive.
Watch:
Nancy Flory is an associate editor at The Stream. You can follow her @NancyFlory3, and follow The Stream @Streamdotorg.


thestream--2020-07-11--C.S. Lewis Knows How to Deal With Disaster

What C. S. Lewis told the people gathered that evening in autumn 1939 , at the main Anglican church in Oxford , he could tell us as we face a world falling apart .
England had just declared war on Germany .
Germany might kill European civilization and tens of millions of people to get what it wanted .
In a year or two , barbarian Germany might conquer England , after half-destroying it first .
Everyone sitting in front of him might soon be dead or enslaved .
What does the Christian do in a world falling apart ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he asks , should anyone keep studying when the world ’ s in such horrible shape ?
He was talking to academics and that ’ s the practical question they had to answer .
We have to answer others .
Titled “ Learning in War Time , ” the sermon appears in the small book The Weight of Glory .
Lewis drove home the problem .
Why sit in comfort with your books when you or your friends may go to war at any moment ?
And maybe die ?
When your country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify studying ancient Greek grammar when you could be fighting the enemy or working on the assembly line making fighter planes and tanks ?
We should ask the same kind of questions .
What do we do when our world falls apart ?
When death becomes likely than it was before ?
When we ’ ll suffer in other ways and our lives may change forever ?
Keep doing what you ’ re doing , he said — as long as you ’ re doing something worth doing .
Do it better and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he says it with a twist .
War , infectious viruses , they don ’ t change things .
The world ’ s in crisis , but it ’ s always in crisis .
We always have something better to do .
We just see that a lot more clearly now , he explains .
“ The war creates no absolutely new situation : it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it .
Human life has always been lived on the edge of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself.
” The Christian , he says , “ must ask himself how it is right , or even psychologically possible , for creatures who are every moment advancing either to heaven or to hell , to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art , mathematics or biology ?
” Lewis asked his comfortable academic peers a very good question .
We must answer it too .
Most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do much of what we want to do , while the world around us lives in great need .
Why keep reading that book on a Christian hero when people suffer in the nearest hospital without anyone to visit them ?
How can you host that cookout for your friends when the soup kitchen downtown needs volunteers ?
Do you really need to go to that church conference ( back when we could do that ) when the fee would feed an African village for a week ?
Should we enjoy a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about Jesus ?
You think of Jesus ’ s words , “ What you did for the least of these , you did for me.
” And his other words , even more challenging : “ What you didn ’ t do for the least of these , you didn ’ t do for me.
” You look at the lives of the great Christians , who spent themselves in unending service to others .
You think of the Cross .
Jesus orders us to take up our cross and follow Him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he bids him come and die , ” said the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer .
We all fall short .
How does Lewis answer his own question ?
He doesn ’ t say this directly , but I ’ d sum up his teaching this way : You must serve God with all your heart and soul and mind , but part of serving God is living a normal human life .
You must take up your cross and follow Jesus , but you take up that cross in and through that life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing what you have been called to do , remembering that you ’ re part of a body of people who do different things .
We are “ differentiated members , ” he says , “ each with his own vocation.
” We serve God best through our vocation , not by taking up someone else ’ s .
By doing what we ’ re supposed to do , “ we are either advancing to the vision of God ourselves or indirectly helping others to do so.
” How God uses our work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyway it ’ s up to Him .
Second , you ’ ll do it anyway , so do it well .
Speaking to his fellow scholars , he says : “ If you don ’ t read good books , you will read bad ones .
If you don ’ t go on thinking rationally , you will think irrationally .
If you reject aesthetic satisfactions you will fall into sensual satisfactions.
” That said , you do it for others .
“ Good philosophy must exist , ” for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answered.
” The Germans may be bombing England , but someone in England will be preaching poisonous nonsense and hurting human souls .
Someone needs to know what to say in response .
That someone needs to be studying when others are on the assembly line making fighter planes .
Third , God created and honors normal human life as long as we do what we do for Him .
That ’ s the crucial thing that separates just enjoying ourselves from enjoying ourselves as God wants us to do .
Lewis invokes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul tells people to get on with their lives .
He even assumes that Christians may go to dinner parties .
… Our Lord attends a wedding and provides miraculous wine.
” He quotes the Apostle ’ s rule that whatever we eat or drink or do , we do it to glory of God .
“ Christianity does not simply replace our natural life and substitute a new one : it is rather a new organization which exploits , to its own supernatural ends , these natural materials.
” We can always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the sermon .
It must have taken at least 30 minutes to read , maybe 40 .
I would add one thing to what he says to his fellow scholars .
As you can , do go to the hospital , the soup kitchen , give up something for the African village , tell people about Jesus .
Lewis isn ’ t saying just brighten the corner where you are .
But do brighten it .
We can almost always push ourselves a little beyond what we do at the moment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ good for the summer , even if social distancing requirements make it harder to do .
Lewis mentions dinner parties .
A cookout can be held to the glory of God .
You bring people together in fellowship .
That ’ s great .
But even greater , make it a bigger fellowship , by inviting the odd and isolated and awkward .
Don ’ t tightly “ curate ” the guest list .
You glorify God by helping his lonely children find friends .
We defeat the darkness by bringing light to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mills is a senior editor of The Stream .
After teaching writing in a seminary , he has been editor of Touchstone and the executive editor of First Things .
He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes the monthly “ Last Things ” column for the New Oxford Review and a weekly column for the English Catholic Herald .
He is finishing a book on death and dying to be published by Sophia Institute Press .

What C.S. Lewis told the people gathered that evening in autumn 1939, at the main Anglican church in Oxford, he could tell us as we face a world falling apart. England had just declared war on Germany. Germany might kill European civilization and tens of millions of people to get what it wanted. In a year or two, barbarian Germany might conquer England, after half-destroying it first.
Everyone sitting in front of him might soon be dead or enslaved. What does the Christian do in a world falling apart? A world like ours?
Living in War Time
Why, he asks, should anyone keep studying when the world’s in such horrible shape? He was talking to academics and that’s the practical question they had to answer. We have to answer others. Titled “Learning in War Time,” the sermon appears in the small book The Weight of Glory. (He wrote more about this nine years later in “On Living in an Atomic Age.” See the quote in the first comment.)
For more wisdom from C.S. Lewis, see this article on his view of saints, which includes links to other articles.
Lewis drove home the problem. Why sit in comfort with your books when you or your friends may go to war at any moment? And maybe die? When your country itself might die? How can you justify studying ancient Greek grammar when you could be fighting the enemy or working on the assembly line making fighter planes and tanks?
We should ask the same kind of questions. What do we do when our world falls apart? When death becomes likely than it was before? When we’ll suffer in other ways and our lives may change forever?
The Twist
Keep doing what you’re doing, Lewis said — as long as you’re doing something worth doing. Do it better and do it as your service to God.
But he says it with a twist. War, infectious viruses, they don’t change things. The world’s in crisis, but it’s always in crisis. We always have something better to do.
We just see that a lot more clearly now, he explains. “The war creates no absolutely new situation: it simply aggravates the permanent human situation so that we can no longer ignore it. Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. Human culture has always had to exist under the shadow of something infinitely more important than itself.”
The Christian, he says, “must ask himself how it is right, or even psychologically possible, for creatures who are every moment advancing either to heaven or to hell, to spend any fraction of the little time allowed them in this world on such comparative trivialities as literature or art, mathematics or biology?”
Us Too
Lewis asked his comfortable academic peers a very good question. We must answer it too. Most of us live in some comfort, able to do much of what we want to do, while the world around us lives in great need.
Why keep reading that book on a Christian hero when people suffer in the nearest hospital without anyone to visit them? How can you host that cookout for your friends when the soup kitchen downtown needs volunteers? Do you really need to go to that church conference (back when we could do that) when the fee would feed an African village for a week? Should we enjoy a movie when we could be telling people about Jesus?
You think of Jesus’s words, “What you did for the least of these, you did for me.” And his other words, even more challenging: “What you didn’t do for the least of these, you didn’t do for me.” You look at the lives of the great Christians, who spent themselves in unending service to others.
You think of the Cross. Jesus orders us to take up our cross and follow Him. “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die,” said the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We all fall short.
What Lewis Says
How does Lewis answer his own question? He doesn’t say this directly, but I’d sum up his teaching this way: You must serve God with all your heart and soul and mind, but part of serving God is living a normal human life. You must take up your cross and follow Jesus, but you take up that cross in and through that life.
First, Lewis says, keep doing what you have been called to do, remembering that you’re part of a body of people who do different things. We are “differentiated members,” he says, “each with his own vocation.” We serve God best through our vocation, not by taking up someone else’s. By doing what we’re supposed to do, “we are either advancing to the vision of God ourselves or indirectly helping others to do so.” How God uses our work we probably can’t see and anyway it’s up to Him.
Second, you’ll do it anyway, so do it well. Speaking to his fellow scholars, he says: “If you don’t read good books, you will read bad ones. If you don’t go on thinking rationally, you will think irrationally. If you reject aesthetic satisfactions you will fall into sensual satisfactions.”
That said, you do it for others. “Good philosophy must exist,” for example, “because bad philosophy needs to be answered.” The Germans may be bombing England, but someone in England will be preaching poisonous nonsense and hurting human souls. Someone needs to know what to say in response. That someone needs to be studying when others are on the assembly line making fighter planes.
Third, God created and honors normal human life as long as we do what we do for Him. That’s the crucial thing that separates just enjoying ourselves from enjoying ourselves as God wants us to do. Lewis invokes the Apostle Paul: “St. Paul tells people to get on with their lives. He even assumes that Christians may go to dinner parties. … Our Lord attends a wedding and provides miraculous wine.”
He quotes the Apostle’s rule that whatever we eat or drink or do, we do it to glory of God. “Christianity does not simply replace our natural life and substitute a new one: it is rather a new organization which exploits, to its own supernatural ends, these natural materials.”
We Can Always Push Ourselves
Lewis says a lot more in the sermon. It must have taken at least 30 minutes to read, maybe 40. I would add one thing to what he says to his fellow scholars. As you can, do go to the hospital, the soup kitchen, give up something for the African village, tell people about Jesus. Lewis isn’t saying just brighten the corner where you are.
But do brighten it. We can almost always push ourselves a little beyond what we do at the moment.
Here’s a small example, good for the summer, even if social distancing requirements make it harder to do. Lewis mentions dinner parties. A cookout can be held to the glory of God. You bring people together in fellowship.
That’s great. But even greater, make it a bigger fellowship, by inviting the odd and isolated and awkward. Don’t tightly “curate” the guest list. You glorify God by helping his lonely children find friends. We defeat the darkness by bringing light to other people’s lives.
David Mills is a senior editor of The Stream. After teaching writing in a seminary, he has been editor of Touchstone and the executive editor of First Things. He edits the site Hour of Our Death and writes the monthly “Last Things” column for the New Oxford Review and a weekly column for the English Catholic Herald. He is finishing a book on death and dying to be published by Sophia Institute Press.


thestream--2020-07-11--The Science is Settled

The Science is Settled

You ’ re in a conversation about global warming , vaccines , dinosaurs or gender identity and someone says , “ There ’ s no point in discussing this more .
The science is settled.
” What would you say ?
Science is awesome .
Our study of the natural world has allowed us to find cures for diseases , fly to the moon , communicate with anyone from anywhere , turn a river into an endless source of power , and grow food efficiently .
As a result , life is better now than it was 100 years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debt of gratitude we owe to science , some now argue that the “ science is settled ” and use that as a way to discourage questions and end debates .
Next time this happens to you , here are three things to remember .
First , we never stop learning .
One of the things that makes science challenging and fun is that there is always more to learn .
That ’ s because the scientific method never provides absolute conclusions .
It ’ s always possible that the next observation will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past , science told us that animal fats were bad for people , so we cut meat from our diets and ate margarine instead of butter .
Now we know better .
Or at least we think we do .
For nearly 3,000 years , the best scientists believed bloodletting , or removing blood from the bodies of sick people , helped cure illness .
We were wrong .
Even when we ’ re right , sometimes we ’ re only partially right and the willingness to consider new information allows us to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what science is all about .
Every generation is living in their modern age , so every generation discovers things that previous generations didn ’ t fully understand .
And oftentimes , we discover that in some ways , those who came before us did know what they were doing .
But it ’ s the openness to new information and the willingness to learn that allows us to discover where we should change and where we shouldn ’ t .
But that process can ’ t happen if we decide truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graduate degrees and so we can ’ t explore further .
Which leads to the second point .
Second , the scientific consensus is frequently wrong .
Mercury was once considered safe and used as a disinfectant , laxative , and cure for syphilis .
Now we understand it to be extremely toxic .
Scientists once believed that people would be unable to breathe if they traveled faster than 30 miles per hour .
In the 19th century , media stories circulated describing “ railway madmen ” who went insane on trains because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quickly .
The theory of spontaneous generation once convinced scientists and farmers alike that rats could materialize out of a sack of grain .
Charles Darwin believed that cells were empty ; Darwin ’ s black box .
We now know there is nearly as much to explore inside a cell as there is to explore outside of it .
Louis Pasteur , who established germ theory , was widely ridiculed before his theories became the foundation for our view of microbiology .
Pasteurization still keeps food from going bad today .
Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
The scientific consensus used to say that the earth was the center of the solar system , but it never was .
In the 20th century , the scientific community mocked those who argued that ulcers were caused by bacteria until it became clear they were correct .
These examples illustrate why the term “ settled science ” demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how science works .
Science is often wrong or incomplete because science is conducted by people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Scientists are Just as Biased as Anyone Else Third , scientists are just as capable of bias as anyone else .
When people say that the science is settled , it ’ s easy to get the impression that science works like a panel of dispassionate judges who simply declare what the facts are .
But that ’ s not how it works .
While the vast majority of scientists are sincerely trying to figure out what is true , science is not an algorithm .
It ’ s not an artificial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality .
Science is done by people who are not only capable of making mistakes , but are capable of being influenced by ambition , greed , fear , or ego .
Scientists might be influenced by oil or tobacco money as easily as other scientists might be influenced by alternative energy or government money .
For every progressive scientist there is a conservative scientist .
Science is performed by humans , and humans can be influenced .
But the willingness to ask and listen to questions is what helps us separate fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is possible for science to actually be settled .
The earth is round not flat .
But throughout history , there were many times where we thought we understood — no , we knew we understood something — only to find out later we were wrong .
“ Darwin ’ s Bulldog ” Thomas Huxley said it this way : “ Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.
” To say the science is settled is to suggest there is nothing new to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and no willingness to evaluate what I currently believe .
Whatever that is , it ’ s not science .
So next time someone tries to end a discussion by asserting that the science is settled , remember these three things .
Number 1 : We never stop learning .
Science is never settled because there is always more to know .
Number 2 : The scientific consensus is frequently wrong .
From mercury , to bloodletting , to germ theory , the scientific consensus has been wrong many times .
Willingness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And Number 3 : Scientists are just as capable of bias as anyone else .
Science isn ’ t an algorithm .
It ’ s a process full of people .
As long as people are imperfect , science will be too .
This is a transcript of “ The Science is Settled , ” an episode of What Would You Say ?
.
A few changes have been made for readability .
Originally published on WhatWoudlYouSay.org .
Republished with permission of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview .

You’re in a conversation about global warming, vaccines, dinosaurs or gender identity and someone says, “There’s no point in discussing this more. The science is settled.”
What would you say?
Science is awesome. Our study of the natural world has allowed us to find cures for diseases, fly to the moon, communicate with anyone from anywhere, turn a river into an endless source of power, and grow food efficiently. As a result, life is better now than it was 100 years ago virtually everywhere on earth.
Despite the debt of gratitude we owe to science, some now argue that the “science is settled” and use that as a way to discourage questions and end debates.
We Never Stop Learning
Next time this happens to you, here are three things to remember.
First, we never stop learning. One of the things that makes science challenging and fun is that there is always more to learn. That’s because the scientific method never provides absolute conclusions. It’s always possible that the next observation will contradict the current consensus.
In the past, science told us that animal fats were bad for people, so we cut meat from our diets and ate margarine instead of butter. Now we know better. Or at least we think we do.
For nearly 3,000 years, the best scientists believed bloodletting, or removing blood from the bodies of sick people, helped cure illness. We were wrong. Even when we’re right, sometimes we’re only partially right and the willingness to consider new information allows us to become more right. That’s what science is all about.
Every generation is living in their modern age, so every generation discovers things that previous generations didn’t fully understand. And oftentimes, we discover that in some ways, those who came before us did know what they were doing.
But it’s the openness to new information and the willingness to learn that allows us to discover where we should change and where we shouldn’t. But that process can’t happen if we decide truth is determined by a survey of people with graduate degrees and so we can’t explore further. Which leads to the second point.
The Scientific Consensus is Frequently Wrong
Second, the scientific consensus is frequently wrong. Mercury was once considered safe and used as a disinfectant, laxative, and cure for syphilis. Now we understand it to be extremely toxic.
Scientists once believed that people would be unable to breathe if they traveled faster than 30 miles per hour. In the 19th century, media stories circulated describing “railway madmen” who went insane on trains because people were not intended to travel that quickly.
The theory of spontaneous generation once convinced scientists and farmers alike that rats could materialize out of a sack of grain.
Charles Darwin believed that cells were empty; Darwin’s black box. We now know there is nearly as much to explore inside a cell as there is to explore outside of it.
Louis Pasteur, who established germ theory, was widely ridiculed before his theories became the foundation for our view of microbiology. Pasteurization still keeps food from going bad today.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The scientific consensus used to say that the earth was the center of the solar system, but it never was. In the 20th century, the scientific community mocked those who argued that ulcers were caused by bacteria until it became clear they were correct.
These examples illustrate why the term “settled science” demonstrates a total misunderstanding of how science works. Science is often wrong or incomplete because science is conducted by people. Which leads to the third point.
Scientists are Just as Biased as Anyone Else
Third, scientists are just as capable of bias as anyone else. When people say that the science is settled, it’s easy to get the impression that science works like a panel of dispassionate judges who simply declare what the facts are. But that’s not how it works.
While the vast majority of scientists are sincerely trying to figure out what is true, science is not an algorithm. It’s not an artificial intelligence that objectively processes inputs to determine reality.
Science is done by people who are not only capable of making mistakes, but are capable of being influenced by ambition, greed, fear, or ego. Scientists might be influenced by oil or tobacco money as easily as other scientists might be influenced by alternative energy or government money. For every progressive scientist there is a conservative scientist.
Science is performed by humans, and humans can be influenced. But the willingness to ask and listen to questions is what helps us separate fact from opinion.
Of course, it is possible for science to actually be settled. The earth is round not flat. But throughout history, there were many times where we thought we understood — no, we knew we understood something — only to find out later we were wrong.
“Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley said it this way: “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”
To say the science is settled is to suggest there is nothing new to learn, no openness to new information, and no willingness to evaluate what I currently believe. Whatever that is, it’s not science.
Remember These Three Things
So next time someone tries to end a discussion by asserting that the science is settled, remember these three things.
Number 1: We never stop learning. Science is never settled because there is always more to know.
Number 2: The scientific consensus is frequently wrong. From mercury, to bloodletting, to germ theory, the scientific consensus has been wrong many times. Willingness to question the consensus is how we learn.
And Number 3: Scientists are just as capable of bias as anyone else. Science isn’t an algorithm. It’s a process full of people. As long as people are imperfect, science will be too.
This is a transcript of “The Science is Settled,” an episode of What Would You Say?. A few changes have been made for readability.
Originally published on WhatWoudlYouSay.org. Republished with permission of The Colson Center for Christian Worldview.


thestream--2020-07-11--The University Marxists Have Been Lying in Wait for Young Americans Since WWII

Patrisse Cullors , one of the founders of Black Lives Matters , admitted in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and other BLM organizers are “ trained Marxists.
” Most Marxists are not this forthcoming .
Who trained them ?
Why are so many younger Americans positive toward socialism ?
When did this ideology reach our shores and schools ?
In their late teens and early twenties , the men of the Greatest Generation left our shores to fight evil ideologies spawned by wicked men .
Young American ladies bought work boots and filled factories building planes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world !
As WWII ended , Johnny came marching home to marry , raise a family , build thousands of family-owned businesses , farms , and ever-expanding corporations .
They saw the first president in history be baptized while in office .
They witnessed the rise of a great evangelist fanning the flame of the Gospel .
Church attendance was at an all-time high .
Most families had a father and mother as divorce was rare .
America was far from perfect , but she was getting better .
Although wise beyond their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less educated compared to succeeding American generations , but they wanted their children educated .
Colleges and universities soon swelled their enrollments with Baby Boomers and later generations .
The Ideology and Its Teachers We simply can not understand the contemporary culture war in America without understanding the invasive philosophy of cultural Marxism .
This includes a cabal of constructs known as critical theory , multiculturalism , political correctness , intersectionality , identity politics , white privilege , critical race theory , etc .
Fleeing Hitler ’ s Germany before and after WWII @ @ @ @ @ @ @ educators planted the seeds of this ideology into our American university system .
Men like Georg Lukacs , Herbert Marcuse , and Theodor Adorno , of the Frankfurt School in Germany , were trained to translate the ideology of Marxism from economic terms into practical cultural terms .
This new revolution would not promote bullets , bombs , and bloodshed in the beginning but seek to smash religion ( Christianity in particular ) , morals , authority , and American patriotism .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Our Day .
Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci saw the 2000-year impact of Christianity on the West and concluded that this de-Christianization would begin with a “ long march ” through the cultural structures of societies .
Things like religion , family , media , and education must be turned upside down and radically transformed .
New meanings and definitions would be given to language , history , and social theory as this new agenda to radically transform America was launched .
In identifying the cultural hegemony or power structure , the white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oppressor .
All other groups would be deemed a minority .
Politicians , professors , activists , and community organizers found power and social traction in organizing and promising each minority group certain rights , privileges , benefits , etc .
They knew it would be a long road as cultural change worked its way through the institutions of government , education , corporations , sports , music , entertainment , and the Christian church .
In deconstructing America from a capitalist free market economy and Judeo-Christian moral foundation , the virtues and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacked , eroded , shamed and destroyed .
The new storytellers of change must lift high the “ oppressed ” and decry the “ oppressors.
” Nagging new narratives must grate and goad , thus promoting change .
Progressive theologians and liberal pastors must continue to blur the Bible , thereby adding to moral confusion .
Universities must churn out revolutionaries and reactionaries — even those willing to use deception and violence .
The willing media must help make “ examples ” of hypocrites , racists , homophobes , Islamophobes , etc .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , religious , and traditionally-minded people from speaking out and standing up .
Wherever the disruptive ideology relating to Marxism has found root , only suffering , chaos , and carnage is left in the wake of that wave .
Socialism ’ s totalitarian control has been the biggest producer of poverty in human history !
Its promise of “ equality ” has resulted in average citizens being equal in their poverty while the ruling class enjoys power , position and prosperity .
In the 20th century alone , 150 million people were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a recent example of a once vibrant economy to collapse into a bottomless recession with starving citizens standing in long lines surrounded by armed robbers and thugs .
This is the outcome of the leftist leadership of Hugo Chávez followed by Nicolás Maduro .
How Do You Recognize a Marxist ?
Dr. Emir Caner is president of Truett McConnell University , a fast-growing Christian school nestled in the mountains of Northeast Georgia .
He shares ten practical tips in “ How to Spot a Marxist at Your College or Seminary ” : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of speech Thank you , Dr. Caner , for this extremely helpful list , because Marxists are still waiting for our young people in state and secular institutions of higher learning .
By the way , President Dwight Eisenhower was the first and only president to be baptized while in office .
Ron F. Hale is a freelance writer , retired pastor and serves as an interim pastor and guest preacher when invited .
Ron has written a chapter in the newly released book , The Right to Believe , published by Vide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Originally published at The Christian Post .
Reprinted with permission .

Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of Black Lives Matters, admitted in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and other BLM organizers are “trained Marxists.” Most Marxists are not this forthcoming. Who trained them? Why are so many younger Americans positive toward socialism? When did this ideology reach our shores and schools?
The Marxists Were Waiting
In their late teens and early twenties, the men of the Greatest Generation left our shores to fight evil ideologies spawned by wicked men. Young American ladies bought work boots and filled factories building planes, tanks and warships. They saved the world!
As WWII ended, Johnny came marching home to marry, raise a family, build thousands of family-owned businesses, farms, and ever-expanding corporations. They saw the first president in history be baptized while in office. They witnessed the rise of a great evangelist fanning the flame of the Gospel. Church attendance was at an all-time high. Most families had a father and mother as divorce was rare. America was far from perfect, but she was getting better.
Although wise beyond their years, the Greatest Generation was far less educated compared to succeeding American generations, but they wanted their children educated. Colleges and universities soon swelled their enrollments with Baby Boomers and later generations.
The Ideology and Its Teachers
We simply cannot understand the contemporary culture war in America without understanding the invasive philosophy of cultural Marxism. This includes a cabal of constructs known as critical theory, multiculturalism, political correctness, intersectionality, identity politics, white privilege, critical race theory, etc.
Fleeing Hitler’s Germany before and after WWII, a group of German philosophers and educators planted the seeds of this ideology into our American university system. Men like Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno, of the Frankfurt School in Germany, were trained to translate the ideology of Marxism from economic terms into practical cultural terms. This new revolution would not promote bullets, bombs, and bloodshed in the beginning but seek to smash religion (Christianity in particular), morals, authority, and American patriotism.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
Marxist theorist Antonio Gramsci saw the 2000-year impact of Christianity on the West and concluded that this de-Christianization would begin with a “long march” through the cultural structures of societies. Things like religion, family, media, and education must be turned upside down and radically transformed.
New meanings and definitions would be given to language, history, and social theory as this new agenda to radically transform America was launched. In identifying the cultural hegemony or power structure, the white Christian was considered the ruling majority and oppressor. All other groups would be deemed a minority.
Politicians, professors, activists, and community organizers found power and social traction in organizing and promising each minority group certain rights, privileges, benefits, etc. They knew it would be a long road as cultural change worked its way through the institutions of government, education, corporations, sports, music, entertainment, and the Christian church.
In deconstructing America from a capitalist free market economy and Judeo-Christian moral foundation, the virtues and values that made America strong must be attacked, eroded, shamed and destroyed. The new storytellers of change must lift high the “oppressed” and decry the “oppressors.” Nagging new narratives must grate and goad, thus promoting change. Progressive theologians and liberal pastors must continue to blur the Bible, thereby adding to moral confusion. Universities must churn out revolutionaries and reactionaries — even those willing to use deception and violence. The willing media must help make “examples” of hypocrites, racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, etc. An undercurrent of fear prevents many patriotic, religious, and traditionally-minded people from speaking out and standing up.
The Outcome
Wherever the disruptive ideology relating to Marxism has found root, only suffering, chaos, and carnage is left in the wake of that wave. Socialism’s totalitarian control has been the biggest producer of poverty in human history! Its promise of “equality” has resulted in average citizens being equal in their poverty while the ruling class enjoys power, position and prosperity. In the 20th century alone, 150 million people were killed because of this ideology.
Venezuela is a recent example of a once vibrant economy to collapse into a bottomless recession with starving citizens standing in long lines surrounded by armed robbers and thugs. This is the outcome of the leftist leadership of Hugo Chávez followed by Nicolás Maduro.
How Do You Recognize a Marxist?
Dr. Emir Caner is president of Truett McConnell University, a fast-growing Christian school nestled in the mountains of Northeast Georgia. He shares ten practical tips in “How to Spot a Marxist at Your College or Seminary”:
1. Socialism over Capitalism
2. Censorship of thought over freedom of speech
3. Anti-Americanism over American exceptionalism
4. Materialism over Theism
5. Equal outcome over equal opportunity
6. Legal conformity over free dissent
7. Parental government over limited government
8. Revisionist history over unedited history
9. Structural sins over personal responsibility
10. Centralized globalism over patriotic nationalism
Thank you, Dr. Caner, for this extremely helpful list, because Marxists are still waiting for our young people in state and secular institutions of higher learning.
By the way, President Dwight Eisenhower was the first and only president to be baptized while in office.
May God Bless America!
Ron F. Hale is a freelance writer, retired pastor and serves as an interim pastor and guest preacher when invited. Ron has written a chapter in the newly released book, The Right to Believe, published by Vide Press and edited by Tom Freiling.
Originally published at The Christian Post. Reprinted with permission.


thestream--2020-07-12--Police Seize Rifle From St. Louis Couple Who Protected Themselves and Their Home from Leftist Mob

Police , with a search warrant in hand , reportedly seized a rifle Friday from the St. Louis couple that went viral for brandishing weapons at demonstrators to defend their mansion , the husband told a local news outlet .
St. Louis police executed a search warrant on the mega home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey and left the property with the AR-15 that Mark McCloskey aimed at unruly protesters , 5 On Your Side .
The lawyer couple had their firearm seized , despite that no known charges have been filed .
“ We complied with the search warrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ McCloskey told Todd Starnes , a conservative radio host .
“ I ’ m absolutely surprised by this.
” Photos from Shannon Bream , a Fox News host , appear to show the search warrant and police in the act of confiscating the M16A2-patterned rifle .
The chrome pistol brandished by Patricia McCloskey in the viral video was not seized , as it ’ s reportedly in the hands of their criminal defense lawyer , 5 On Your Side reported .
The couple faced both widespread praise and widespread criticism after the video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ home went viral in June .
The pair ’ s lawyer alleges the unruly group busted down a gate that led to the McCloskey ’ s private community , according to Fox News .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
“ My clients were not arming themselves against peaceful protesters , they were arming themselves about people with a really bad motive , a motive that runs afoul of the fundamental tenets of our country , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lawyer , told Fox .
Patricia McCloskey said protesters threatened to kill her and then subsequently commandeer her home , according to a separate Fox report .
“ [ They said ] that they were going to kill us , ” Patricia McCloskey told Fox .
“ They were going to come in there .
They were going to burn down the house.
” “ They were going to be living in our house after I was dead , and they were pointing to different rooms and said , ‘ That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s going to be the living room and I ’ m going to be taking a shower in that room , ” she continued .
St. Louis Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation .

Police, with a search warrant in hand, reportedly seized a rifle Friday from the St. Louis couple that went viral for brandishing weapons at demonstrators to defend their mansion, the husband told a local news outlet.
St. Louis police executed a search warrant on the mega home of Mark and Patricia McCloskey and left the property with the AR-15 that Mark McCloskey aimed at unruly protesters, 5 On Your Side. The lawyer couple had their firearm seized, despite that no known charges have been filed.
“We complied with the search warrant. They took my AR” Mark McCloskey told Todd Starnes, a conservative radio host. “I’m absolutely surprised by this.”
Photos from Shannon Bream, a Fox News host, appear to show the search warrant and police in the act of confiscating the M16A2-patterned rifle.
Fox News’s Shannon Bream shows photos of search warrant/police seizing the rifle seen in a viral video late last month showing the St. Louis couple, the McCloskeys, waving firearms at protesters marching through their gated neighborhood — https://t.co/a4R0F4hKIR — @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/L1V59N9HyW — Daniel Chaitin (@danielchaitin7) July 11, 2020
The chrome pistol brandished by Patricia McCloskey in the viral video was not seized, as it’s reportedly in the hands of their criminal defense lawyer, 5 On Your Side reported.
The couple faced both widespread praise and widespread criticism after the video of them confronting protesters head-on outside their home went viral in June. The pair’s lawyer alleges the unruly group busted down a gate that led to the McCloskey’s private community, according to Fox News.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
“My clients were not arming themselves against peaceful protesters, they were arming themselves about people with a really bad motive, a motive that runs afoul of the fundamental tenets of our country,” Al Watkins, the couple’s lawyer, told Fox.
In a video posted to social media, peaceful protesters in St. Louis calling for police reforms walked past a couple brandishing firearms as they were ordered to stay away from the couple’s home https://t.co/bYl06iAiTo pic.twitter.com/wOZ1Wr3yac — Reuters (@Reuters) June 29, 2020
Patricia McCloskey said protesters threatened to kill her and then subsequently commandeer her home, according to a separate Fox report.
“[They said] that they were going to kill us,” Patricia McCloskey told Fox. “They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house.”
“They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room,” she continued.
St. Louis Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
Copyright 2020 The Daily Caller News Foundation
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


thestream--2020-07-12--How Beauty Just Could Save the World

How Beauty Just Could Save the World

Despite COVID restrictions , Lander City Park is full of cars , campers , RVs , vans and tents .
This morning I noticed license plates from Colorado , Texas , Pennsylvania , Utah and Vermont .
Why did they come ?
In part to bask in the incredible beauty that surrounds our little Wyoming town .
My brother-in-law and his wife will be here in August .
I can ’ t wait to wow them with the beauty of Sinks Canyon , Red Canyon , the Popo Agie Falls , Worthen Meadow , the Wind River Mountains .
Dottie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vacation in June : The Whitney Western Art Museum in Cody , Yellowstone National Park , Glacier National Park , Whitefish and Flathead Lakes in Montana .
At Glacier , despite the threat of rain , hundreds of us hiked the 4.5 mile round trip to be awed by Avalanche Lake in its glacial cirque .
The official count is seven waterfalls ; I counted at least 10 .
We stood on the crowded shore snapping one inadequate photo after another in an effort to take the landscape home .
It was beautiful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ summer visitors looking at ( perhaps looking for ? )
the beautiful reminded me of C. S. Lewis ’ book The Abolition of Man .
( Okay , so I ’ m a nerd ) .
Lewis quoted a high school level textbook regarding the beauty of waterfalls .
“ When the man said This is sublime , he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall , ” he wrote .
But actually he was not making a remark about the waterfall , but a remark about his own feelings .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have feelings associated in my mind with the word ‘ Sublime , ’ or shortly , I have sublime feelings … This confusion is continually present in language as we use it .
We appear to be saying something very important about something : and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings .
According to the authors of the textbook , beauty — that is objective beauty , beauty “ out there ” — doesn ’ t exist .
The Wind River Mountains , Avalanche Lake , the Grand Canyon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sublime or anything else .
All they are is geography : rocks , water and dirt .
We observers invest them with meaning and thus with adjectives based on our feelings .
Thus calling the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone “ pathetic ” or “ boring ” is just as legitimate as calling it “ grand.
” Is that , I wonder , what the crowds of summer visitors to Lander , Yellowstone , Glacier and hundreds of other beautiful spots mean when they call the scene “ beautiful ?
” I don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell you “ my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth ” — that is , that they don ’ t believe in objective truth .
They may tell you that “ the good changes from age to age , culture to culture , person to person ” — that is , they don ’ t believe in universal morality .
But if , as we stood on the shore of Avalanche Lake , we heard someone proclaim in a loud voice , “ What an ugly place , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it would become an object of scorn and ridicule .
That is to say that we still believe in beauty .
Waterfalls are beautiful even if there are naysayers .
And , as a result , it just may be that beauty can save the world .
“ Charm is deceitful , and beauty is vain , ” warns Proverbs 31:30 .
Physical beauty , beautiful objects , even beautiful sights are temporary .
We grow older , silver tarnishes and mountains are ground into dust .
At the same time , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to behold the beauty of the Lord ” ( Psalm 27:4 ) .
That ’ s a beauty that never fades , a beauty we see more clearly the more we look and , if we are His , it will be the beauty we gaze upon in joyful awe forever .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes : “ Even before revealing himself to man in words of truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the universal language of creation , the work of his Word , of his wisdom : the order and harmony of the cosmos — which both the child and the scientist discover.
” “ It is Jesus in fact that you seek when you dream of happiness , ” Pope St. John Paul II told the crowds at World Youth Day 2000 .
“ He is waiting for you when nothing else you find satisfies you ; he is the beauty to which you are so attracted.
” They Still Believe in Beauty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They come to places like Lander , Yellowstone and Glacier to stare in wonder .
Beauty makes them happy .
And Jesus is the one for whom they long as we stand beside them gazing at our beautiful world .
Can you and I , standing alongside them this summer , help them connect the dots ?
Dr. James Tonkowich , a senior contributor to The Stream , is a freelance writer , speaker and commentator on spirituality , religion and public life .
He is the author of The Liberty Threat : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Today and Pears , Grapes , and Dates : A Good Life After Mid-Life .
Jim serves as Director of Distance Learning at Wyoming Catholic College and is host of the college ’ s weekly podcast , “ The After Dinner Scholar .
”

