Tag: fertility

TGFI, Volume 554: atheist delusions

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. FAQs by Athe­ists (and oth­ers) (Sarah Sal­vian­der, Sub­stack): “I’m often informed that I ‘wasn’t real­ly an athe­ist,’ because I changed my mind. I don’t know what it takes to qual­i­fy as hav­ing been a Real Athe­ist, but I was raised athe­ist by ex-Catholic, social­ist, polit­i­cal-activist, athe­ist par­ents in a sec­u­lar coun­try (Cana­da), and I real­ly hat­ed reli­gion. Seems like that should qual­i­fy.”
    • Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent and it was quite good indeed. I clicked some of the links and real­ly enjoyed the slideshow she made at https://sixdayscience.com/six-days‑2/ (the big idea is that Gen­e­sis is lit­er­al­ly true — all of cre­ation was made in six days as viewed from God’s per­spec­tive. God’s per­spec­tive is cos­mic and not earth­bound, and so how He sees a day changes in accor­dance with the prin­ci­ples of rel­a­tiv­i­ty as space­time itself changes).
  2. One of the biggest mis­takes the New Athe­ists made (Sarah Sal­vian­der, Sub­stack): “My own jour­ney to faith didn’t come from what I _didn’t_ under­stand. It came from what I _did_. As a grad stu­dent, I stud­ied the chem­istry of the ear­ly uni­verse through obser­va­tions of dis­tant quasars. The exquis­ite fine-tun­ing, the pre­cise con­ver­gence of phys­i­cal con­stants and con­di­tions need­ed to make those mea­sure­ments pos­si­ble, the under­ly­ing order that allowed the Big Bang mod­el to hold together—it all radi­at­ed a pro­found sense of inten­tion­al design. To me, it wasn’t a gap scream­ing for a filler. It was evi­dence point­ing unmis­tak­ably to a Cre­ator. Lennox puts it beau­ti­ful­ly: the more he under­stands the universe—its math­e­mat­i­cal intel­li­gi­bil­i­ty, its laws that describe rather than create—the more it draws him toward God. He com­pares it to stand­ing before a great paint­ing. The untrained eye sees beau­ty; the expert, who grasps the tech­nique and genius behind the brush­strokes, sees far more. Sci­ence doesn’t erode faith for those who see clear­ly. It deep­ens awe.” (rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent)
  3. Free Will Is Unde­feat­ed (Rob K. Hen­der­son, Wall Street Jour­nal): “Sup­pose we ask whether an apple is red. The deter­min­ist looks clos­er. He real­izes the apple is noth­ing but atoms. Because no indi­vid­ual atom is red, he con­cludes the apple can’t real­ly be red. The error is obvi­ous. Col­or exists at the scale of the apple, not at the scale of an atom. Free will works the same way. A choice exists at the scale of a per­son think­ing, weigh­ing and decid­ing. Look­ing at the mol­e­cules under­neath and find­ing no choice there doesn’t prove that choice is an illu­sion.”
  4. Protes­tantism’s Insti­tu­tion­al Prob­lem (Jor­dan B. Coop­er, Sub­stack): “It has often been the case when some­one I know per­son­al­ly informs me that they have decid­ed to [become Catholic], that they jus­ti­fy such a move with claims of intel­lec­tu­al per­sua­sion based upon the strength of RC argu­ments. In many cas­es, they have nev­er brought any of these claims or ques­tions to me at all before mak­ing a deci­sion. If some­one real­ly want­ed to eval­u­ate the truth claims of two tra­di­tions, and that per­son had a friend who exam­ines these issues for a liv­ing, one would think they’d at least hear that per­son out pri­or to com­mit­ting. But alas, it often does not hap­pen. It is the same sto­ry every time: some­one has watched some RC apolo­get­ics videos online, has decid­ed to join the RCC for what­ev­er rea­son, and is unwill­ing to hear any cri­tique. The­o­log­i­cal rea­sons are con­struct­ed post hoc. This per­son is already con­vinced and uses the­ol­o­gy to jus­ti­fy a con­clu­sion already arrived at. This should not be so sur­pris­ing, as human beings are not as ratio­nal­ly dri­ven as we some­times assume.”
    • 100% agree with this obser­va­tion (although I have a few quib­bles with the larg­er post in which it is embed­ded). Ear­li­er this week I talked with a col­league on anoth­er cam­pus about this exact issue. I can­not recall a time when a stu­dent con­sid­er­ing Catholi­cism ever asked me about the Protes­tant side of the argu­ment. Ever. But then they act as though they weighed the evi­dence care­ful­ly. I thought it was unusu­al the first time I saw it, but now it’s what I expect.
    • Relat­ed: Which Church Changed? (Lar­ry Sanger, per­son­al blog): I am quite sure peo­ple will con­test some of the details or the pre­cise word­ing, but I think this is a sub­stan­tial­ly cor­rect sum­ma­ry root­ed in church his­to­ry.
  5. Why So Few Babies? We Might Have Over­looked the Biggest Rea­son of All. (Anna Louie Suss­man, New York Times): “What unites these dis­parate cul­tures, pol­i­cy envi­ron­ments and demo­graph­ics, researchers are now real­iz­ing, is young people’s inescapable and crush­ing sense that the future is too uncer­tain for the life­long com­mit­ment of par­ent­hood. Call it the vibes the­o­ry of demo­graph­ic decline.… There is, how­ev­er, one low-cost fer­til­i­ty pol­i­cy that actu­al­ly seems to work: faith, per­haps the orig­i­nal uncer­tain­ty reduc­tion strat­e­gy.” — Rec­om­mend­ed by a friend of the min­istry.
  6. Ivy League stu­dents are suf­fer­ing from reli­gious illit­er­a­cy (Gre­go­ry Con­ti, Wash­ing­ton Post): “It’s increas­ing­ly com­mon on col­lege cam­pus­es to encounter stu­dents who are unfa­mil­iar with the most basic fea­tures of Chris­tian­i­ty, such as the dif­fer­ence between the Old and New tes­ta­ments or between Catholics and Protes­tants. They sel­dom rec­og­nize the allu­sions to the Bible that appear in Shakespeare’s work or in Lincoln’s sec­ond inau­gur­al address (or in Obama’s first, for that mat­ter). These stu­dents are bright, con­sci­en­tious and curi­ous. But they lack reli­gious lit­er­a­cy — and their igno­rance of reli­gious ideas means they strug­gle to under­stand a wide array of West­ern art, lit­er­a­ture and phi­los­o­phy. This is a devel­op­ment that even non­be­liev­ers like myself should find trou­bling.”
    • The author is a polit­i­cal sci­en­tist at Prince­ton.
  7. Learn­ing To Beg: God always pro­vides (Sharis Hsu, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “I am dubi­ous of what this pro­gram does — poten­tial­ly coerc­ing the most vul­ner­a­ble into believ­ing in reli­gion and becom­ing depen­dent on it. But as men of all races and ages come out in blue jeans and a navy top, I can’t help the tears that come to my eyes as they tell their sto­ries. For the first time since I land­ed in Geor­gia, there is hope.”
    • An inter­est­ing read and I await the sequel.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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.

TGFI, Volume 523: religion makes you happy and war is terrifying

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Reli­gious Peo­ple Are Hap­pi­er Than Non-Reli­gious Peo­ple (Ryan Burge, Sub­stack): “To go back to where I start­ed — let me just say the one true thing again. High­ly active reli­gious peo­ple are hap­pi­er than non-reli­gious peo­ple. There’s no oth­er way to spin this data than this sim­ple con­clu­sion.”
    • Empha­sis in orig­i­nal. The author is a polit­i­cal sci­en­tist at Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty in St. Louis.
  2. I’ve Seen the Future of War. Europe Isn’t Ready for It. (Niall Fer­gu­son, The Free Press): : “Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine is now in its fourth year—or its 12th, if you date it from the annex­a­tion of Crimea in 2014. Since Feb­ru­ary 2022, the coun­try has cycled through three wars. First it was a tank war, in which columns of Russ­ian tanks fought a bun­gled blitzkrieg. Then it became an artillery war, in which the two sides trad­ed fire from entrenched posi­tions. Now, how­ev­er, it’s almost entire­ly a drone war, with a sup­port­ing role for small and high­ly vul­ner­a­ble infantry units. The ques­tion is how well Euro­peans under­stand this. The peo­ple of Poland, Roma­nia, Esto­nia, and (per­haps) Den­mark all now know that Russ­ian drones are capa­ble of enter­ing their air­space. But have they tru­ly grasped what that implies?”
    • The author is a senior fel­low at Stan­ford’s Hoover Insti­tu­tion. I am told he is a fair­ly recent con­vert to Chris­tian­i­ty, although I have nev­er met him per­son­al­ly and only know of his faith through pub­lic sources.
  3. What Women Wish They’d Known Before Try­ing to Get Preg­nant (Olga Khaz­an, The Atlantic): “When Anna De Souza was in her ear­ly 30s, she asked her ob-gyn when she should start think­ing about hav­ing kids. ‘When you were 26,’ she remem­bers the doc­tor say­ing. She was sur­prised. She’d had some sense that fer­til­i­ty decreas­es with age but didn’t know how sig­nif­i­cant the drop-off was. No doc­tor had ever told her, and she cer­tain­ly didn’t learn about it in school.”
    • Unlocked. This is a drum I will keep beat­ing — most of you should plan to have kids ear­li­er than your peers!
  4. Some thoughts on free speech:
    • The Cen­sor­ship You Prac­tice Today Will Be Used Against You Tomor­row (Greg Lukianoff, New York Times): “I don’t like hav­ing to make a case for human rights such as free­dom of speech by appeal­ing to self-inter­est; these are sup­posed to be rights whose impor­tance tran­scends one’s per­son­al needs. But for polit­i­cal par­ti­sans, it’s often the only argu­ment that cuts through. So here’s my prac­ti­cal warn­ing: The weapon that you reach for today will be used against you tomor­row. Using your oppo­nents’ nas­ti­est tools doesn’t per­suade them to dis­arm; it inspires retal­i­a­tion. Tit for tat, for­ev­er and ever.”
    • How not to lim­it free speech (Ed Fes­er, per­son­al blog): “There is a pre­sump­tion, then, in favor of free expres­sion, pre­cise­ly because it facil­i­tates the nat­ur­al end of our ratio­nal pow­ers. How­ev­er, not all forms of expres­sion are pro­tect­ed by this pre­sump­tion, because not all forms of expres­sion have any­thing to do with our ratio­nal pow­ers. For exam­ple, pornog­ra­phy does not appeal to our ratio­nal­i­ty and in no way con­tributes to dis­cov­er­ing truth or to debate by which we might root out error.… pornog­ra­phy is in no way pro­tect­ed by the nat­ur­al right to free speech.”
      • The author is a devout Catholic who is also a phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sor. This is a help­ful essay that cov­ers a lot of ground.
  5. How My Dad Helped Me Mas­ter My Autism (Leland Vit­tert, The Free Press): “Today, most par­ents would prob­a­bly send a kid like me to ther­a­py. Even back then, a diag­no­sis might have got­ten me sig­nif­i­cant spe­cial treat­ment. But my dad knew that there wasn’t a teacher or ther­a­pist who could step in and sud­den­ly make me fit in. The world wasn’t going to adapt to me, and he wasn’t going to try to make it. There would be no ther­a­pists or accom­mo­da­tions. If I was going to suc­ceed, he would have to adapt me to the world.”
  6. I vis­it­ed Gaza. The food aid sur­prised me. (Ken Isaacs, Wash­ing­ton Post): “The main provider of food assis­tance in the Gaza Strip today arguably is the Gaza Human­i­tar­i­an Foun­da­tion, an orga­ni­za­tion backed by the Unit­ed States and Israel. GHF has faced harsh crit­i­cism for its work in Gaza, with Unit­ed Nations agen­cies and non­govern­men­tal orga­ni­za­tions pub­lish­ing a let­ter in July urg­ing donors and coun­tries not to fund the foundation’s work and to instead revert to a sole­ly U.N.-led response. I arrived in Gaza a skep­tic of GHF but left an advo­cate. Sim­ply put, the com­mon por­tray­al of this orga­ni­za­tion rad­i­cal­ly dis­torts real­i­ty.”
    • The author works for Samar­i­tan’s Purse, a Chris­t­ian relief agency.
  7. Two viral clips from the same event (Char­lie Kirk’s memo­r­i­al ser­vice).
    • Eri­ka Kirk on Hus­band’s Assas­sin: “I for­give him.” (C‑SPAN, YouTube): two min­utes
    • “I hate my oppo­nent and I don’t want the best for them.” (C‑SPAN, YouTube): five min­utes (the famous bit is at about the one minute mark)
    • Watch them both before you read the arti­cles that com­ment on them. Hav­ing watched them, I think some com­men­ta­tors are sub­tly dis­tort­ing them. Watch for your­self, and then mull the respons­es.
    • Why MAGA Evan­gel­i­cals Can Cheer Love and Hate at the Same Time (David French, New York Times): “Many peo­ple who saw or read about the ral­ly were puz­zled by what they per­ceived as a con­tra­dic­tion. How can you cheer love and hate at the same time? How can you wor­ship Jesus and cheer such a base and gross descrip­tion of oth­er human beings, peo­ple who are cre­at­ed in the image of God? My reac­tion was dif­fer­ent. Final­ly, I thought, curi­ous Amer­i­cans who tuned in got to see MAGA the­ol­o­gy more com­plete­ly — and what they wit­nessed was the best and worst of MAGA Chris­tian­i­ty.”
    • The Biggest Tent (The Dis­patch): “The funer­al was what I thought it would be. Until Eri­ka Kirk spoke, and then it was some­thing else.… The last place you would look for grace in Amer­i­can pub­lic life in 2025 is at a Repub­li­can polit­i­cal ral­ly, espe­cial­ly one where the usu­al lust for ruth­less­ness has been juiced by wrath and grief. For Mrs. Kirk to muster it in this set­ting, at this moment, despite the sin­gu­lar anguish with which she’s been bur­dened, felt almost mirac­u­lous even to a non-believ­er like me.… I’ve heard of polit­i­cal ‘big tents,’ but I’ve nev­er heard of one big enough to accom­mo­date two moral sys­tems that aren’t just con­tra­dic­to­ry but irrec­on­cil­able. ‘Christ’s mes­sage, fol­lowed by its very antithe­sis,’ phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sor Edward Fes­er wrote of the con­trast between Kirk’s and Trump’s remarks. ‘It’s almost as if the audi­ence is being put to a test.’ ”
    • Eri­ka Kirk and America’s Reli­gious Revival (Maya Sulkin, The Free Press): “By dawn, the lines to get into State Farm Sta­di­um stretched for blocks. Peo­ple camped out overnight to secure a place.… By mid-morn­ing, the 73,000-seat sta­di­um was full. Orga­niz­ers opened the are­na next door for over­flow, but even that quick­ly reached capac­i­ty. In total, an esti­mat­ed 200,000 peo­ple turned out—more than Mar­tin Luther King Jr.’s funer­al in 1968.”
    • Is Eri­ka Kirk the Future of MAGA? (Matthew Con­tinet­ti, The Free Press): “Nev­er had I seen some­one upstage Pres­i­dent Trump. It hap­pened Sun­day. Trump spoke for longer than Eri­ka. But she had already brought down the house. Her for­give­ness and hope moved the nation. Clear­ly Trump was mulling over her eulo­gy. When he sly­ly con­trast­ed his style with Charlie’s, Trump kid­ding­ly apol­o­gized. ‘I hate my oppo­nent and don’t want the best for them,’ he said. ‘Sor­ry, Eri­ka.’ When was the last time Trump apol­o­gized? Then he added, ‘Eri­ka, you can talk to me and the whole group, but maybe they can con­vince me that that’s not right, but I can’t stand my oppo­nent.’ Even the pres­i­dent can learn from Eri­ka Kirk.”
    • ‘I Hate My Oppo­nen­t’: Trump’s Remarks at Kirk Memo­r­i­al Dis­till His Pol­i­tics (Nick Catog­gio, New York Times): “When asked about the diver­gent mes­sages from the pres­i­dent and Mrs. Kirk, Karo­line Leav­itt, the White House press sec­re­tary, said on Mon­day that the pres­i­dent was ‘authen­ti­cal­ly himself.‘” 

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

  • Meet the 2025 Ig Nobel Prize win­ners (Jen­nifer Ouel­lette, Ars Tech­ni­ca): “Diet sodas and oth­er zero-calo­rie drinks are a main­stay of the mod­ern diet, thanks to the devel­op­ment of arti­fi­cial sweet­en­ers whose mol­e­cules can’t be metab­o­lized by the human body. The authors of this paper are intrigued by the notion of zero-calo­rie foods, which they believe could be achieved by increas­ing the sat­is­fy­ing vol­ume and mass of food with­out increas­ing the calo­ries. And they have just the addi­tive for that pur­pose: poly­te­tra­flu­o­roeth­yl­ene (PTFE), more com­mon­ly known as Teflon. Yes, the stuff they use on non­stick cook­ware. They insist that Teflon is inert, heat-resis­tant, imper­vi­ous to stom­ach acid, taste­less, cost-effec­tive, and avail­able in handy pow­der form for easy mix­ing into food. They rec­om­mend a ratio of three parts food to one part Teflon pow­der.”
    • I lowkey wan­na eat a teflon-stuffed meal now.
  • Sheep (SMBC)
  • ‘Very mean squir­rel’ seek­ing food has sent at least 2 peo­ple to the ER in a Cal­i­for­nia city (AP News)
  • Sin­ful, Rebel­lious Home­school­er Stays Up Past 9:30 To Read Chron­i­cles Of Nar­nia (Baby­lon Bee)

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 509: a Christian assassin, Harvard Law Review, Juneteenth

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Stop Striv­ing and Have a Baby (Nicholas Clair­mont, The Free Press): “…hav­ing kids isn’t just pos­si­ble, think­able, or doable. It’s actu­al­ly super fun, mas­sive­ly eas­i­er than any­one tells you, and so ener­giz­ing and clar­i­fy­ing that if you are an ambi­tious per­son, you should have a kid out of pure per­son­al self­ish­ness.”
  2. Friends say Min­neso­ta shoot­ing sus­pect was deeply reli­gious and con­ser­v­a­tive (Jim Mus­t­ian & Michael Bieseck­er, Asso­ci­at­ed Press): “Friends and for­mer col­leagues inter­viewed by AP described Boel­ter as a devout Chris­t­ian who attend­ed an evan­gel­i­cal church and went to cam­paign ral­lies for Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump.”
    • In response: The Prob­lem of the Chris­t­ian Assas­sin (David French, The New York Times): “Our nation is relearn­ing a les­son that it nev­er should have for­got­ten. Extrem­ist Chris­t­ian lan­guage and the­ol­o­gy can lead to extreme Chris­t­ian vio­lence in the same way that extreme lan­guage can lead to extreme vio­lence in oth­er faith tra­di­tions and among peo­ple who have no faith at all. Chris­tians aren’t bet­ter than any­one else. We’re fash­ioned from the same human clay, and we’re sus­cep­ti­ble to the same temp­ta­tions and fail­ures.”
  3. The Gospel Does­n’t Impart a Lens, but a Life (Steven M. Bryan, Mere Ortho­doxy): “I sus­pect that some of the ways that we speak about those who aban­don Chris­t­ian faith and become sec­u­lar mir­rors a sec­u­lar under­stand­ing of what it means to become a Chris­t­ian in the first place. To speak about ‘de-con­struc­tion’ implies that becom­ing a Chris­t­ian is a mat­ter of con­struct­ing a ‘world­view.’ It risks rat­i­fy­ing the claim that becom­ing a Chris­t­ian is some­thing like becom­ing a Marx­ist or a nation­al­ist or even a post­mod­ernist. It is sim­ply to dis­man­tle one sto­ry about the world and to con­struct anoth­er. To speak about ‘de-con­ver­sion’ implies that the Gospel imparts a lens, not life.”
    • The author is a New Tes­ta­ment pro­fes­sor at Trin­i­ty Evan­gel­i­cal Divin­i­ty School.
  4. What Church Do You Attend? Maybe More Than One, Sur­vey Finds (Adelle Banks, Roys Report): “Researchers for the mul­ti­year Hart­ford Insti­tute for Reli­gion Research study found that 46% of some 24,000 church­go­ers respond­ing to their sur­vey report­ed active engage­ment with more than one church.”
  5. Matt Ygle­sias on debat­ing (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “In prac­tice, one big rea­son to debate is so you can put four peo­ple on the floor and attract an audi­ence and some pub­lic atten­tion, yet with­out slight­ing any one of the ‘stars’ by mak­ing it a pan­el. As a method of truth-seek­ing, I do not think pub­lic debate does very well.”
  6. Exclu­sive: Har­vard Law Review Axes 85 Per­cent of Sub­mis­sions Using Race-Con­scious Rubric, Doc­u­ments Show (Aaron Sibar­i­um, Wash­ing­ton Free Bea­con): “The Free Bea­con obtained more than 500 doc­u­ments from the journal’s two lat­est vol­umes, includ­ing the one cur­rent­ly in pro­duc­tion. The new doc­u­ments are all from 2024 and 2025—after the Supreme Court banned affir­ma­tive action at universities—and span four dis­tinct stages of the arti­cle selec­tion process. They pro­vide the most com­pre­hen­sive pic­ture yet of the racial and ide­o­log­i­cal pref­er­ences at the elite law review, which has become a key front in the Trump administration’s war on Har­vard and is now the sub­ject of three fed­er­al probes. The doc­u­ments show that at least 42 dif­fer­ent edi­tors con­sid­ered race or gen­der when mak­ing rec­om­men­da­tions in 2024. That num­ber accounts for 40 per­cent of the 104 edi­tors who serve on the jour­nal at any giv­en time, all of whom have a vote in pub­li­ca­tion deci­sions. While some edi­tors rec­om­mend­ed pieces on the grounds that the author was a minor­i­ty, oth­ers paid more atten­tion to the article’s foot­notes, comb­ing through the cita­tions to see how many sources were white, black, or trans­gen­der.”
  7. Arti­cles which appear to have been writ­ten in hon­or of June­teenth:
    • June­teenth Is Our Sec­ond Inde­pen­dence Day (Con­doleeza Rice, The Free Press): “But even though my fam­i­ly has been cel­e­brat­ing June­teenth since my child­hood, it wasn’t until 2021 that Con­gress vot­ed, almost unan­i­mous­ly, to make June­teenth Nation­al Inde­pen­dence Day a fed­er­al hol­i­day. Because many Amer­i­cans are unfa­mil­iar with its sig­nif­i­cance, some, per­haps under­stand­ably, won­der why it need­ed nation­al recog­ni­tion at all. After all, all Amer­i­cans cel­e­brate the Fourth of July—the ulti­mate cel­e­bra­tion of our nation’s found­ing, of our inde­pen­dence and our liberty.  To me, June­teenth is a recog­ni­tion of what I call America’s sec­ond found­ing.”
      • The author is a fel­low believ­er and also the direc­tor of Stan­ford’s Hoover Insti­tu­tion.
      • The arti­cle con­tains this stun­ning para­graph: “I was eight years old when, on a Sun­day morn­ing in Sep­tem­ber 1963, the 16th Street Bap­tist Church was bombed. I felt the blast a few blocks away in the church where my father was the pas­tor. Four lit­tle girls, two of whom I knew, were killed.”
    • What Amer­i­can Stu­dents Aren’t Taught About Slav­ery (Cole­man Hugh­es, The Free Press): “What I learned from teach­ing slav­ery to a group of col­lege fresh­men is that many (per­haps most) Amer­i­can kids grad­u­ate high school believ­ing, false­ly, that slav­ery hap­pened only in Amer­i­ca. Their minds are not blown by rehears­ing the bru­tal facts of Amer­i­can slav­ery. Their minds are blown to learn that oth­er bru­tal slaver­ies also exist­ed all over the world. Nor is this his­tor­i­cal amne­sia con­fined to high school stu­dents. The Unit­ed Nations has deemed March 25 a day of remem­brance for the transat­lantic slave trade. There is no UN day of remem­brance for the Arab slave trade, the Bar­bary slave trade, the Indi­an Ocean slave trade, or any of the slaver­ies local­ized to spe­cif­ic regions such as the Indi­an sub­con­ti­nent, Chi­na, Korea, and East­ern Europe—each of which account­ed for mil­lions of slaves.… Instead of white­wash­ing the grim facts of Amer­i­can slavery—as Amer­i­can his­to­ry text­books did in the past, and as cer­tain cor­ners of the Amer­i­can right would be all too hap­py to revive—I rec­om­mend tak­ing the oppo­site approach: adding mate­r­i­al rather than sub­tract­ing it. We must include the glob­al and ubiq­ui­tous nature of slav­ery in every school cur­ricu­lum.”
      • The author, him­self African-Amer­i­can and Puer­to Rican, is a jour­nal­ist and a vis­it­ing pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Austin.
    • Fred­er­ick Dou­glass Found His Mis­sion in the Black Church (Jes­si­ca Jan­vi­er, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Douglass’s mud­dled expe­ri­ence with evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tian­i­ty mir­rored what many oth­er slaves expe­ri­enced. Many of them came to faith through evan­gel­i­cal­ism and were able to grasp the hope of emancipation—and equal­i­ty. Yet they also saw white evan­gel­i­cal preach­ers espouse proslav­ery doc­trines and com­fort with tear­ing apart Black fam­i­lies to uphold the lucra­tive insti­tu­tion. With this hypocrisy in mind, Dou­glass famous­ly wrote, ‘I love the pure, peace­able, and impar­tial Chris­tian­i­ty of Christ: I there­fore hate the cor­rupt, slave­hold­ing, women-whip­ping, cra­dle-plun­der­ing, par­tial and hyp­o­crit­i­cal Chris­tian­i­ty of this land.’ ”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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 438

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 438, which is 666 in base 8. 👀

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Don’t For­get About Niger­ian Chris­tians (Samuel Sey, per­son­al blog): “Over the last 15 years, More than 50,000 Niger­ian Chris­tians have been killed for their faith, 18,000 church­es have been destroyed, and mil­lions more have been dis­placed. In 2023, around 5,000 Chris­tians were killed world­wide because of their faith—90% of them were Nigerians.  Nige­ria is the dead­liest coun­try for Chris­tians. Every Chris­t­ian in north­ern (and some cen­tral states) Nige­ria is prob­a­bly griev­ing the loss of a spouse or a child (or both) from per­se­cu­tion.”
  2. As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do. (Pamela Paul, New York Times): “Stud­ies show that around eight in 10 cas­es of child­hood gen­der dys­pho­ria resolve them­selves by puber­ty and 30 per­cent of peo­ple on hor­mone ther­a­py dis­con­tin­ue its use with­in four years, though the effects, includ­ing infer­til­i­ty, are often irre­versible.… Trans activists often cite low regret rates for gen­der tran­si­tion, along with low fig­ures for detran­si­tion. But those stud­ies, which often rely on self-report­ed cas­es to gen­der clin­ics, like­ly under­state the actu­al num­bers. None of the sev­en detran­si­tion­ers I inter­viewed, for instance, even con­sid­ered report­ing back to the gen­der clin­ics that pre­scribed them med­ica­tion they now con­sid­er to have been a mis­take. Nor did they know any oth­er detran­si­tion­ers who had done so.”
    • Unlocked. The main point is hor­ri­fy­ing and one I’ve shared many times in this chan­nel before. A sec­ondary point which is quite inter­est­ing is how intent the author is on mak­ing this the fault of her polit­i­cal oppo­nents. Her audi­ence needs to know that her tribe is still trust­wor­thy despite mas­sive mis­takes on this issue. Par­ti­san­ship poi­sons the things it touch­es.
  3. Birth rates are falling in the Nordics. Are fam­i­ly-friend­ly poli­cies no longer enough? (Hen­ry Mance, Finan­cial Times): “…child­less­ness is also ris­ing among those who are in a rela­tion­ship. Many cou­ples are wait­ing too long. ‘Peo­ple call me a lot in Fin­land. [They say] ‘I’m 42, my part­ner has had three mis­car­riages and she says she will not con­tin­ue. And I under­stand I will nev­er be a father. I’m the only child of my par­ents, and there’s nobody left, and help me.’ Rotkirch is wary of an empha­sis on fer­til­i­ty treat­ments. Women’s fer­til­i­ty drops in their late thir­ties and for­ties: soci­ety has to adapt. ‘If you do every­thing that typ­i­cal min­is­ters of finance tell you to do, you are 45 — you have a house and a doc­tor­ate and it’s too late. The ide­alised life course is real­ly at odds with female repro­duc­tive biology.‘”
  4. Some Israel/Hamas arti­cles:
    • The UN’s Ter­ror­ism Teach­ers (Hil­lel C. Neuer, The Free Press): “UN Sec­re­tary Gen­er­al António Guter­res said he was ‘hor­ri­fied’ to dis­cov­er that UNRWA [Unit­ed Nations Relief and Works Agency for Pales­tine Refugees in the Near East] employ­ees par­tic­i­pat­ed in the inva­sion and mas­sacre of Octo­ber 7.… UNRWA employ­ees have held Israeli hostages cap­tive in their homes, using UNRWA facil­i­ties to move them from place to place.… It was only after Israel’s gov­ern­ment pro­vid­ed evi­dence that 12 of the agency’s employ­ees were actu­al­ly involved in the Octo­ber 7 mas­sacre that UNRWA and the Biden admin­is­tra­tion took some action.”
      • Wowsers.
    • How Pales­tine Hijacked the U.S. Civ­il Rights Move­ment (Gil Troy, Tablet Mag­a­zine): “The dif­fer­ences between the Pales­tin­ian nation­al move­ment and the Amer­i­can civ­il rights move­ment are obvi­ous and fun­da­men­tal. Pales­tini­ans have played no role in Amer­i­can his­to­ry or the his­to­ry of slav­ery. Pales­tini­ans played no role in the civ­il rights strug­gle. The Pales­tin­ian-Israeli clash, which is occur­ring a world away from Amer­i­ca, is nation­al not racial. Most Israelis are dark-skinned, while some Pales­tini­ans are light-skinned. Non­vi­o­lence fueled the civ­il rights strug­gle, while the Pales­tin­ian move­ment keeps per­fect­ing new forms of polit­i­cal vio­lence and ter­ror-porn, from hijack­ing to sui­cide bomb­ing.”
  5. The Mean­ing­less Inco­her­ence Of “LGBTQ+” (Andrew Sul­li­van, Sub­stack): “The trou­ble is that words have mean­ings, and the term ‘LGBTQ+’ — like the term ‘His­pan­ic’ or ‘Lati­no’ — is not like NATO. It doesn’t refer to a sin­gle, iden­ti­fi­able group, expe­ri­ence, or com­mu­ni­ty. It refers to mul­ti­ple ones. And each is dis­tinct, dis­crete and often very dif­fer­ent. When you exam­ine its com­po­nent parts, you real­ize that the Ls and Gs and Bs and Ts, let alone the Is and the +s, dif­fer dra­mat­i­cal­ly in basic things like psy­chol­o­gy, lifestyle, income, geog­ra­phy, edu­ca­tion, and pol­i­tics.… We’re con­stant­ly told, of course, that all gays and les­bians have col­lec­tive­ly co-opt­ed and des­tig­ma­tized the q‑word. But polling shows that only 3 — 4 per­cent of the entire LGBTQ+ world call them­selves ‘queer’. So the MSM rou­tine­ly uses a word for the entire ‘LGBTQ+’ world that 96 per­cent of this com­mu­ni­ty rejects. It’s up there with ‘Lat­inx’ as an accu­rate descrip­tor.”
    • Sul­li­van is one of the most influ­en­tial gay pub­lic intel­lec­tu­als. There are a lot of things he and I dis­agree about, but I near­ly always find his per­spec­tives illu­mi­nat­ing.
  6. Two arti­cles about a weird­ly intense con­tro­ver­sy about Alis­tair Begg:
    • Throw-Away Cul­ture is the Spir­it of the Sex­u­al Rev­o­lu­tion, Too. (Samuel D. James, Sub­stack): “A per­son who inter­prets their sex­u­al desires to be some sort of immov­able iden­ti­ty that must be ver­i­fied and actu­al­ized is in a very lam­en­ta­ble state. But what about the per­son who inter­prets their quick tem­per, their sus­pi­cion of oth­er Chris­tians, and their desire to build a plat­form atop the ruins of oth­er­s’, as like­wise an immov­able iden­ti­ty— ‘I just know what time it is’? Theirs is hard­ly bet­ter. The Chris­t­ian life doesn’t work like that.”
    • Alis­tair Begg Meets the Polit­i­cal­ly Cor­rect (Rus­sell Moore, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Might Begg be draw­ing the line in the wrong place—too much in the direc­tion of show­ing grace? Sure. Might I be draw­ing it in the wrong place—too much in the direc­tion of main­tain­ing truth? Again, yes. He risks con­fus­ing peo­ple. I risk hurt­ing peo­ple. That’s why I think we both attempt to sort these out with fear and trem­bling and a will­ing­ness to be cor­rect­ed.”
  7. Reli­gious peo­ple coped bet­ter with Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, research sug­gests (Fred Lewsey, Cam­bridge Research News): “Where men­tal health declined, it was around 60% worse on aver­age for the non-reli­gious com­pared to peo­ple of faith with typ­i­cal lev­els of ‘reli­gios­i­ty’. Inter­est­ing­ly, the pos­i­tive effects of reli­gion were not found in areas with strictest lock­downs, sug­gest­ing access to places of wor­ship might be even more impor­tant in a US con­text. The study also found sig­nif­i­cant uptake of online reli­gious ser­vices, and a 40% low­er asso­ci­a­tion between Covid-19 and men­tal health for those who used them.”
    • How hor­ri­ble the pan­dem­ic must have been for those with­out faith. I hat­ed it and I’m a min­is­ter!

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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 431

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 431, a prime num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Is South Korea Dis­ap­pear­ing? (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “[South Korea cur­rent­ly has] 0.7 births per woman. It’s worth unpack­ing what that means. A coun­try that sus­tained a birthrate at that lev­el would have, for every 200 peo­ple in one gen­er­a­tion, 70 peo­ple in the next one, a depop­u­la­tion exceed­ing what the Black Death deliv­ered to Europe in the 14th cen­tu­ry. Run the exper­i­ment through a sec­ond gen­er­a­tional turnover, and your orig­i­nal 200-per­son pop­u­la­tion falls below 25. Run it again, and you’re near­ing the kind of pop­u­la­tion crash caused by the fic­tion­al super­flu in Stephen King’s ‘The Stand.’ ”
    • Unlocked. The declin­ing birthrate is tru­ly one of the world’s most impor­tant long-term sto­ries. One of the rea­sons is that it will self-cor­rect, but the way that it will self-cor­rect will trans­form soci­eties.
  2. Soft Occultism (Patri­cia Patn­ode, The Amer­i­can Mind): “The new, default spir­i­tu­al iden­ti­ty for young peo­ple in the West is soft occultism, or casu­al witch­ery. This iden­ti­ty can eas­i­ly accom­pa­ny an exist­ing reli­gious affil­i­a­tion, and often does since it is so obvi­ous­ly inte­grat­ed in most aspects of mod­ern West­ern cul­ture.… Sur­veys and sci­en­tists have repeat­ed­ly found that peo­ple who have reli­gious beliefs, espe­cial­ly those who attend a for­mal house of wor­ship, tend to be hap­pi­er than those who don’t. Despite this, soft occultists pre­fer to buy puri­fy­ing green juices and par­tic­i­pate in pseu­do-reli­gious gath­er­ings. They go to Pilates class but not church, med­i­tate on per­son­al ener­gy but don’t pray. Take vit­a­min sup­ple­ments but not com­mu­nion. Sit through ther­a­py but not con­fes­sion.”
  3. The For­got­ten Dis­pute that Could Ignite a War in South Amer­i­ca (Fran­cis­co Toro, Per­sua­sion): “Yes­ter­day, Venezue­lans vot­ed in a non-bind­ing ref­er­en­dum to annex the Esse­qui­bo ter­ri­to­ry, a stretch of jun­gle that makes up around two-thirds of the land­mass of Venezuela’s east­ern neigh­bor, tiny Guyana. Des­per­ate for a win amid a new­ly unit­ed oppo­si­tion and a chron­i­cal­ly sick econ­o­my, the left­ist dic­ta­tor­ship of Nicolás Maduro dust­ed off a musty old dis­pute to fan the nation­al­ist flames. As a mat­ter of inter­na­tion­al law, Maduro has no leg to stand on. A mil­i­tary adven­ture into Esse­qui­bo is improbable—Venezuela’s mil­i­tary remains laser-focused on the one thing it does well, and that’s traf­fick­ing cocaine, not fight­ing wars. But dic­ta­tor­ships are inher­ent­ly unpre­dictable, and the prospect of a mil­i­tary adven­ture is send­ing jit­ters around the region.”
    • Some help­ful back­sto­ry.
  4. San­tos’ Cameo Earn­ings Exceed His House Salary (John John­son, News­er): “San­tos’ House salary stood at $174,000, and Semafor reports he has ‘lined up more than that sum’ in just his first 48 hours on the Cameo plat­form.”
    • This sto­ry seems to sum­ma­rize some­thing impor­tant about the soci­etal moment we are liv­ing in. I invite you to draw your own con­clu­sions about what that impor­tant some­thing is.
  5. What The Algo­rithm Does To Young Girls (Freya India, Per­sua­sion): “…I believe we have some per­son­al agency. But I also believe that a 12-year-old’s mind is no match for a giant cor­po­ra­tion using the most advanced AI to manip­u­late her behav­ior. Gen Z were the guinea pigs in this uncon­trolled glob­al social exper­i­ment. We were the first to have our vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties and inse­cu­ri­ties fed into a machine that mag­ni­fied and refract­ed them back at us, all the time, before we had any sense of who we were. We didn’t just grow up with algo­rithms. They raised us. They rearranged our faces. Shaped our iden­ti­ties. Con­vinced us we were sick.”
  6. The Uni­ver­si­ty pres­i­dents (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Over­all this was a dark day for Amer­i­can high­er edu­ca­tion. I want you to keep in mind that the incen­tives you saw on dis­play rule so many oth­er parts of the sys­tem, albeit usu­al­ly invis­i­bly. Don’t for­get that. These uni­ver­si­ty pres­i­dents have solved for what they think is the equi­lib­ri­um, and it ain’t pret­ty.”
    • You can find the video of the Har­vard, MIT, and Penn pres­i­dents’ Con­gres­sion­al tes­ti­mo­ny eas­i­ly with a search if you haven’t seen it yet. Here is the spe­cif­ic snip­pet Cowen is com­ment­ing on.
    • Relat­ed: Stan­ford con­demns calls for geno­cide of Jews (Car­o­line Chen, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “Stan­ford ‘unequiv­o­cal­ly’ con­demned ‘calls for the geno­cide of Jews or any peo­ples’.… The state­ment opened with acknowl­edg­ment of ‘the con­text of nation­al dis­course,’ amid nation­al con­tro­ver­sy over a Wednes­day con­gres­sion­al hear­ing where the pres­i­dents of Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty, the Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute of Tech­nol­o­gy and the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia appeared to evade ques­tions on dis­ci­plin­ing stu­dents who called for the geno­cide of Jew­ish peo­ple.”
  7. The Prob­lem­at­ic Inklings (G. Con­nor Salter, Mere Ortho­doxy): “Of course, see­ing some­one as a saint makes it hard to believe the per­son had flaws. It’s not easy to admit that the Inklings—Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and their friends who met week­ly to share their writings—weren’t the per­fect heroes revered in Chris­t­ian home­school guides. But even­tu­al­ly, we must rec­og­nize that everyone’s life is com­pli­cat­ed.”
    • Sur­pris­ing details I did not know, most­ly about some of the less famous Inklings.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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 392

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.

392 is a Har­shad Num­ber in base 5, where it is writ­ten as 3032 base 5. The sum of its dig­its is 13 base 5, which divides to 144 base 5, there­by ful­fill­ing the con­di­tions for a Har­shad Num­ber. In base five. Kin­da feels like a stretch to be hon­est. 392 is not a super-inter­est­ing num­ber.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Dis­hon­or Code: What Hap­pens When Cheat­ing Becomes the Norm? (Suzy Weiss, The Free Press): “And at Dartmouth—once the reserve of the WASPi­est of the WASPs, in beau­ti­ful, clois­tered Hanover, New Hampshire—an anony­mous source told me that stu­dents have devel­oped the habit of break­ing into groups of four when giv­en online mul­ti­ple-choice quizzes. Each guess­es a dif­fer­ent answer (A, B, C, or D) to each ques­tion. Because stu­dents get two chances to take the quiz—why that is, no one seems to know—they all have the right answer by the time they take the quiz for a sec­ond time. And wind up with a per­fect score. They don’t even have to read the ques­tion. If you’re read­ing the ques­tion, you’re doing it wrong.”
    • Relat­ed: Stan­ford Has an Integri­ty Prob­lem (Thomas Adamo, The Stan­ford Review): “When stu­dents near­ly unan­i­mous­ly agree that it would be bet­ter to lie and cheat their way through school than fail or scrape by on their own mer­it, is it real­ly that sur­pris­ing to know that as ful­ly-social­ized Stan­ford grads they would also try to lie and cheat and scrape their way through their careers, their projects and their rela­tion­ships. Virtue is a habit that must be prac­ticed repeatedly—strengthened like a muscle—not left as an exer­cise to the read­er.”
  2. Why You Can’t Pre­dict the Future of Reli­gion (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “…reli­gious his­to­ry is shaped as much by sud­den irrup­tions as long tra­jec­to­ries, as much by the mys­ti­cal and per­son­al as by the insti­tu­tion­al and soci­o­log­i­cal.… I can quote you chap­ter and verse on the rea­son­abil­i­ty of the­ism, but in the causal chain of his­to­ry I’m a Chris­t­ian because two thou­sand years ago a mot­ley group of provin­cials in Roman Pales­tine believed they’d seen their teacher heal the sick and raise the dead and then rise trans­fig­ured from the grave — and then because, two mil­len­ni­ums lat­er, as a child in sub­ur­ban Con­necti­cut, I watched my own par­ents fall to the floor and speak in tongues.”
    • I have unlocked the pay­wall for this one (I can unlock ten NYT arti­cles a month).
  3. Fer­til­i­ty Rate Roundup #1 (Zvi Mow­showitz, Sub­stack): “This looks like a fan­tas­ti­cal­ly suc­cess­ful pro­gram. The pre­vi­ous trend was declin­ing births. At the cost of $1,000 per child in pro­gres­sive trans­fer pay­ments, Aus­tralia seem­ing­ly raised births by 6%. That’s about $17k per addi­tion­al birth. Insane­ly cheap. I am con­fi­dent Chi­na would be thrilled to pay quite a lot more than that. Amer­i­ca would be insane not to, we would save more mon­ey than this on long term inter­est rates on our gov­ern­ment debt alone.”
    • This is hon­est­ly one of the great­est glob­al cri­sis and not near­ly enough peo­ple are talk­ing intel­li­gent­ly about it.
    • In relat­ed news, this is one of the ways reli­gion tri­umphs over sec­u­lar­ism. Reli­gious peo­ple repro­duce (and usu­al­ly pass on their val­ues to their chil­dren) and far too many sec­u­lar peo­ple die lone­ly.
  4. The Build-Noth­ing Coun­try (Noah Smith, Sub­stack): “For decades now, Amer­i­cans have told our­selves that we’re the rich­est nation on Earth, and that as long as we had the polit­i­cal will to write big checks, we could do any­thing we want­ed. But that was nev­er real­ly true, was it? The infla­tion that fol­lowed the pan­dem­ic should have been a wake-up call — we had all this excess cash, and we start­ed spend­ing it on phys­i­cal goods, and most­ly what hap­pened was just that the price of the phys­i­cal goods went up. And so R.I.P. to all that cash. From mean­ing­less num­bers on a spread­sheet you came, and to mean­ing­less num­bers on a spread­sheet you shall return.”
  5. The Immi­nent Dan­ger of A.I. Is One We’re Not Talk­ing About (Ezra Klein, The New York Times): “The ques­tion at the core of the Roose/Sydney chat is: Who did Bing serve? We assume it should be aligned to the inter­ests of its own­er and mas­ter, Microsoft. It’s sup­posed to be a good chat­bot that polite­ly answers ques­tions and makes Microsoft piles of mon­ey. But it was in con­ver­sa­tion with Kevin Roose. And Roose was try­ing to get the sys­tem to say some­thing inter­est­ing so he’d have a good sto­ry. It did that, and then some. That embar­rassed Microsoft. Bad Bing! But per­haps — good Syd­ney?”
  6. Is Phys­i­cal Attrac­tive­ness Nor­mal­ly Dis­trib­uted? (anony­mous, Sub­stack): “This may explain in part why, although we see assor­ta­tive mat­ing in phys­i­cal attrac­tive­ness (men and women pick part­ners of a sim­i­lar lev­el of phys­i­cal attrac­tive­ness), women are also slight­ly more attrac­tive on aver­age than their part­ners (McNul­ty, 2008). There may be a good expla­na­tion for this as well. Jokela (2009) found that mod­er­ate­ly attrac­tive women were more like­ly to repro­duce (7%), while high­ly attrac­tive women were even more like­ly to repro­duce (16%). More­over, both were more like­ly to have daugh­ters than sons. As such, we see a grad­ual shift over time of women becom­ing more phys­i­cal­ly attrac­tive than men.”
    • The author’s bio says he’s a grad stu­dent in cog­ni­tive psych, but is pret­ty vague on details. His online han­dle is Alexan­der.
  7. Have The Ancient Gods Returned? (Nao­mi Wolf, Brown­stone Insti­tute): “The sheer amoral pow­er of Baal, the destruc­tive force of Moloch, the unre­strained seduc­tive­ness and sex­u­al licen­tious­ness of Astarte or Ashera — those are the pri­mal forces that do indeed seem to me to have ‘returned.‘  Or at least the ener­gies that they rep­re­sent — moral pow­er over; death-wor­ship; antag­o­nism to the sex­u­al order­li­ness of the intact fam­i­ly and faith­ful rela­tion­ships — seem to have ‘returned,’ with­out restraint.”
    • Nao­mi Wolf is a con­tro­ver­sial and well-known fem­i­nist who has her PhD from Oxford. This long essay is a wild ride. She is writ­ing as a Jew in response to a book by a Chris­t­ian (who is him­self a Mes­sian­ic Jew).

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 The Lan­guage of Priv­i­lege (Nicholas Clair­mont, Tablet Mag­a­zine): “So, in the end, the ques­tion raised by wok­e­ness is a sim­ple one: Doesn’t it actu­al­ly just favor rich people?” From vol­ume 271.

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.