Mind map of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3

I've been working on this for awhile, and I'm still not finished, but this really makes it much easier to see the chiastic structure of the Gen 1:1 - 2:3. 

For those of you who aren't familiar with the term, a chiasm as a parallel structure in which ideas are presented in sandwiched form; ie: ABCDDCBA). You can see this structure in the overall creation account and also within many of the individual creative days.

http://www.xmind.net/share/spookysquirrel/creation/

Synapse overproduction and selection

Initial brain development in animals occurs by overproducing synapses and then pruning away those that aren't used. This allows for maximal flexibility and adaptation to the environment. For example, if one eye is damaged at birth, the other eye will get more synaptic connections, and the damaged eye will receive fewer synaptic connections. In adults, however, new synaptic connections are built as learning occurs, rather than pruning away existing connections. 

The first kind of learning--by pruning away existing connections--enables more complete responses than the second kind. As an analogy, imagine that you are given 1,000 different shades of paint and then start a course in landscape painting. You learn to rely on certain oft-repeated colors. Those less used colors work their way to the bottom of the paint box and may eventually be thrown away altogether. Now, if you suddenly switch to still-lifes or portraiture you may find that you no longer have some colors you need, so you have to make due with less accurate colors. You have exactly what you need for the job you do most often, in this case, painting landscapes. The problem is, once the unused paints are thrown away, you no longer have them if the job changes.

That brings us to the second type of learning; that of building new synaptic connections that were lost long ago, or maybe never existed in the first place. The good news is, it can often be done. For example, an adult speaker of English can, with careful training, be taught to hear sounds in Russian that don't exist in English. Some times. 

Some things may be trained while others may not yield to training. And some things, while trainable, may not ever be mastered as well as if you had used the first way of learning. That's why most people must learn languages before puberty if they want to speak those languages without an accent. You can learn Russian or Chinese or English as an adult, but it's much more difficult to learn to speak it as fluently as you would have had you learned it as a child.

What Dog Training Can Teach Us About Following God

When training working dogs, it's important that they stay beside you when walking in public. You don't want them running and jumping on other people or charging out into oncoming traffic. Teaching them to walk beside you, with or without a leash, is necessary first and foremost for the dog's safety. But if that were the only reason, then you could just walk them on a leash all the time. That won't work for working dogs; hunting dogs, dogs to help the disabled, etc. Those dogs need to be able to go do their job and return. For that reason, they need a leash at first, but as their training progresses, the leash must disappear so they can do their job.

So it's not enough to just train them to walk with you on a leash; the dog must be trained to walk slightly behind you and to keep their eyes on you, so that when the leash is removed, they won't lose sight of you and get themselves in trouble if you make a sudden stop or turn. To train a dog to watch you continually, when you have them on a leash, you stop and switch directions at random until the dog figures out, they never know where you are going, so they have to watch you all the time.

Don't you know, when you first walk out the door and start heading towards the local park, the dog is thinking, "Oh boy! The park! The Park! THE PARK! I can't wait!!!" They begin to pull and tug at the leash to get their master to hurry up. Suddenly, the master changes directions. The dog is thinking, "Wait! That's the wrong way. You're going the wrong way, master!" He pulls and tugs, but when the master doesn't relent the dog finally gives in and goes back to walking by his master's side. Now he's thinking, "Maybe we aren't going to the park. I know! We're going to visit my friend who lives down here! My friend! My Friend! MY FRIEND!!!" He begins to pull and tug again. Until the master suddenly and inexplicably heads in another direction and the whole thing is repeated.

This process may be repeated over and over with lots of tugging and dashed hopes until the dog learns that paying attention to the master gets him places much faster than trying to tug the master to where the dog thinks they're going. The dog's goal is to get where he thinks the master is leading him as quickly as possible. The real goal is to get the dog focused on his master. Once the dog reliably focuses on him and only on him, they can finally start to lose the leash, and the dog is that much closer to doing what he was truly designed to do.

Isn't that how it is with us? We think God is leading us to have a nice family and a good job, so we pursue that wholeheartedly only to have heartbreak and confusion when a spouse leaves or a job vanishes. We finally start on a new track, "Oh! God wants me to be a missionary to Uzbekistan!" so we jump in with both feet and pursue that goal. But then we get kicked out of that country and can't go back. "Why is God letting me down? I thought this is where he wanted me?"

Our misunderstanding is in thinking that because God starts us out on a path, we no longer need to look to Him for guidance. We know His ultimate destination, so we charge forward. God's goal all along, however, was to teach us to keep our eyes on Him. Once we learn that lesson we are that much closer to doing what we are truly designed to do.

Nicodemus and the Samaritan Woman

Reading Alfred Edersheim's, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, an excellent book, although challenging for modern readers. Beginning on page 284, he contrasts the story of Nicodemus in John 3 with that of the woman at the well in John 4. Such an amazing parallel, and I'd never seen it before. Here's my own compare and contrast, starting from his basis.

Nicodemus: Learned Jewish pharisee, man.

Woman: Despised (by Jews) and relatively ignorant (of Jewish law) Samaritan woman.

Nicodemus: Comes to Jesus at night planning to speak with him. He comes at night, perhaps, to hide his visit from other observers.

Woman: Comes to the well during the day not knowing he is there. She comes to this well during the day, even though it is not the closest one to Sychar--according to Edersheim--and comes alone. This was probably unusual for women of the time. Perhaps she came alone because her reputation as a "lose woman" made her a sort of outcast with the other women in her community. Although, Edersheim points out that we really don't know if her past five husbands died or that she's necessarily "living in sin" with the current man.

Nicodemus: Knows who Jesus is and seeks him out. Implies he represents others, and that they know he is "from God".

Woman: Doesn't know who he is, and Jesus speaks to her first.

Nicodemus: Misunderstands when Jesus says "unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." as "unless a person is born again...", the word, an'othen, meaning both "from above" and "again." He takes Jesus literally, posing the question, "can a man enter his mother's womb a second time?"

Woman: Misunderstands when Jesus talks about living water. "How will you get it? You have no bucket and the well is deep?" and "Give me this living water so I won't have to come to this well again and draw water." She takes him more literally, just as did Nicodemus.

Nicodemus: Jesus talks to him about being born of water and of the spirit. The language makes clear this is a single birth consisting of both water and spirit, and that it enables one to enter the kingdom of God. Nicodemus response is "how can these things be?"

Woman: Jesus talks to her about living water that gives eternal life. The woman's response is, "give it to me."

Nicodemus: His literal response and Jesus' answer is followed by a "dim search after higher meaning and spiritual reality" (Edersheim). "How can this be?"

Woman: Her followup also contains a grain of spiritual inquiry. "Are you greater than our father, Jacob?"

Nicodemus: Jesus rebukes him, and by extension the Jewish leaders of the time. "Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things?" implying that they should understand them, based on their knowledge of the scriptures. Jesus teaching to Nicodemus is at an end; Nicodemus acknowledged the miracles show Jesus is from God; Nicodemus knows the scriptures; Nicodemus still fails to accept what it means about Jesus identity.

Woman: She has no previous knowledge to go upon and Jesus answers her gently, further explaining what he means by living water, although she still doesn't grasp the spiritual import and who he is. But she wants what he has. He replies with a sign.

Nicodemus: He comes to Jesus admitting he is from God because of the miracles/signs he performed, and his background should make the truth of Jesus words and his identity as the messiah clear, yet Nicodemus and his like fail to understand and believe.

Woman: She comes knowing nothing and with no background knowledge of Jesus, yet a single sign--that of him knowing her past and present situation--is enough for her to recognize that he could be the messiah and to go and convince others to come and see.

Nicodemus: Acknowledges Jesus as a rabbi performing miraculous signs and from God, yet fails utterly to comprehend or accept his teaching.

Woman: Immediately realizes, based on the single sign, that Jesus must be, at the very least, a prophet, and asks him a nagging Samaritan question about the location of worship. His answer, combined with the sign, lead her to give real weight to his claim of being the messiah, so much so that she drops what she is doing ("the woman left her water jar") and goes to get everyone else to come and see.

This pair of stories must have clearly illustrated to John's earliest readers a stark contrast between the learned, rejecting Jewish leaders and the unlearned, accepting Others. The learned Jews reject. The Samaritans, and next a royal servant of Herod the Tetrarch, accept.

Jesus' Miracles

Witness the miracles of Jesus; the healing of the blind and sick, the raising of the dead, water into wine, the feeding of the five thousand, and on and on. Jesus is our perfect example of what we should be. He is the visible demonstration of how a son of God should act.

John 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. (NASB)

Works is "miraculous deeds" in many translations. I have healed no one. I have multiplied fishes for no one.

Is that too much to expect? Should a believer be doing such things? It seems too extreme, yet the disciples, who walked with him and finally understood, after the resurrection, what they were called to do, did similar miracles.

Moderns, seeking to explain our lack of such signs, discuss dispensations and situations; we don't perform such signs because God only causes such miracles in areas and times where it would be a sign. Industrialized cultures would quickly explain such signs away. They have studied it more than I, but it doesn't ring true to me. Surely, if a man or woman walked into a VA hospital and started pulling quadraplegics out of their wheel chairs and sending them home skipping, it would be a sign to the unbelieving. Peter's healings were so well known that the lame where set out in hopes that his shadow would fall upon them and heal them. And the Catholic saints are declared saints, in part, because they performed miracles. Missionaries and believers from some parts of the world claim that healing and casting out demons is not so uncommon. Yet, in the US at least, such healings smack of charlatanism, though I do have friends who have experienced healings first hand (though in quiet anonymity; no speaking and tongues or kissing snakes necessary).

I don't know. I do know that Jesus clearly righted wrongs, physical and spiritual, whenever he was confronted with them. He met needs; even without intention (witness the woman who touched the hem of his cloak and was healed).

I suppose I should be doing that too, wherever possible. Strangely enough, I can't recall him ever giving money to the poor, though his disciples did collect money for that purpose. We are quick to give money to help out those in need, but that seems much different than laying hands on a leper to heal them.

The Lord Saves From Every Danger

Psalm 34:19 The godly ³⁴ face many dangers, ³⁵

but the Lord saves ³⁶ them ³⁷ from each one of them.

34:20 He protects ³⁸ all his bones; ³⁹

not one of them is broken. ^{40 -net.bible.org}

^{What a promise. What am I to make of this?}

^{It is obvious from the Bible, from stories of the martyrs, from church history, and from personal experience that the Lord does NOT save us from "many dangers." Even the second verse alludes to Jesus brutal crucificion in which not one bone was broken, but He definitely experienced danger and violence. The Bible is full of such promises to the godly, side-by-side with examples of the godly sold into slavery, beaten, and killed.}

^{As I dig further into the actual word translated "save," I see that it means "rescue or deliver" You can't be rescued until you are well and truly in trouble. I think that this must be it. The Psalm is very much true. But it is not a promise that the godly won't experience trouble. It's a promise that they will be rescued.}

^{Again, it comes back to eternity. The child of God is not at home in this world. He is a citizen of another eternal realm with "no more sorrows, no more tears." Rescue is only a heart beat away. The killing blow is, for the child of God, the longed for entrance into our Father's saving arms.}

How the high school learning experience can set false expectations for college

Previous high school experience tells students...

• there's always a second chance
• someone will remind you of upcoming due dates
• the teacher can't give the whole class failing grades
• the student will be told exactly what's on the test
• very few tests are cumulative, so short term memory is usually sufficient (if your smart and pay attention, good grades are easy)
  
• paying adequate attention in class is usually good enough; outside studying is not required
• tests are relatively easy and fair
• tests are designed so that even the lower-achieving students can potentially pass
• there are many grades during the semester, so a few screw-ups are okay
• each question on the test will have been addressed many times, both in class and in the reading
• most of the required knowledge comes from class and one or two texts, not mostly from many different texts
• long, boring lectures are the exception
• teachers will work hard to make sure students understand what is being taught
• teachers know how to teach, most of the time
• teachers care about student progress, most of the time
• someone will help students identify which classes need to be taken and when
• someone other than the student is responsible for the student's learning
  

For these reasons, students fail to understand ...

• how difficult college can be
• how little oversight there is
• the implications of this lack of oversight
• the implications of their new personal freedom and the necessity for self-control and good habits
• the real nature of the problem (it's no longer an issue of how smart you are, but of how how much you practice good habits)
  

Technique more important than ability

Technique is often more important than skill. For example, many experiments show that ability to recall items is more related to the technique of chunking (grouping things into categories) than it is to an inherent memory capacity. Chess masters' ability to recall the placement of pieces on a chess board is far superior to that of novices IF the pieces are placed in meaningful "real game" patterns. The masters' ability is no better than the novices when the pieces are placed randomly, because the masters recall patterns rather than individual pieces (Chase and Simon, 1973). In addition, children who are taught techniques for accomplishing a given task can often outperform adults who don't know the techniques. Teaching people how to learn is, by extension, more important than their basic intelligence.

Intelligent Design not a scientific theory (response)

Read the previous post and excellent comment first, or you'll be lost.