Despite COVID restrictions, Lander City Park is full of cars, campers, RVs, vans and tents. This morning I noticed license plates from Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania, Utah and Vermont. Why did they come? In part to bask in the incredible beauty that surrounds our little Wyoming town.
Chasing Beauty
My brother-in-law and his wife will be here in August. I can’t wait to wow them with the beauty of Sinks Canyon, Red Canyon, the Popo Agie Falls, Worthen Meadow, the Wind River Mountains.
Dottie and I chased beauty on our own vacation in June: The Whitney Western Art Museum in Cody, Yellowstone National Park, Glacier National Park, Whitefish and Flathead Lakes in Montana. At Glacier, despite the threat of rain, hundreds of us hiked the 4.5 mile round trip to be awed by Avalanche Lake in its glacial cirque. The official count is seven waterfalls; I counted at least 10. We stood on the crowded shore snapping one inadequate photo after another in an effort to take the landscape home. It was beautiful, sublime.
Reflecting on all the summer visitors looking at (perhaps looking for?) the beautiful reminded me of C. S. Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man. (Okay, so I’m a nerd). Lewis quoted a high school level textbook regarding the beauty of waterfalls. “When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall,” he wrote. But actually
he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word ‘Sublime,’ or shortly, I have sublime feelings … This confusion is continually present in language as we use it. We appear to be saying something very important about something: and actually we are only saying something about our own feelings.
Beauty Doesn’t Exist?
According to the authors of the textbook, beauty — that is objective beauty, beauty “out there” — doesn’t exist. The Wind River Mountains, Avalanche Lake, the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone are not beautiful, awe-inspiring, sublime or anything else. All they are is geography: rocks, water and dirt. We observers invest them with meaning and thus with adjectives based on our feelings. Thus calling the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone “pathetic” or “boring” is just as legitimate as calling it “grand.”
Is that, I wonder, what the crowds of summer visitors to Lander, Yellowstone, Glacier and hundreds of other beautiful spots mean when they call the scene “beautiful?”
I don’t think so. They may tell you “my truth is my truth and your truth is your truth”— that is, that they don’t believe in objective truth. They may tell you that “the good changes from age to age, culture to culture, person to person” — that is, they don’t believe in universal morality. But if, as we stood on the shore of Avalanche Lake, we heard someone proclaim in a loud voice, “What an ugly place,” that comment and the person who made it would become an object of scorn and ridicule.
… we still believe in beauty
That is to say that we still believe in beauty. Waterfalls are beautiful even if there are naysayers. And, as a result, it just may be that beauty can save the world.
Beauty Makes Us Happy
“Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain,” warns Proverbs 31:30. Physical beauty, beautiful objects, even beautiful sights are temporary. We grow older, silver tarnishes and mountains are ground into dust.
At the same time, the psalmist wants more than anything else “to behold the beauty of the Lord” (Psalm 27:4). That’s a beauty that never fades, a beauty we see more clearly the more we look and, if we are His, it will be the beauty we gaze upon in joyful awe forever.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes: “Even before revealing himself to man in words of truth, God reveals himself to him through the universal language of creation, the work of his Word, of his wisdom: the order and harmony of the cosmos — which both the child and the scientist discover.”
“It is Jesus in fact that you seek when you dream of happiness,” Pope St. John Paul II told the crowds at World Youth Day 2000. “He is waiting for you when nothing else you find satisfies you; he is the beauty to which you are so attracted.”
They Still Believe in Beauty
Our neighbors still believe in beauty. They come to places like Lander, Yellowstone and Glacier to stare in wonder. Beauty makes them happy. And Jesus is the one for whom they long as we stand beside them gazing at our beautiful world.
Can you and I, standing alongside them this summer, help them connect the dots?
Dr. James Tonkowich, a senior contributor to The Stream, is a freelance writer, speaker and commentator on spirituality, religion and public life. He is the author of The Liberty Threat: The Attack on Religious Freedom in America Today and Pears, Grapes, and Dates: A Good Life After Mid-Life. Jim serves as Director of Distance Learning at Wyoming Catholic College and is host of the college’s weekly podcast, “The After Dinner Scholar.”


thestream--2020-07-12--50 Questions for Christians #20: Do Evil Atheist Dictators Mean Atheism Is Evil?

Part of an extended series of answers to Guy P. Harrison ’ s book 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian .
Read the series intro here .
Here ’ s a favorite argument some Christians make : The 20th century ’ s evil atheist dictators , history ’ s worst mass murderers by far , show us that atheism is evil .
Guy Harrison , atheist author of the book I ’ ve been answering this year , thinks that ’ s wrong .
Really wrong .
So wrong that no Christian should ever try that one again .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even right for some of the right reasons .
It ’ s a bad argument , and Christians shouldn ’ t be using it to prove that point .
We should use it to illustrate a different point instead — one that ’ s actually more in line with biblical belief .
Goofy and Off the Wall I ’ m not going to spend much time disagreeing with Harrison this week .
He says some goofy things in this chapter , but they ’ re so off the wall , they ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example , whether Hitler might be in heaven because the Catholic Church never excommunicated him .
He ’ s not so crazy , though , when he says , “ Regardless of whether or not they believe in a god , very bad people who have absolute power are prone to killing.
” ( Those are his italics there . )
He ’ s very nearly right when he says you don ’ t have to be an atheist to be a bad person .
“ Doesn ’ t it seem appropriate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as more of a human problem than one that can be defined by the presence or absence of belief ?
” Yes .
It ’ s a human problem .
Very much so .
God calls it sin .
Atheism is Evil , But Not Because of Mao or Stalin So what am I criticizing when I say the Christians ’ argument is wrong ?
To repeat that claim , it ’ s “ The 20th century ’ s evil atheist dictators show us that atheism is evil.
” I ’ m certainly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is evil .
I ’ m only disagreeing with taking this route to reach that conclusion .
Atheism really is evil .
I know , I know , they ’ ve got a standard atheist answer to that : “ Atheism can ’ t be evil because atheism isn ’ t a thing .
It ’ s a lack of a thing , a lack of believing in gods.
” Sure .
And that ’ s almost a perfect match for the standard theological definition for “ evil.
” Evil isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the lack ( the “ privation ” ) of good , where good should be .
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
That ’ s how Christian thinkers understand the existence of evil , given that God couldn ’ t have created it .
He only creates good .
Evil isn ’ t a created thing at all , it ’ s an emptiness , an absence , a lack instead .
Where humans should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we should practice justice , we don ’ t .
We don ’ t just do nothing , though that ’ s bad in itself .
Rather , we do things that are short on love , justice , and other virtues .
That ’ s evil in action .
That ’ s just a bare introduction to a long topic , but it should be enough to make the point .
Atheism is a lack of a good thing — not just of belief , but also of love and worship for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it takes for it to be evil .
Atheism Doesn ’ t Cause Evil Acts — So Why All the Atheist Dictators ?
Here ’ s the problem with the argument we ’ re talking about here , though .
It comes across as though Mao ’ s atheism , and Stalin ’ s , and Pol Pot ’ s , was what caused their murderousness .
No , actually , Harrison is right on this .
Atheism didn ’ t cause it .
Being human did — especially , being human and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s because sin is a human problem .
Egoistical self-centeredness is a human problem .
It doesn ’ t take atheism to get there ; it comes naturally to us all .
Still , there ’ s no denying that history ’ s worst killers by far have been atheists .
Why is that , if atheism didn ’ t cause it ?
To answer that , we only need to take a quick look at the other question we ought to be asking .
If being human plus having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t every powerful person a killer ?
There must be something that stands in the way of it .
For many , that something is their upbringing .
Or social pressure .
Their moral habits .
Fear of consequences .
Take a Stalin or a Mao , though , and you ’ ve got someone who ’ s cast aside moral thinking , who doesn ’ t care about social pressures .
They ’ re in charge !
They can do what they want !
There ’ s nothing and no one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coming into view now ?
Atheism didn ’ t make these men evil ; it just let them believe there was nothing stopping them from it .
Harrison titles one section of this chapter , “ How Many Would a Christian Stalin Have Killed ?
” He thinks that ’ s a sensible question , since he can point to “ Christian ” leaders in history who killed a lot of people .
In some cases he gets his history wrong .
In others he gets his idea of “ Christian ” wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the definition of “ Christian ” , but I think it ’ s safe to say that no one who ’ s actually following Jesus is going to become another Stalin .
No one who listens to His teaching on loving one ’ s enemies would become a mass murderer .
No one who cares about the Bible ’ s teachings on justice would , either .
It ’ s safe to say so , even though Harrison asks us to imagine these men being “ driven not only by a lust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the need to fulfill some divine plan they sincerely believed in .
Blending a popular religion such as Christianity with their agendas ….
“ Okay , that ’ s far enough .
No need to wait for him to finish his sentence .
It doesn ’ t matter how he finishes it , he ’ s already describing something other than Christianity .
Jesus doesn ’ t share kingship that way .
Some bad people have thought they could do that , but that ’ s not Christianity .
And finally , Mao @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believing he only had ultimate authority .
The law was his to prescribe , he thought , and as for accountability , once you reach the top of the heap like he did , there was no one over him to hold him to account .
No true believing Christian could possibly act as if that were so .
So let me put all this together .
No , evil atheist tyrants don ’ t prove atheism is evil , but it still is anyway .
And no , atheism doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it does nothing to stand in the way of it , either .
For leaders of that rank , only one thing will stop them : a genuine fear of God .
Atheism opens the gates .
So yes , there ’ s a connection between these despots ’ murders and their atheism .
They ’ re human .
And their atheism lets every rotten , vile human impulse flow free .
God help us all .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the forthcoming Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

Part of an extended series of answers to Guy P. Harrison’s book 50 Simple Questions for Every Christian. Read the series intro here.
Here’s a favorite argument some Christians make: The 20th century’s evil atheist dictators, history’s worst mass murderers by far, show us that atheism is evil. Guy Harrison, atheist author of the book I’ve been answering this year, thinks that’s wrong. Really wrong. So wrong that no Christian should ever try that one again.
He’s right. He’s even right for some of the right reasons. It’s a bad argument, and Christians shouldn’t be using it to prove that point. We should use it to illustrate a different point instead — one that’s actually more in line with biblical belief.
Goofy and Off the Wall
I’m not going to spend much time disagreeing with Harrison this week. He says some goofy things in this chapter, but they’re so off the wall, they’re mostly harmless. He wonders, for example, whether Hitler might be in heaven because the Catholic Church never excommunicated him.
He’s not so crazy, though, when he says, “Regardless of whether or not they believe in a god, very bad people who have absolute power are prone to killing.” (Those are his italics there.) He’s very nearly right when he says you don’t have to be an atheist to be a bad person. “Doesn’t it seem appropriate,” he asks “to view this as more of a human problem than one that can be defined by the presence or absence of belief?”
Yes. It’s a human problem. Very much so. God calls it sin.
Atheism is Evil, But Not Because of Mao or Stalin
So what am I criticizing when I say the Christians’ argument is wrong? To repeat that claim, it’s “The 20th century’s evil atheist dictators show us that atheism is evil.” I’m certainly not disagreeing with that conclusion. Atheism is evil. I’m only disagreeing with taking this route to reach that conclusion.
Atheism really is evil. I know, I know, they’ve got a standard atheist answer to that: “Atheism can’t be evil because atheism isn’t a thing. It’s a lack of a thing, a lack of believing in gods.”
Sure. And that’s almost a perfect match for the standard theological definition for “evil.” Evil isn’t a thing on its own, it’s the lack (the “privation”) of good, where good should be.
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
That’s how Christian thinkers understand the existence of evil, given that God couldn’t have created it. He only creates good. Evil isn’t a created thing at all, it’s an emptiness, an absence, a lack instead. Where humans should love, we lack love. Where we should practice justice, we don’t. We don’t just do nothing, though that’s bad in itself. Rather, we do things that are short on love, justice, and other virtues. That’s evil in action.
That’s just a bare introduction to a long topic, but it should be enough to make the point. Atheism is a lack of a good thing — not just of belief, but also of love and worship for our God. That’s all it takes for it to be evil.
Atheism Doesn’t Cause Evil Acts — So Why All the Atheist Dictators?
Here’s the problem with the argument we’re talking about here, though. It comes across as though Mao’s atheism, and Stalin’s, and Pol Pot’s, was what caused their murderousness. No, actually, Harrison is right on this. Atheism didn’t cause it. Being human did — especially, being human and having access to way too much power.
It’s because sin is a human problem. Egoistical self-centeredness is a human problem. It doesn’t take atheism to get there; it comes naturally to us all.
Still, there’s no denying that history’s worst killers by far have been atheists. Why is that, if atheism didn’t cause it? To answer that, we only need to take a quick look at the other question we ought to be asking. If being human plus having power equals murderous dictatorship, why isn’t every powerful person a killer? There must be something that stands in the way of it.
For many, that something is their upbringing. Or social pressure. Their moral habits. Fear of consequences. Take a Stalin or a Mao, though, and you’ve got someone who’s cast aside moral thinking, who doesn’t care about social pressures. They’re in charge! They can do what they want! There’s nothing and no one to stop them!
Is the answer coming into view now? Atheism didn’t make these men evil; it just let them believe there was nothing stopping them from it.
A “Christian Stalin”?
Harrison titles one section of this chapter, “How Many Would a Christian Stalin Have Killed?” He thinks that’s a sensible question, since he can point to “Christian” leaders in history who killed a lot of people. In some cases he gets his history wrong. In others he gets his idea of “Christian” wrong.
He’s a bit confused over the definition of “Christian”, but I think it’s safe to say that no one who’s actually following Jesus is going to become another Stalin. No one who listens to His teaching on loving one’s enemies would become a mass murderer. No one who cares about the Bible’s teachings on justice would, either.
It’s safe to say so, even though Harrison asks us to imagine these men being “driven not only by a lust for power and control but also by the need to fulfill some divine plan they sincerely believed in. Blending a popular religion such as Christianity with their agendas ….“
Okay, that’s far enough. No need to wait for him to finish his sentence. It doesn’t matter how he finishes it, he’s already describing something other than Christianity. Jesus doesn’t share kingship that way. Some bad people have thought they could do that, but that’s not Christianity.
And finally, Mao could be who Mao was only by believing he only had ultimate authority. The law was his to prescribe, he thought, and as for accountability, once you reach the top of the heap like he did, there was no one over him to hold him to account. No true believing Christian could possibly act as if that were so.
Summing It Up
So let me put all this together. No, evil atheist tyrants don’t prove atheism is evil, but it still is anyway. And no, atheism doesn’t cause leaders to become mass murderers, but it does nothing to stand in the way of it, either. For leaders of that rank, only one thing will stop them: a genuine fear of God. Atheism opens the gates.
So yes, there’s a connection between these despots’ murders and their atheism. They’re human. And their atheism lets every rotten, vile human impulse flow free. God help us all.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the forthcoming Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.


thestream--2020-07-12--Mobs: ‘Forget the Diagnosis. On With the Amputation!’

“ Tell me true , doc — is it terminal ?
” “ No , not yet , ” says the kindly physician .
“ It ’ s not terminal .
But it ’ s bad .
Real bad .
Looks like we ’ ll have to amputate .
Cut it right off .
We ’ ve got to de-fund the police.
” That ’ s no joke .
My family ’ s been there .
My dad and my sister have both lost their right legs above the knee .
And now we ’ ve got activists and city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ departments .
For some , defunding means retraining and restructuring .
For others it means cutting it right off .
Then there are those who are trying to claim a middle ground , kind of like , “ Cut it off ?
Yes !
But no !
Not really.
” Here ’ s what I remember from my family ’ s three situations .
Yes , three : A beagle of ours lost his right hind leg , too .
He was hit by a car , so that was a quick choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and my sister ’ s cases , though , both had lengthy illnesses leading up to them , which makes them a better analogy to our social situation .
And here ’ s what I know to be true about both their cases .
These were very serious surgeries , with very serious consideration leading up to them .
They didn ’ t have it done because they were uncomfortable .
Both their surgeons were careful to prove they needed it .
So where ’ s the proof we need drastic measures with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got anecdotes .
We ’ ve got impressions .
That ’ s okay .
There ’ s reality there , I ’ m persuaded , and we don ’ t need hard proof before we decide to do something about it .
But what ?
We don ’ t expect doctors to do multiple lab tests and imaging studies before they prescribe antibiotics for an earache .
We ’ re more than happy to trust their clinical impressions .
Major surgery is different , though .
We need data .
We need real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diagnosis and the treatment .
Yet we ’ ve got all these people calling for police departments to be cut off — or at least radically irradiated , if you ’ ll let me push the analogy — based on mere impressions .
Aren ’ t there tests we should run ?
Isn ’ t there some data we could check with first ?
Seems like a fair question , but these would-be surgeons are hacking and sawing based on quick , anecdotal clinical impressions instead .
They ’ ve already landed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be inconvenient .
Michigan State Ran the Test .
Now Shut Up !
Which is why we ’ re not hearing a lot of discussion about the 2019 Michigan State University diagnostic study that shows absolutely no evidence of widespread police racism in their use of lethal force .
Quite the opposite , in fact .
The study found police had used lethal force proportionately more on whites than on blacks .
That ’ s inconvenient , when you ’ ve already got your diagnosis and you ’ re working out your treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michigan State has forced its grad research director out of his position , just for putting the word out on it .
The school has taken down it press release on the research , and the authors have been pressured to ask for the journal article ’ s retraction .
( See the summary here , from a blogger I personally know to be reliable . )
Campus Fix reports that MSU ’ s graduate union said “ administrators should not share research that runs counter to public statements by the university.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s good quality research .
It doesn ’ t matter if it ’ s true .
The party line trumps the science .
Campus Fix also reported , So where ’ s the evidence we need to take drastic measures with our police forces ?
Scientists and physicians both have a favorite saying : “ Anecdotes aren ’ t data.
” One cough doesn ’ t mean you ’ ve got COVID .
And one police shooting doesn ’ t mean we ’ ve got a racially motivated police violence problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than one !
” you say .
Of course there have .
That ’ s still not science .
It ’ s enough to form a clinical impression .
Enough to prescribe an antibiotic .
Not enough cry out , “ Off with their legs !
” Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political , Economic and Moral Issues of Our Day .
I ’ ve had years of serious foot problems myself .
Once I visited a new doctor who look at my MRI and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tell what this scan is saying .
I need to go in and find out .
Let ’ s schedule an operation next week.
” I ’ d have run screaming from his office , if only I could have run .
He was way too knife-happy .
There ’ s no way I ’ d let a doctor do surgery based on such thin evidence .
The mobs are knife-happy .
Thankfully that ’ s only a figure of speech — for now .
Anecdote-driven demagoguery is dangerous , though .
Self-appointed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Including knives .
Tom Gilson ( @ TomGilsonAuthor ) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books , including the forthcoming Too Good To Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .

“Tell me true, doc — is it terminal?”
“No, not yet,” says the kindly physician. “It’s not terminal. But it’s bad. Real bad. Looks like we’ll have to amputate. Cut it right off. We’ve got to de-fund the police.”
That’s no joke. My family’s been there. My dad and my sister have both lost their right legs above the knee.
And now we’ve got activists and city councils planning major surgeries on their police departments. For some, defunding means retraining and restructuring. For others it means cutting it right off. Then there are those who are trying to claim a middle ground, kind of like, “Cut it off? Yes! But no! Not really.”
Here’s what I remember from my family’s three situations. Yes, three: A beagle of ours lost his right hind leg, too. He was hit by a car, so that was a quick choice between amputation or nothing. My dad and my sister’s cases, though, both had lengthy illnesses leading up to them, which makes them a better analogy to our social situation.
And here’s what I know to be true about both their cases. These were very serious surgeries, with very serious consideration leading up to them. They didn’t have it done because they were uncomfortable. Both their surgeons were careful to prove they needed it.
Who Ran These Tests?
So where’s the proof we need drastic measures with our police forces?
We’ve got anecdotes. We’ve got impressions. That’s okay. There’s reality there, I’m persuaded, and we don’t need hard proof before we decide to do something about it. But what?
We don’t expect doctors to do multiple lab tests and imaging studies before they prescribe antibiotics for an earache. We’re more than happy to trust their clinical impressions. Major surgery is different, though. We need data. We need real evidence — evidence to support both the diagnosis and the treatment.
Anecdote-driven demagoguery is dangerous. Self-appointed mobs have a bad history behind them. Including knives.
Yet we’ve got all these people calling for police departments to be cut off — or at least radically irradiated, if you’ll let me push the analogy — based on mere impressions. Aren’t there tests we should run? Isn’t there some data we could check with first?
Seems like a fair question, but these would-be surgeons are hacking and sawing based on quick, anecdotal clinical impressions instead. They’ve already landed on the treatment. An accurate diagnosis might be inconvenient.
Michigan State Ran the Test. Now Shut Up!
Which is why we’re not hearing a lot of discussion about the 2019 Michigan State University diagnostic study that shows absolutely no evidence of widespread police racism in their use of lethal force. Quite the opposite, in fact. The study found police had used lethal force proportionately more on whites than on blacks.
That’s inconvenient, when you’ve already got your diagnosis and you’re working out your treatment plan. It’s so inconvenient, Michigan State has forced its grad research director out of his position, just for putting the word out on it. The school has taken down it press release on the research, and the authors have been pressured to ask for the journal article’s retraction. (See the summary here, from a blogger I personally know to be reliable.)
Campus Fix reports that MSU’s graduate union said “administrators should not share research that runs counter to public statements by the university.” It doesn’t matter if it’s good quality research. It doesn’t matter if it’s true. The party line trumps the science. Campus Fix also reported,
[MSU] President Stanley released a statement on June 19 where he defended his decision to pressure Hsu to resign. “I believe this is what is best for our university to continue our progress forward. The exchange of ideas is essential to higher education, and I fully support our faculty and their academic freedom to address the most difficult and controversial issues.”
So where’s the evidence we need to take drastic measures with our police forces?
Knife-Happy Mobs
Scientists and physicians both have a favorite saying: “Anecdotes aren’t data.” One cough doesn’t mean you’ve got COVID. And one police shooting doesn’t mean we’ve got a racially motivated police violence problem.
“But there’s been more than one!” you say. Of course there have. That’s still not science. It’s enough to form a clinical impression. Enough to prescribe an antibiotic. Not enough cry out, “Off with their legs!”
Please Support The Stream : Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day.
I’ve had years of serious foot problems myself. Once I visited a new doctor who look at my MRI and said, “I can’t tell what this scan is saying. I need to go in and find out. Let’s schedule an operation next week.”
I’d have run screaming from his office, if only I could have run. He was way too knife-happy. There’s no way I’d let a doctor do surgery based on such thin evidence.
The mobs are knife-happy. Thankfully that’s only a figure of speech — for now. Anecdote-driven demagoguery is dangerous, though. Self-appointed mobs have a bad history behind them. Including knives.
Tom Gilson (@TomGilsonAuthor) is a senior editor with The Stream and the author or editor of six books, including the forthcoming Too Good To Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality.