What is being human?

(Below is a pro-life poem I've had in my head for a little while. I wrote it out today. The plan is for it to accompany a drawing, but I'm not sure what I think about the poem. I've never been one for writing poetry, because I have a hard time keeping it from sounding contrived and melodramatic. In an attempt to cut out wordiness, I didn't write out complete thoughts, but I don't know if this makes it poetic or just...weird and incomprehensible. I'd appreciate all suggestions as well as answers to any of these questions: 1) Do you understand the point I'm making? 2) Do I need to be more clear about the parenthetical statements? 3) It is melodramatic? 4) Does the "argument" make sense? 5) Is it artistically appealing--or just artistically annoying? 6) Are there too many "big" words in line 8? 7) What would you do differently?




What Is Being Human?


Is it…
Seeing?
Hearing?
Tasting?
Smelling?
Feeling?
Talking?
(Blindness, Deafness, Ageusia, Anosmia,
Paraylysis, Muteness)


Is it independence in…
Choosing?
Breathing?
Eating?
(Infants, Life Support, Feeding Tubes)

Is it a measure of…
Intelligence?
Control?
Rationality?
(Down’s Syndrome, OCD, Schizophrenia)

Is it being…
The right size?
The right color?
The right shape?
(Holocaust)

Or is it…
Growing?
Living?
A heartbeat?
A soul?




No.


Being human…
Is being wanted.


Being unwanted is being non-human.





(Thanks, y'all!)
  • engelishgentleman
    1. I think I understand...though, if I didn't...I wouldn't be able to tell... Well, the meaning I take is that you list all these things that could be said to be part of being human, but at the end you point out that those in favor of abortions ignore all those things, reject all those possibilities, and decide that if you're not wanted, you don't count as human. That's how I read it.

    2. The parenthetical statements: Liked how they got shorter and shorter until there wasn't one after the last, um, stanza, I guess; just kind of a neat structure. I'm not 100% sure on what you were going for with them. Got kind of a vague sense of how they flow along: you list some things that might be associated with being "human," then in parentheses list the absence of those things, each cases where no one would say the absence of X makes one non-human.

    3. No. Not at all.

    4. This is closely connected with #1. If I understood number one correctly, then you're highlighting an irony or incongruity about attitudes towards personhood (none of these things that seem like they should matter to person actually do matter to pro-abortionists: they've reduced being considered human to whether or not a baby happens to be wanted), and it seems reasonable enough to me. No logical fallacies jumping out at me or anything. :-)

    5. As partially hinted by my response to #2, I think it's artistically appealing. Very minor nitpick is the uneven number of returns between different sections (since sometimes part of poem is how you see the thoughts on the page). I like it. Especially given the relatively loose definitions, and variety of definitions, of "poetry," I certainly find this poetic.

    6. I've never heard of ageusia or anosmia...for what that's worth.

    7. Oh...that's a tough question. Not sure. Might change the word "soul," in the fifth section. As you know well from Hebrew and Greek, "soul" usually gets translated from word that means "life." On the other, it often gets used (especially in English) to refer what I think the Bible more often means by "spirit," the essence of someone's being. I don't know if you meant "soul" in the sense of "life-force," or in the sense of "immortal spirit in the image of God." Or perhaps you deliberately used "soul" for its ambiguity. Since you already used "living" earlier in that stanza, you may not have meant "life." Perhaps I'm overanalyzing it all... Hard to think what else to change without knowing for sure what you intend it to mean.

    Hope this helps. I definitely like this.
    by engelishgentleman at 02/13/10 2:31PM
  • dominic
    In short, I very much like the poem. I will probably repeat what Jon said, largely, but understand that this is still an independent opinion.

    1.) I think your point is that in reality being human is being a living soul, but that for many it is simply whether or not you are wanted, as is demonstrated by your list of excuses people use that in principle they know do not actually disqualify someone from being a human.

    2.) I think the purpose of the parentheses is immediately clear: to give examples of humans who do not have the qualities listed, but who are no less human.

    3.) I don't think its melodramatic.

    4.) I think the argument does make sense. You can strip many things away from a human and she will still be a human, but the one thing you cannot strip away and still have a human is an embodied spirit (which is neatly pointed out by the lack of a parenthesis here). This is why it is so wrong to strip this away from the unborn merely because they are unwanted.

    5.) I think it is artistically appealing. Like Jon said, the structure is great. Q's/parentheses in decreasing length, Q's/no parenthesis, sort of a pause, and then the point. The only thing I would critique artistically (though I wouldn't say it was annoying) is the use of the Holocaust. While obviously, in its own right, the Holocaust is a powerful example of your point, because of overuse and the ease of the connection, I think it loses some of its power. When I read it, I right away thought of every debate where some draws a connection the Nazi's as an easy win. I know your connection is valid, but I fear that because of the overuse and misuse, the artistic power is weakened. I don't really know what the solution would be, but maybe bringing up a more modern and less used example would do the same thing? I don't know. I'm not even sure if I'm right that its weakened.

    6.) Like Jon, I didn't know what two of those words meant, but the structure of the poem makes the meaning clear, so I don't think its a problem.

    7.) What would I do differently? I would not have written something so powerful and so beautiful, so I'm glad you did! I suffer from the same problem of my poems sounding contrived, but I do very much enjoy poetry, so thanks for posting this! I will probably read it whenever I do a sermon/class on the topic - I liked it that much.
    by dominic at 02/13/10 3:42PM
  • rapunzel
    Thanks, Jonathan! Ageusia is the inability to taste, and anosmia is the inability to smell--both are medical conditions that some otherwise completely normal being suffer from. As you caught on, the parentheticals are supposed to provide examples of people who cant ____(fill-in-the-blank) but are still considered human. No one would claim that someone who can't smell is nonhuman.

    Not sure what you meant by your nitpick--"uneven number of returns"?

    I had trouble coming up with a few of the parentheticals, like someone who has no or little choice--all I could think of was an infant or someone on life support, but I used life support as another one. I didn't really like the use of infant, because, frankly, we're discussing infants, the only difference being how much they've grown and whether they're in or outside the womb.

    Thanks again for your kind comments.
    by rapunzel at 02/13/10 3:43PM
  • dominic
    Ok, so one of my sentences was incoherent. I meant to say: "When I read it, I right away thought of every debate where someone draws a connection to the Nazi's to get an easy win."
    by dominic at 02/13/10 3:50PM
  • engelishgentleman
    Sorry. I meant the number of spaces, blank lines, between sections (at different points you have anywhere from one to four spaces, and, and minor as that is, it sort of threw me off. Not that you can't have such variations in space, just make sure it's deliberate, for emphasis).

    I thought the "(infants, life support, feeding tubes)" parenthetical was nice because in my mind I see it covering the entire lifespan, from very young to very old. Alzheimer's might be another possibility that I can think of if you don't care for "infant."
    by engelishgentleman at 02/13/10 3:57PM
  • slave_of_jesus_jdb
    I like.
    by slave_of_jesus_jdb at 02/13/10 6:49PM
  • rapunzel
    Thanks for your comments, Dominic. Yeah, I wasn't sure what to do about "Holocaust." I wanted one word that would show that we realize color, size, shape doesn't matter. The first one I thought of was "Arianism," but in all the other parentheticals, the adjectives describes the people who can't talk, make choices, etc., so I didn't think it would work to suddenly switch the last parenthetical adjective to describing the one who's discriminating. I see what you mean, and have been trying to think of possible alternatives. Thanks for your # 7 comment! Please feel free to use the poem if you ever think it will be useful as a sermon/class/whatever illustration.

    by rapunzel at 02/13/10 8:07PM
  • thearteest
    I'm still trying to figure out watercolors myself :)

    I like the poem - having had debates over abortion with some rather liberal-minded people at work, it boggles my mind that people think that an unborn baby is just "potential for life" (Hillary Clinton).
    by thearteest at 02/14/10 1:28PM
  • engelishgentleman
    Regarding use "Holocaust," could you make it generic just by saying "genocide?" Or that too..."overused," too?
    by engelishgentleman at 02/14/10 6:04PM
  • bucsfan
    I do like this poem. :) I'll re-read it again (urr, redundancy!).
    by bucsfan at 02/14/10 9:54PM
  • dwatkins
    reductio ad Hitlerum?
    by dwatkins at 02/15/10 10:36AM
  • rosesandtherain
    *these comments are on the structure of the poem, not content*

    i think to answer your own question in such a direct format makes it loose a little of it's impact. Many times in poetry the reader is left to themselves to decide. Just something to think about. I didn't quite like the parentheses. You might want to try actually working them in as part of the poem instead of sort of separating them out.
    You have a pretty compelling topic, which is good.
    by rosesandtherain at 02/27/10 12:07PM
  • karileeresto
    Good poem!
    by karileeresto at 03/04/10 11:01AM

Raise your hand if you know who John Dickinson was. Anybody?

So who knows who John Dickinson was? Until two months ago, I only knew him as "the guy who refused to sign the Declaration of Independence." Sadly, most of what I knew about him was from [cringe] the musical "1776," which portrays him as a greedy plantation owner.

After researching and writing a 25-page paper on him, I learned he played a key role in the development of prewar revolutionary thought. Because of his writings and political service, he became hugely popular, known as "The Foremost Patriot," the Penman of the Revolution, and Samuel Adams even called him a "True Bostonian" (if you know anything about Adams, you know that's a huge compliment).

When Thomas Jefferson put forward the Declaration of Independence, