Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
...the internet is killing us...
James White
Alongside working through final papers, I have listened extensively to James White in some of his youtube debates with Catholics, Muslims and Mormons. It has been both refreshing and shocking, the former because it is good to be strengthened by sound and consistent argumentation, the latter because of how poorly everyone else seems to do this. God has certainly gifted White, and I desire to imitate his humility, courage, and rigour.
Scholarship?
In pondering some of the shocking argumentation (or lack of it) presented by many of White's opponents, two things dawned on me:
1. Cross examination is a helpful way of discussing and debating.
-It allows people to fully articulate a point without being interrupted.
-It allows for direct questions (yes/no), which helps to uncover the structure of a person's argument. Direct answers to these questions are frequently avoided, and I used to think that this was because the system of questioning was stupid, and people simply did not want to be misrepresented. However, I realize now that this is simply false: you can answer yes or no. If you watch some of White's debates it is interesting to note that during Cross-Examination he first quotes something, and then uses a branding phrase like "is it your position that..."
-It forces people to examine their own statements, and thus is helpful in reshaping the way we speak (which is often like shooting from the hip).
-I have had the great joy of being involved with a community of people who come over to my place every week to study Timothy. There is no question in my mind that God speaks to us through his word. Much of what we do when interacting with the text is this sort of examination - studying the text, making assertions, defending those assertions, and applying them.
2. Scholarship and Discipline
-You are more likely to be quoted than read.
-Many people are amazing at linking and alluding, but poor at knowing. Knowing requires one to engage with material beyond the catch phrase and the outline.
-Who cares about research anymore? We have wikipedia!
Be willing to engage with the best arguments the other side provides. I am surprised by how often people misunderstand and misquote one another. Whatever happened to listening carefully? When you seek to help your opponent find and articulate the best argument they possibly can you have won the debate.
If you are able to do this you have revealed that your intentions are not wrapped up in the debate itself, but in the person you are speaking with. Furthermore, if you can articulate the opponents argument so that they exclaim "that's exactly what I mean" you are 3/4 of the way toward answering that person's objections: they will listen to you now!
Finally, if you are able to understand their argument to the extent that they exclaim in this way, you already know how to deal with it. For you wouldn't understand their perspective with that kind of clarity and still hold to your position without having a reason for doing so. The trick is, you have to go out on a limb and really understand what your opponent is saying - not just the words - but the reason they are asking the questions they ask. And that takes faith - faith that God is who he says he is, and his words are trustworthy. So study hard!
-al'Ander
ps. 1 more paper to go!
Alongside working through final papers, I have listened extensively to James White in some of his youtube debates with Catholics, Muslims and Mormons. It has been both refreshing and shocking, the former because it is good to be strengthened by sound and consistent argumentation, the latter because of how poorly everyone else seems to do this. God has certainly gifted White, and I desire to imitate his humility, courage, and rigour.
Scholarship?
In pondering some of the shocking argumentation (or lack of it) presented by many of White's opponents, two things dawned on me:
1. Cross examination is a helpful way of discussing and debating.
-It allows people to fully articulate a point without being interrupted.
-It allows for direct questions (yes/no), which helps to uncover the structure of a person's argument. Direct answers to these questions are frequently avoided, and I used to think that this was because the system of questioning was stupid, and people simply did not want to be misrepresented. However, I realize now that this is simply false: you can answer yes or no. If you watch some of White's debates it is interesting to note that during Cross-Examination he first quotes something, and then uses a branding phrase like "is it your position that..."
-It forces people to examine their own statements, and thus is helpful in reshaping the way we speak (which is often like shooting from the hip).
-I have had the great joy of being involved with a community of people who come over to my place every week to study Timothy. There is no question in my mind that God speaks to us through his word. Much of what we do when interacting with the text is this sort of examination - studying the text, making assertions, defending those assertions, and applying them.
2. Scholarship and Discipline
-You are more likely to be quoted than read.
-Many people are amazing at linking and alluding, but poor at knowing. Knowing requires one to engage with material beyond the catch phrase and the outline.
-Who cares about research anymore? We have wikipedia!
Be willing to engage with the best arguments the other side provides. I am surprised by how often people misunderstand and misquote one another. Whatever happened to listening carefully? When you seek to help your opponent find and articulate the best argument they possibly can you have won the debate.
If you are able to do this you have revealed that your intentions are not wrapped up in the debate itself, but in the person you are speaking with. Furthermore, if you can articulate the opponents argument so that they exclaim "that's exactly what I mean" you are 3/4 of the way toward answering that person's objections: they will listen to you now!
Finally, if you are able to understand their argument to the extent that they exclaim in this way, you already know how to deal with it. For you wouldn't understand their perspective with that kind of clarity and still hold to your position without having a reason for doing so. The trick is, you have to go out on a limb and really understand what your opponent is saying - not just the words - but the reason they are asking the questions they ask. And that takes faith - faith that God is who he says he is, and his words are trustworthy. So study hard!
-al'Ander
ps. 1 more paper to go!
Sunday, April 06, 2008
1 down 5 to go!
My paper on Scott and Byron is complete. That leaves:
1. Herbert
2. Shakespeare
3. ENG 2000 Critique
4. Latin Exam
5. Philosophy Exam
Pray dear reader!
1. Herbert
2. Shakespeare
3. ENG 2000 Critique
4. Latin Exam
5. Philosophy Exam
Pray dear reader!
Friday, April 04, 2008
The Bridge
He spanned with stone my heart,
but I preferred to swim and dine
‘midst sweet, cold fluid time,
which ‘tween us lingered by his art.
I often jumped from high
upon the solid homeward path.
Scarce ten more steps to die,
yet I leapt, fell, plunged and bathed.
Then, with a perfect dive,
(which finds its value in the fall)
He deeply drank the wall
of water keeping me alive.
“My wine is much better,”
he said, urging me ‘cross the stone.
“I won’t be a debtor,”
I cried, petrified, now alone.
As the water was drained
my anger to the bridge soon flew.
That he heard me, I knew:
he pulled me up, screaming and chained.
-the bard
This poem came to me as I sat by a window on the third floor of the library at Trent overlooking the river, and the bridge which spans the east and west banks of Symons Campus. It is my attempt to emulate two things from the poetry of George Herbert. The first is his mixing and cycling of metaphors, and the second is his ability to leave things unresolved.
but I preferred to swim and dine
‘midst sweet, cold fluid time,
which ‘tween us lingered by his art.
I often jumped from high
upon the solid homeward path.
Scarce ten more steps to die,
yet I leapt, fell, plunged and bathed.
Then, with a perfect dive,
(which finds its value in the fall)
He deeply drank the wall
of water keeping me alive.
“My wine is much better,”
he said, urging me ‘cross the stone.
“I won’t be a debtor,”
I cried, petrified, now alone.
As the water was drained
my anger to the bridge soon flew.
That he heard me, I knew:
he pulled me up, screaming and chained.
-the bard
This poem came to me as I sat by a window on the third floor of the library at Trent overlooking the river, and the bridge which spans the east and west banks of Symons Campus. It is my attempt to emulate two things from the poetry of George Herbert. The first is his mixing and cycling of metaphors, and the second is his ability to leave things unresolved.
the bell has almost rung
Here is what is left on my scholastic chopping block:
1. Scott/Byron paper on Landscape painting through poetry
-ENG 4253h (today)
2. An analysis of George Herbert's use of the 'stone' image
-ENG 4153h (wednesday)
3. Critique of Professor's Presentations on Macumba
-ENG 2000 (thursday)
4. Shakespeare's Revisitation of MND in the Tempest
-ENG 4150 (thursday)
5. Latin Exam (saturday)
6. Philosophy 310 Exam (tuesday)
And then... B.A.
1. Scott/Byron paper on Landscape painting through poetry
-ENG 4253h (today)
2. An analysis of George Herbert's use of the 'stone' image
-ENG 4153h (wednesday)
3. Critique of Professor's Presentations on Macumba
-ENG 2000 (thursday)
4. Shakespeare's Revisitation of MND in the Tempest
-ENG 4150 (thursday)
5. Latin Exam (saturday)
6. Philosophy 310 Exam (tuesday)
And then... B.A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
