Tag: ambition

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 339

some of these links are quite spicy — con­sume with care

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

This is vol­ume 339, which is 3 · 113. I like num­bers with only two fac­tors (tech­ni­cal­ly four, but you know what I mean — two inter­est­ing fac­tors). They’re the sil­ver medal­ists of the prime olympics. They almost made it, but no.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Wom­en’s Tears Win in the Mar­ket­place of Ideas (Richard Hana­nia, Sub­stack): “…the ways in which pub­lic debate works when we take steps to make the most emo­tion­al and aggres­sive women com­fort­able have been over­looked. Things that we talk about as involv­ing ‘young peo­ple,’ ‘col­lege stu­dents,’ and ‘lib­er­als’ are often gen­dered issues.” Long, provoca­tive, and worth your time.
  2. The Cana­di­an truck­ers:
    • Real­i­ty Honks Back (NS Lyons, Sub­stack): “For our pur­pos­es here, let’s call these two class­es the Phys­i­cals and the Vir­tu­als, respec­tive­ly.… That Trudeau’s gov­ern­ment would choose to jet­ti­son any remain­ing illu­sion of Cana­da still being a lib­er­al democ­ra­cy just to harm their polit­i­cal class ene­mies isn’t too sur­pris­ing. It’s their method of doing so that is par­tic­u­lar­ly strik­ing: con­trol over dig­i­tal finan­cial assets is pret­ty much the ulti­mate lever­age now avail­able to the Vir­tu­als. We should expect more use of this tool around the world any­where the Phys­i­cals con­tin­ue to revolt against their mas­ters. And here the Vir­tu­als have a sig­nif­i­cant advan­tage because they are free to use the max­i­mum lev­el of coer­cive force avail­able in their nat­ur­al domain, while the Phys­i­cals can­not – because, in the phys­i­cal world, that would mean vio­lence, which is some­thing the pro­tes­tors have right­ly for­sworn.”
      • Full of insight. The Vir­tu­al vs Phys­i­cal fram­ing is get­ting at some­thing I haven’t seen dis­cussed much else­where.
    • The plau­si­ble dystopia of a social cred­it sys­tem (Damon Link­er, The Week): “For a recent and espe­cial­ly vivid exam­ple from a neigh­bor­ing democ­ra­cy, this week’s dec­la­ra­tion of a nation­al emer­gency in Cana­da has empow­ered banks to freeze and sus­pend the accounts of ‘Free­dom Con­voy’ pro­test­ers with­out a court order and while enjoy­ing pro­tec­tion from civ­il lia­bil­i­ty. That is pre­cise­ly the kind of thing one would expect to see become nor­mal­ized with the impo­si­tion of a social cred­it sys­tem. Add in facial recog­ni­tion soft­ware that can iden­ti­fy indi­vid­u­als attend­ing ‘dan­ger­ous’ protests and oth­er pub­lic events and we’re left with a vision of the near-term future that can look pret­ty dystopi­an.”
  3. Lots of Stud­ies Are Bad (Emi­ly Oster, Sub­stack): “My point isn’t that this paper is wrong in its con­clu­sions, just that it’s large­ly unin­for­ma­tive. The authors begin with an inter­est­ing graph show­ing a lim­it­ed rela­tion­ship between the strin­gency of COVID restric­tions and mor­tal­i­ty. That deserved more study, but this paper isn’t help­ing us under­stand it much.”
    • Emi­ly Oster, an econ­o­mist at Brown, is not impressed with the Johns Hop­kins study I shared ear­li­er (and offers a sim­i­lar cri­tique of a pro-mask study).
  4. No, Amer­i­ca is not on the brink of a civ­il war (Musa al-Ghar­bi, The Guardian): “Of course, a far more obvi­ous and empir­i­cal­ly plau­si­ble expla­na­tion is that respon­dents knew per­fect­ly well what the cor­rect answer was. How­ev­er, they also had a sense of how that answer would be used in the media (‘Even Trump’s sup­port­ers don’t believe his non­sense!’), so they sim­ply declined to give poll­sters the response they seemed to be look­ing for. As a mat­ter of fact, respon­dents reg­u­lar­ly troll researchers in polling and sur­veys – espe­cial­ly when they are asked whether or not they sub­scribe to absurd or fringe beliefs, such as birtherism (a con­spir­a­cy that held that Barack Oba­ma was born out­side of the US and was legal­ly inel­i­gi­ble to serve as pres­i­dent of the Unit­ed States).”
    • The author is a soci­ol­o­gist at Colum­bia. The arti­cle is a few weeks old but quite good and not par­tic­u­lar­ly time-sen­si­tive.
  5. The Seeds of Polit­i­cal Vio­lence Are Being Sown in Church (David French, The Dis­patch): “Pen­te­costal Chris­tian­i­ty, despite its immense size, is about as far from elite Amer­i­can cul­ture as Mer­cury is from Mars. And this means it’s quite dis­tant from elite Evan­gel­i­cal cul­ture as well. Right-wing blue-check the­olo­gians and pas­tors who speak dis­dain­ful­ly of warn­ings about Chris­t­ian nation­al­ism because it’s not some­thing they see in their church­es nev­er dark­en the door of a Pen­te­costal church.” I think French gets it a lit­tle wrong here (there is an impor­tant dis­tinc­tion between Pen­te­costal and charis­mat­ic church­es, and even more sig­nif­i­cant­ly between denom­i­na­tion­al and non­de­nom­i­na­tion­al ones). Still, French used to be an Assem­blies of God youth pas­tor(!) and so he is not speak­ing of some­thing he does­n’t under­stand. Rec­om­mend­ed.
  6. Why Amer­i­ca Has So Few Doc­tors (Derek Thomp­son, The Atlantic): “Imag­ine you were plan­ning a con­spir­a­cy to lim­it the num­ber of doc­tors in Amer­i­ca. Cer­tain­ly, you’d make sure to have a cost­ly, lengthy cre­den­tial­ing sys­tem. You would also tell politi­cians that Amer­i­ca has too many doc­tors already. That way, you could pur­pose­ful­ly con­strain the num­ber of med­ical-school stu­dents. You might freeze or slash fund­ing for res­i­den­cies and med­ical schol­ar­ships. You’d fight pro­pos­als to allow nurs­es to do the work of physi­cians. And because none of this would stop for­eign-trained doc­tors from slip­ping into the coun­try and com­mit­ting the crime of help­ing sick peo­ple get bet­ter, you’d throw in some rules that made it oner­ous for immi­grant doc­tors, espe­cial­ly from neigh­bor­ing coun­tries Mex­i­co and Cana­da, to do their job.” The orig­i­nal title was bet­ter: Why Does the US Make it so Hard to be a Doc­tor?
  7. What do stu­dents’ beliefs about God have to do with grades and going to col­lege? (Ilana Hor­witz, The Con­ver­sa­tion): “In inter­views, reli­gious teens over and over men­tion life goals of par­ent­hood, altru­ism and serv­ing God – pri­or­i­ties that I argue make them less intent on attend­ing as high­ly selec­tive a col­lege as they could. This aligns with pre­vi­ous research show­ing that con­ser­v­a­tive Protes­tant women attend col­leges that less selec­tive than oth­er women do because they do not tend to view college’s main pur­pose as career advance­ment.”
    • The author is a pro­fes­sor of Jew­ish stud­ies at Tulane Uni­ver­si­ty. Over­all inter­est­ing, although she does­n’t com­ment on two fac­tors which I think are quite sig­nif­i­cant: reli­gious stu­dents often view selec­tive col­leges as inim­i­cal to faith, and stu­dents are often torn between pres­ti­gious col­leges and less selec­tive reli­gious col­leges (I have per­son­al­ly spo­ken to sev­er­al Stan­ford stu­dents who were torn between Stan­ford and Wheaton).
    • Relat­ed? Mar­riage Made Me Let Go of My Dreams. Good. (Esau McCaul­ley, New York Times): “Many believe that the pur­pose of mar­riage is self-actu­al­iza­tion. We find the part­ner who will come along­side us and help us become what we have always dreamed we would be. Con­verse­ly, we may think that a poten­tial spouse who would get in the way of our dreams is the wrong per­son for us. What if mar­riage is meant to be some­thing else?” This is very good. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Arti­fi­cial Intel­li­gence and Mag­i­cal Think­ing (Ed Fes­er, per­son­al blog): “Build­ing a com­put­er is pre­cise­ly anal­o­gous to putting togeth­er a bit of mag­i­cal sleight of hand. It is a clever exer­cise in sim­u­la­tion, noth­ing more. And the con­vinc­ing­ness of the sim­u­la­tion is as com­plete­ly irrel­e­vant in the one case as it is in the oth­er. Say­ing ‘Gee, AI pro­grams can do such amaz­ing things. Maybe it real­ly is intel­li­gence!’ is like say­ing ‘Gee, Penn and Teller do such amaz­ing things. Maybe it real­ly is mag­ic!’” Fes­er is one of my favorite philoso­phers. First shared in vol­ume 197. I remem­ber one CS grad stu­dent strong­ly dis­lik­ing this arti­cle when I first shared. I share it again regard­less

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.

Disclaimer

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 250

Prob­a­bly my favorite arti­cle in this bunch is the epi­demi­o­log­i­cal analy­sis of the sev­en dead­ly sins. What a genius idea.

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Also, this is the 250th of these week­ly roundups I have pub­lished. Even though last week was num­ber 249, I was still sur­prised to type in 250 this week. Some­day I’ll remem­ber a spe­cial num­ber is com­ing up and do some­thing dif­fer­ent for it. But not this day.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Are the Wages of Sin Real­ly Death?: Moral and Epi­demi­o­log­ic Obser­va­tions (David Lyle Jef­frey and Jeff Levin, Chris­t­ian Scholar’s Review): “So, are the wages of sin real­ly death? As far as pop­u­la­tion-health research sug­gests, the answer is a guard­ed yes.” The authors are pro­fes­sors at Bay­lor, one of epi­demi­ol­o­gy and the oth­er of lit­er­a­ture. 
  2. Kids’ TV has a porn prob­lem (Brazy­Day, Medi­um): “In a very real way, the ‘hyper­sex­u­al and tox­ic’ cul­ture that has sprung up around children’s TV car­toons is of com­pa­nies’ own mak­ing. They active­ly allow it to hap­pen sim­ply by doing noth­ing — cre­at­ing a law­less vac­u­um where any­thing goes and porn coex­ists with harm­less fan cre­ations.” This arti­cle was much bet­ter than I expect­ed it to be. 
  3. How We Got the Bible (Dirk Jongkind,Desiring God): “…by under­stand­ing what God had done over the ages, we will see that it is rea­son­able and jus­ti­fied to trust that the Bible in our hands is a trans­la­tion of the trust­wor­thy words of Scrip­ture.” The author is a research fel­low in New Tes­ta­ment text and lan­guage at Tyn­dale House, Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty. 
  4. The real Lord of the Flies: what hap­pened when six boys were ship­wrecked for 15 months (The Guardian): “The kids agreed to work in teams of two, draw­ing up a strict ros­ter for gar­den, kitchen and guard duty. Some­times they quar­relled, but when­ev­er that hap­pened they solved it by impos­ing a time-out. Their days began and end­ed with song and prayer. Kolo fash­ioned a makeshift gui­tar from a piece of drift­wood, half a coconut shell and six steel wires sal­vaged from their wrecked boat – an instru­ment Peter has kept all these years – and played it to help lift their spir­its.“ Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
    • Fas­ci­nat­ing Twit­ter thread in response by Tan­ner Greer: “Lord of the Flies is one of those nov­els that peo­ple remem­ber wrong. Peo­ple remem­ber its cen­tral theme as ‘take away civ­i­liza­tion, and we all turn into Hobbe­sian lit­tle mon­sters.’ But if you read the book as an adult, instead of an 8th grad­er speed­ing through, you find a dif­fer­ent mean­ing.”
  5. Should Reli­gious Con­ser­v­a­tives Aspire to Noto­ri­ety? (Jake Meador, Mere Ortho­doxy): “You don’t go look­ing for pow­er and pres­tige. You aspire to be faith­ful. If pres­tige finds you, then you allow your­self to be extrud­ed into it and pray that God pro­tect you from the spir­i­tu­al dan­gers.” This is essay is part of a swarm of inter­net arti­cles about the tra­jec­to­ry of the mag­a­zine First Things, but you don’t have to read any­thing else about that (or even care much about that) to find this essay worth­while. 
  6. Pan­dem­ic Per­spec­tives
    • “Our reg­u­la­to­ry state is fail­ing us” Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “When the CDC pooh-poohed masks ear­ly on, or botched their test­ing kit there­by delay­ing U.S. test­ing by weeks or maybe months, did the per­ma­nent staff of the CDC rise up and rebel and leak howl­ing protests to the media, real­iz­ing that thou­sands of lives were at stake? That is sure­ly what would hap­pen if say the cur­rent FDA announced it was going to approve thalido­mide.” This is a link to a search result on his blog, keep scrolling after you fin­ish the main arti­cle to see sev­er­al exam­ples of what he is describ­ing. 
    • Coro­n­avirus Pan­dem­ic: A Plea for Gen­eros­i­ty (Michael Bren­dan Dougher­ty, Nation­al Review): “There is a good rea­son to hes­i­tate to judge, name­ly our igno­rance. Plagues are a time for scape­goats and blame-shift­ing pre­cise­ly because they deal out suf­fer­ing such a seem­ing­ly unjust and ran­dom fash­ion. Our lead­ers say they will fol­low the sci­ence, but they can’t, real­ly. With a hereto­fore-unseen virus such as this one, the sci­ence is more like inher­it­ed wis­dom and intu­ition from pre­vi­ous, sim­i­lar mal­adies, at least at the start. What fol­lows is a con­fused rush to catch up through tri­al and error.“
    • The Risks — Know Them — Avoid Them (Erin Bro­mage, per­son­al blog): “I reg­u­lar­ly hear peo­ple wor­ry­ing about gro­cery stores, bike rides, incon­sid­er­ate run­ners who are not wear­ing masks.… are these places of con­cern? Well, not real­ly. Let me explain.” The author is a biol­o­gy pro­fes­sor at U Mass who teach­es cours­es on immunol­o­gy and infec­tious dis­ease. Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus. 
    • No, the super­spread­er choir in Wash­ing­ton does­n’t prove church is dan­ger­ous (Tim­o­thy P. Car­ney, Wash­ing­ton Exam­in­er): “It’s hard to blame the choir for not tak­ing more pre­cau­tions, as this was March 10, before stuff real­ly hit the fan (and when our gov­ern­ment was still telling peo­ple NOT to wear masks).”
      • This op-ed is based on a CDC inves­ti­ga­tion: “The March 10 choir rehearsal last­ed from 6:30 to 9:00 p.m. Sev­er­al mem­bers arrived ear­ly to set up chairs in a large mul­ti­pur­pose room. Chairs were arranged in six rows of 20 chairs each, spaced 6–10 inch­es apart with a cen­ter aisle divid­ing left and right stages.”
    • Lock­down is over. Some­one tell the gov­ern­ment (Dominic Green, Spec­ta­tor USA): “Every soci­ety has react­ed to COVID-19 accord­ing to its prin­ci­ples or, if no prin­ci­ples were to hand, its habits. It has been America’s mis­for­tune that its prin­ci­ples and habits are ill-suit­ed to man­ag­ing an epi­dem­ic.”
    • Take the Shut­down Skep­tics Seri­ous­ly (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): “The gen­er­al point is that min­i­miz­ing the num­ber of COVID-19 deaths today or a month from now or six months from now may or may not min­i­mize the human costs of the pan­dem­ic when the full spec­trum of human con­se­quences is con­sid­ered. The last glob­al depres­sion cre­at­ed con­di­tions for a cat­a­stroph­ic world war that killed rough­ly 75 to 80 mil­lion peo­ple. Is that a pos­si­bil­i­ty? The down­side risks and costs of every approach are real, fright­en­ing, and depress­ing, no mat­ter how lit­tle one thinks of reopen­ing now.”
    • Coro­n­avirus and The Myopia of Amer­i­can Excep­tion­al­ism (Brad Lit­tle­john, Mere Ortho­doxy): “Rather than prov­ing our­selves excep­tion­al, we sim­ply assume that we are. The ordi­nary rules do not apply to us, because we are Amer­i­ca. We make things bet­ter here, we run things more effi­cient­ly here, we live more hap­pi­ly here, because we are Amer­i­ca. There is no need to look at OECD rank­ings, because we already know that they are wrong if they show us any­where but #1…. this way of think­ing, far from mak­ing Amer­i­ca great, is almost cer­tain to make her the oppo­site. After all, the only way to improve is to learn, and the chief way we learn as human beings is from the exam­ples of oth­ers.”
    • The Mir­a­cle of the Inter­net (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “The surge in traf­fic, on the inter­net as a whole and on AT&T’s part of the net­work, is extra­or­di­nary in a way that the phrase 20 per­cent increase doesn’t quite cap­ture. AT&T’s net­work is car­ry­ing an extra 71 petabytes of data every day. How much is 71 petabytes? One com­par­i­son: Back at the end of 2014, AT&T’s total net­work traf­fic was 56 petabytes a day; in just a few weeks, AT&T has accom­mo­dat­ed more new traf­fic every day than its total dai­ly traf­fic six years ago. (Dur­ing the pan­dem­ic, the AT&T net­work has been car­ry­ing about 426 petabytes a day—one petabyte is 1 mil­lion giga­bytes.)”
    • Stan­ford’s $27.7 bil­lion not enough to house stu­dents in need amid pan­dem­ic (Sheikh Sri­jon, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “Har­vard is allow­ing those on cam­pus with demon­strat­ed need to stay for the whole sum­mer for only $200. MIT is offer­ing free hous­ing and meals. Duke is offer­ing free hous­ing and par­tial com­pen­sa­tion for lost sum­mer earn­ings to those with sub­stan­tial finan­cial aid.… Com­pare Stanford’s pol­i­cy to these insti­tu­tions’ poli­cies. Though it has a $27.7 bil­lion dol­lar endow­ment (as of Octo­ber 2019), it is charg­ing stu­dents near­ly $6,000 for sum­mer hous­ing and meals in times of such finan­cial uncer­tain­ty.”
  7. The New York Times Sur­ren­dered to an Out­rage Mob. Jour­nal­ism Will Suf­fer For It. (Pamela Paresky, Jonathan Haidt, Nadine Strossen And Steven Pinker, Politi­co): “…for the Times to ‘dis­ap­pear’ pas­sages of a pub­lished arti­cle into an inac­ces­si­ble mem­o­ry hole is an Orwellian act that, thanks to the newspaper’s actions, might now be seen as accept­able jour­nal­is­tic prac­tice. It is all the worse when the edi­tors’ pub­lished account of what they delet­ed is itself inac­cu­rate. This does a dis­ser­vice to read­ers, his­to­ri­ans and jour­nal­ists, who are left unable to deter­mine for them­selves what the con­tro­ver­sy was about, and to Stephens, who is left unable to defend him­self against read­ers’ worst sus­pi­cions.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have If I Were 22 Again (John Piper, Desir­ing God): “There have been about 18,340 days since I turned 22, and I think I have read my Bible on more of those days than I have eat­en. I have cer­tain­ly read my Bible on more of those days that I have watched tele­vi­sion or videos.… Read your Bible every day of your life. If you have time for break­fast, nev­er say that you don’t have time for God’s word.” This whole thing is real­ly good. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 151.

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.

Disclaimer

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 68

1 Chronicles 12:32 - they "understood the times"
1 Chron­i­cles 12:32 — they “under­stood the times”

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Mis­sion­ar­ies are strug­gling to work under new Rus­sia law ban­ning pros­e­ly­tiz­ing (Michael Ali­son Chan­dler, Wash­ing­ton Post): “A month after the restric­tions went into effect on July 20, at least sev­en peo­ple had been charged under it…  The list includes a Bap­tist preach­er from the Unit­ed States who was charged with hold­ing reli­gious ser­vices in his home and adver­tis­ing them on pub­lic bul­letin boards. He was con­vict­ed and fined, but he is appeal­ing the case.”
  2. ‘Hill­song’ Casts a Sec­u­lar Lens on an Evan­gel­i­cal Band (NY Times, Joe Coscarel­li): “Hillsong’s cre­ative direc­tor… described embrac­ing the rock-star expo­sure as ‘try­ing to draw atten­tion to your­self for the sole premise of draw­ing atten­tion away from your­self’ — to God.”
  3. 7 Books on the White-Black Racial Divide You Should Read (Ivan Mesa, Gospel Coali­tion): because you don’t have enough books to read at Stan­ford.
  4. We Gave Four Good Poll­sters the Same Raw Data. They Had Four Dif­fer­ent Results. (NY Times, Nate Cohn): “Well, well, well. Look at that. A net five-point dif­fer­ence between the five mea­sures, includ­ing our own, even though all are based on iden­ti­cal data. Remem­ber: There are no sam­pling dif­fer­ences in this exer­cise.” I didn’t know this at all. Wow. We know less about the elec­tion than we thought.
  5. “If you are a very tal­ent­ed per­son, you have a choice: You either go to New York or you go to Sil­i­con Val­ley.” (Peter Thiel said it, and this link is to an op-ed by Aaron Renn in a Chica­go paper defend­ing it.) For a con­trary take, read this com­ment from Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion.
  6. No, We Should­n’t Start Wor­ry­ing About Glob­al Inequal­i­ty — Pover­ty’s The Prob­lem (Forbes, Tim Worstall): “[Reduc­ing inequal­i­ty is] a bad goal. One rea­son being that rich peo­ple get­ting poor­er reduces inequal­i­ty. And if inequal­i­ty reduc­tion is our goal then we should there­fore wel­come such things as reces­sions.” Found on a student’s twit­ter feed.
  7. What If Evo­lu­tion Bred Real­i­ty Out Of Us? (NPR, Adam Frank): read­ing this called to mind some­thing Chester­ton observed way back in 1908:

    It is idle to talk always of the alter­na­tive of rea­son and faith. Rea­son is itself a mat­ter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any rela­tion to real­i­ty at all. If you are mere­ly a scep­tic, you must soon­er or lat­er ask your­self the ques­tion, “Why should ANYTHING go right; even obser­va­tion and deduc­tion? Why should not good log­ic be as mis­lead­ing as bad log­ic? They are both move­ments in the brain of a bewil­dered ape?” The young scep­tic says, “I have a right to think for myself.” But the old scep­tic, the com­plete scep­tic, says, “I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.” — Ortho­doxy, G. K. Chester­ton

Things Glen Found Amusing

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.

Disclaimer

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).

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.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.