Things Glen Found Interesting
Election stuff is at the bottom. I’d say read at your peril, but there’s some genuinely fascinating stuff in there. There will be a TON of analysis pieces next week, so please forward me any that you find insightful.
- On What Atheists Say There Is (M. Anthony Mills, Society of Catholic Scientists): “According to the atheist, the theist’s error is believing in one too many things. Yet, for the theist, the disagreement is not about the existence of one particular thing, but ‘about everything,’ as MacIntyre puts it.” The beginning and end are excellent. The middle muddles unless you have very precise philosophical interests. The author has a Ph.D. in philosophy.
- Attention Sean Feucht and evangelical leaders: Hatred of the press is hurting your cause (Julia Duin, GetReligion): “Getting rebuffed whenever I tried to interview him got rather tiring when I noticed how he was tweeting his vexation with media coverage while planning a huge Christian concert on the Mall that day. Note to public figures: When you continually refuse to give reporters access, don’t be surprised when their coverage isn’t what you’d like.”
- Future of Christian Marriage: Mark Regnerus in New Book Studies It & Advises (Rachel Lu, National Review): “This is the book to read if you’ve wondered whether young Christians around the world are more successful than their secular counterparts at finding love.”
- Related but not directly: A Case for Later Marriage (Elise Ehrhard, First Things): “The later marrying age in the United States is here to stay, and there is no reason for people of faith to fear it. In fact, we should embrace it as a good thing.”
- Supreme Court Reconsiders Religious Liberty Rule in Foster Care Case (Daniel Silliman, Christianity Today): “The city is reaching out and telling a private religious ministry—which has been doing this work for two centuries—how to run its internal affairs. And trying to coerce it to make statements that are contrary to its religious beliefs as a condition of continuing to participate in the religious exercise that they have carried out in Philadelphia for two centuries.” Honestly, this case could be far more important than the presidential election. I am cautiously hopeful.
- Greta Thunberg Hears Your Excuses. She Is Not Impressed. (David Marchese, New York Times): “It sometimes gets awkward: In Sweden we have this phenomenon called Jantelagen. It’s when someone is famous, and the people around use up all their energy to ignore the fact that the person is famous.” This is a fun interview. I suspect I would like Greta but I doubt she would like me.
- Some election stuff:
- Why Evangelicals Aren’t What They Used to Be (Elizabeth Bruenig, New York Times): “There has recently been talk of abandoning the label ‘evangelical’ among those who answer to the descriptor, largely because of its transformation into a mainly political term.” Bruenig is a Roman Catholic and a consistently interesting writer.
- Why Evangelicals Disagree on the President (Tim Dalrymple, Christiantiy Today): “Our inability to understand the rationality of an opposing viewpoint is more often a failure of imagination on our part than a failure of rationality on theirs. The difference between the camps cannot be that one side is truly Christian while the other is not, or that either side possesses a monopoly on good ideas and good intentions.” Recommended to me by a Stanford administrator. I think the author correctly identifies the two camps in evangelicalism, but is wrong in his assessment of their cause. The author is, incidentally, a Stanford grad.
- In Search Of Healing (Gene Weingarten, Washington Post): “The current political climate has riven families, destroyed ancient friendships, tested marriages. The stakes are so elevated, the alternatives so stark, the consequences so potentially dire, that the principal emotion generated — inflamed by highly partisan media, and social media, on the left and the right — is something that very much resembles hatred.” This might honestly be my favorite read of the week. The end is amazing.
- ‘You are no longer my mother’: A divided America will struggle to heal after Trump era (Tim Reid, Gabriella Borter, & Michael Martina, Reuters): “She is not sure those rifts with friends and family will ever mend, because each believes the other to have a totally alien value system.”
- What the Voters Are Trying to Tell Us (David Brooks, New York Times): “…elections are educational events. Voters are not always wise, but they are usually comprehensible. They know more about their own lives than we in our information bubbles do, and they almost always tell us something important.”
- Taking new seats and retaining old ones, a string of congressional victories for Stanford alums (Sarina Deb and Yash Dalmia, Stanford Daily): “Ten Stanford alumni were re-elected to their positions in Congress in Tuesday’s elections — seven in the House of Representatives and three in the Senate.”
- Three perspectives on race and the election:
- Latino Evangelicals Boost Trump in Florida and Texas (Kate Shellnutt, Christianity Today): “This year, Americans saw the contrast between Latino voters from different backgrounds play out in two major metro areas in US swing states—Maricopa County in Arizona and Miami-Dade County in Florida.”
- Trump’s gains with Hispanic voters should prompt some progressive rethinking (Matthew Yglesias, Vox): “What if many US Hispanics simply don’t see the racial politics of the Trump era the way intellectuals — whose thinking and writing on structural racism and white supremacy have gained broad influence in recent years — think they should?”
- The Trump vote is rising among Blacks and Hispanics, despite the conventional wisdom (Musa al-Gharbi, NBC News): “Perceptions of Trump as racist seem to be a core driving force pushing whites toward the Democrats. Why would the opposite pattern be holding among minority voters — i.e. the very people the president is purportedly being racist against?” The author is a sociologist at Columbia and wrote this before the election.
Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen
- A Lego Magic Trick (Penn & Teller Fool Us, YouTube): seven minutes
- A Dating Magic Trick (Penn & Teller Fool Us, YouTube): eight minutes
- A Card Magic Trick (Asia’s Got Talent, YouTube): five minutes
- Soccer match ruined when AI-controlled camera mistakes ref’s bald head for ball I feel seen.
- How to Kill a Joke (Basic Instructions)
- Serial Killers Are Always White (Kabir Singh, YouTube): four minutes
Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago
Every week I’ll highlight an older link still worth your consideration. This week we have The APA Meeting: A Photo‐Essay (Scott Alexander, Slate Star Codex): “Were there really more than twice as many sessions on global warming as on obsessive compulsive disorder? Three times as many on immigration as on ADHD? As best I can count, yes. I don’t want to exaggerate this. There was still a lot of really meaty scientific discussion if you sought it out. But overall the balance was pretty striking…. If you want to model the APA, you could do worse than a giant firehose that takes in pharmaceutical company money at one end, and shoots lectures about social justice out the other.” This is funny, rambling, insightful commentary on the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting. First shared in volume 204.
Why Do You Send This Email?
In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar produced shrewd warriors “who understood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a similar way, we need to become wise people whose faith interacts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may continue the tradition of Issachar.
Chi Alpha is not a partisan organization. To paraphrase another minister: we are not about the donkey’s agenda and we are not about the elephant’s agenda — we are about the Lamb’s agenda. Having said that, I read widely (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ideological Turing test and in part because I do not believe I can fairly say “I agree” or “I disagree” until I can say “I understand”) and may at times share articles that have a strong partisan bias simply because I find the article stimulating. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with everything an author says in an article I mention, much less things the author has said in other articles (although if I strongly disagree with something in the article I’ll usually mention it). And to the extent you can discern my opinions, please understand that they are my own and not necessarily those of Chi Alpha or any other organization I may be perceived to represent. Also, remember that I’m not reporting news — I’m giving you a selection of things I found interesting. There’s a lot happening in the world that’s not making an appearance here because I haven’t found stimulating articles written about it. If this was forwarded to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.