First, thanks so much for your well-reasoned and thoughtful response.

>Anonymous wrote...
1) I don't think you understand what "testing" ID would involve and why it cannot be done. The issue is that a hypothetical designer could do anything: make anything look like anything. Thus there is no way to _disconfirm_ the idea since anything at all can confirm or disconfirm it. Theories are only testible when they are limited in scope, and ID by definition has no limits and those no distinguishing characteristics.

I agree that the basic question of whether or not there was/is an intelligent designer is not falsifiable (not testable) in the strict scientific sense (cf. Karl Popper). Macro evolution--all new species arise from prior species through descent with variation--is a potentially falsifiable theory. One would only have to show one case in which a new species arose without benefit of evolutionary change; how to actually prove such a thing occurred is problematic however. On the other hand, to falsify intelligent design one would have to show at least one instance in which something was not designed, but arose without a designer, and how can one do that if the designer's involvement in such a process isn't verifiable? All that to say, "I understand your point, and I agree if we are treating theory in the strict scientific sense." But that's a big if.

When scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, et al. talk about the theory of evolution they tend to lump the initial, unfalsifiable, non-scientific axiom in with the falsifiable scientific theory. To say it another way, it's sleight-of-mouth when they speak of the "theory of evolution," yet include the non-theoretical assumption of naturalism. Granted, that's not the fault of the Wired letter writer. He/she was correct in the strict sense, but the theory of evolution (as it's treated in the political controversy and in the Wired article to which the letter writer was referring) is not a theory in the strict sense because of the appended axiom of naturalism.

We should be comparing apples to apples. The real choice is not between the theory of evolution (falsifiable theory) and intelligent design (unfalsifiable axiom), it is between intelligent design (unfalsifiable axiom) and naturalism (unfalsifiable axiom). I'm using "naturalism" in the sense that everything is the result of natural processes, without reference to any supernatural intervention. Both are unfalsifiable, and therefore, unaddressable by scientific methods (again, using Karl Popper's clarifications).

Either initial assumption--ID or naturalism--would allow us to postulate and test the theory of evolution. I've heard people say that, "science is the process of finding out how God works in the natural world." The axiom is "God designs nature." When an evolutionary biologist says something to the effect that God had nothing to do with it, it is all the result of natural processes the axiom is "only nature, not God." So one could start with the assumption that God creates/designs nature and evolution is the natural process by which new species arise. The theory of evolution says nothing whatsoever about the initial axiom. BUT, that's not how people use the term "the theory of evolution." That's not how Gould or Dawkins or the Wired article--and by extension, the respondent--use the term.

The real issue for me is, how can we decide between those two axioms?

Anonymous wrote...
2) Speciation and evolutionary modification are very much testable. I think
you are laboring under the misunderstanding that tests on historical claims
can only be done by repeating history, but this is not the case. We test the
past by testing the evidence the past leaves behind: the direct implications
various events have for leaving behind this or that piece of evidence. All
science, in fact, works like this: all we EVER have is more or less evidence
supporting some claim via induction and inference.

I understand the difference between legal-historical proof and scientific proof. I must disagree with your statement that, "all science, in fact, works like this." Scientific proofs do not work like this. Legal-historical proofs work like this. And as I said previously, the value of science itself is not open to scientific testing, anymore than claims about an intelligent designer or naturalism. Based on your next sentence, you would appear to agree (?).

Anonymous wrote...
3) Science is indeed built on untestable assumptions. But these assumptions
are rather special: they are axiomatic, the very assumptions we ALL require
to act and function within the physical world. Merely by reading and
responding to my words, you concede those assumptions, as you do every time
you move and act in the physical world. So they are givens, not the sorts of
special additional claims that people make for their pet theories.

I suppose I've responded to much of this already. I agree that we all require such axioms and we tacitly concede them every time we act. The question is, which axiom is true (if either)?

In summary, I agree with you and the Wired respondent if you are talking about the theory of evolution in the strict sense WITHOUT the inclusion of naturalism as an explanatory cause. But if we include the explanatory axiom in the term "theory of evolution" (as is done in the national debate, in Dawkin's and Gould's and others' writings, and in what most people mean when they say "theory of evolution"), then they are not talking about a scientific theory at all. They are talking about a belief system more akin to religion, that is, it is based on faith in an initial, unprovable axiom. That being the case, what separates the naturalist scientist from the intelligent design scientist?

Intelligent Design not a scientific theory

Wired Magazine (Start, Atlas, issue 15.05) recently published an article, "May the best theory survive," about the "theory that life was created by a higher intelligence," also known as Intelligent Design theory. The letters to the editor in the following issue contained this reader response; "A scientific theory must be able to make predictions that can be tested by experiment. Intelligent design cannot do this, so it is not a scientific theory."

Several problems arise from such a stance. First, the theory of intelligent design can be tested. Second, testability has never stopped scientists from deriving theories, nor should it. Finally, science is itself built on fundamentally untestable assumptions.

The theory of intelligent design can certainly be tested. We could stand on a hilltop and cry out for such a designer to show himself. Many have done just such an experiment, but, sadly, the results have been mixed. We could hypothesize that if an item--say a Galapagos finch or a book about the origin of species--were created by an intelligent designer it would carry the hallmarks of such design, such as a structure of sufficient informational complexity as to make random processes extremely unlikely explanations for it's existence. If you cannot test the finch in such a manner, you cannot test the book. Not seeing the informational complexity inherent in a finch as evidence of intelligent design requires an a priori belief that there must be some other explanation. If we assumed that authors were a myth, we would similarly have to preclude authorship as a plausible method of accounting for the contents of The Descent of Man, by Charles Darwin (or is it).

The mention of Darwin, that fairy tale character for the masses, leads nicely into the second point; namely, a lack of testability has never stymied theorizing by scientists. Darwin had no way of testing a theory of new species arising by evolutionary modification (although testing natural selection was easy enough). Modern scientists, for that matter, cannot test such a theory. They can only offer compelling evidence that new species do arise from other species, but how is that different from the intelligent design crowd? If you start with the assumption that there is no intelligent designer, the evolutionary explanation seems to be the only game in town. If you don't start with such an assumption, other explanations may seem more likely. But both start with an initial assumption. Which leads us to point number three.

Science itself is built on fundamentally untestable assumptions. Science hypothesizes and tests. It asks and answers. It experiments and discards. All of this is good. But one can only say it's good by drawing on untestable belief. How does one decide the value of a question or the value of its answer? For example, "Are we really better off as a species for having discovered CFCs, Mustard Gas, and the atomic bomb?" Yes or no, the answer must depend on values, and science cannot speak to values. The very fact that we consider science to be a valuable pursuit relies on a faith-based belief beyond the ken of the scientific method.

So the letter writer, it seems, was mistaken. Although he may not like the theory of intelligent design, it is, nevertheless, still a scientific theory. It is every bit as testable as more accepted scientific theories. In contrast, many scientific theories held with religious fervor by the faithful are not testable, at least not currently. Finally, science itself requires untestable assumptions to be considered as a worthwhile explanatory framework. It seems we all have our idols.

It's not the cup

A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university professor. Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life. Offering his guests coffee, the professor went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups (porcelain, plastic, glass, crystal, some plain looking, some expensive, some exquisite) telling them to help themselves to the coffee.

When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the professor said: "If you noticed, all the nice looking expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. Be assured that the cup itself adds no quality to the coffee. In most cases it is just more expensive and in some cases even hides what we drink. What all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the best cups . . . and then you began eyeing each other's cups.

Now consider this: Life is the coffee; the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, and the type of cup we have does not define, nor change, the quality of Life we live. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee God has provided us."

God brews the coffee, not the cups. . . Enjoy your Coffee! "The happiest people don't have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything. " Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. . . Leave the rest to God.

-from an email I was sent

Breathing Photo

Look around the picture and notice how it seems to bulge and breath.

clipped from haha.nu

Gorgeous Photo from Western California

clipped from www.outdoor-photos.com

Mission Statement

Mission statements take a million different forms and identify hundreds of different values and character traits from Ben Franklins frugality and cleanliness to Gandhi's refusal to fear any man to Bombeck's pursuit of less uptightness and more stop-and-smell-the-roses, to name a few famous examples. The efficiency gurus now in vogue would have us believe that such mission statements are a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

Most missions seem to emphasize values while ignoring morals or wisdom (not that I think the people listed above were guilty of such an oversight). To make this clear, imagine the mission statement of someone you most patently do NOT admire; a hated politico, a monsterous mad man from history's vast pantheon, even a fictional fiend from Hollywood or the Brothers Grimm. Could your archetype of ignobility write a mission statement with values like industriousness, creativity, health, and self-improvement? Probably. And such a set of goals and values would have only made them more effective at doing that for which you despise them.

Let us, then, pursue morals and wisdom, you may reply. I agree, but whose morals and what wisdom? How do we correctly identify the correct morals and obtain true wisdom. The followers of every charismatic killer in history have pursued morals and wisdom of a sort the rest of the world decries.

Warning sign I saw on the back of an 18 wheeler

Caution! Show Chickens.

I really saw this. What, exactly, are we to be cautious of?
"Look out! That one has a gun!"

This guy takes some great pictures...

See more of Adam Clutterbuck's photography here.

Redneck lottery winner

Apologies to my extended family.

The (Ontological ) Naturalist's Paradox

This is an expansion on one of my earlier posts...

An ontological naturalist is someone who believes that nature is all that there is. They may (but often don't) believe in God, ghosts, gods, etc., but if they do believe in these entities then they consider them a part of nature. They aren't truly supernatural (super=above, beyond; natural=nature, the cause and effect universe). Many scientists and most atheists would qualify as ontological naturalists.

The following is a logical syllogism that illustrates why being an ontological naturalist is an illogical stance.

IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE logical thinking (and, by extension, this syllogism) has no more value than any other random occurrence.

It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.

In Response

This is in response to the post below. Read that one first or you'll be lost.

As I understand you there are three reasons you feel that this particular book is justified as a required reading for your AP European History students.

1. They are mature enough
2. Other teachers also require it
3. The objectionable material the book covers is both true and relevant

My reason for opposing the book as required reading is that some of the content is objectionable, and while I don't advocate banning the book I also don't think anyone should be made to consider such content in order to satisfy an educational requirement. If they do not object--and you indicated that neither your students, their parents, or the school authorities seem to do so--then I believe it to be permissable.

(I will note, however, that while it must be permissable--we live in a free society, after all--I do not think it beneficial. Thoughts, ideas, and imaginings have real consequences that affect us all, and in my opinion, the too-candid descriptions in this book could be particularly harmful. Admittedly, this point rests on my personal opinion, and is, therefore, of no more or less import than anyone elses.)

To address your first point, maturity is not an issue, at least as far as I'm concerned. I would object equally if you required this reading of my grandmother (or yours, for that matter). I object to anyone being required to read such things.

Secondly, whether or not other teachers use the book in similar ways may help justify the action in the arena of public opinion. It does not, however, have any more significance than that. It's the same problem I've always had with ethics. Just because everyone agrees on a wrong action doesn't make it a right action. Morality is independent of opinion (that's a whole different discussion, I know.)

Finally, your last and most important point; that the material is both true and relevant. This point makes the most sense to me. I can't say whether or not it's true, but I really wouldn't be surprised if it were, and I trust your judgment and scholarship on this more than my own. Your case for its relevance to your subject is also convincing, although I think that the subject could be handled with more delicacy without sacrificing its effectiveness. The question to me is whether or not the truth and relevance of the information to the subject justifies its being required reading.

To clarify this, I must explain my exact objection more clearly. First, thoughts have real consequences. Second, a thought can't be unthought. Finally, communicating the thought successfully to another causes the thought to become an irrevocable part of him or her.

As to my first assertion, thinking a thought has physical consequences. At the very minimum it subtly rewires our brain, strengthening or weakening synaptic connections. At the other extreme, a thought can be the initial step in changes to the entire world, for our benefit or harm. Atomic bombs and solar cells both began as thoughts in someones' minds. Without the thoughts, neither would exist, nor would the consequences.

Second, a thought, once introduced into the mind, can never be fully erased. Although the thought may be forgotten, for a time it influenced other thoughts and actions, and therefore changed the thinker, for better or worse.

Finally, once I've successfully communicated a thought to you, you've thought it. If I write "pink polar bear," its too late for you to decide you didn't want to think about a pink polar bear. The thought is yours now, whether you wanted it or not. And what if the thought is not as innocuous as a pink polar bear. What if it's a truly horrible thought that will change your life forever in ways you never wanted. Genie back in the bottle, Pandora's Box, etc.

This brings me back to your final point about the truth and relevance of the passages in this book being sufficient justification for it being required reading. I think the real disagreement boils down to just how damaging we imagine the thoughts raised by the book to be. You consider the pungent descriptions of the exact nature of the Church's sexual misconduct to be so beneficial to your students' understanding of history that it outweighs the consequences of introducing the thoughts in the first place. I disagree.

So we are at an impasse. How can either of us prove that our opinion is correct?

So far, so good?

What Crosses the Line?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.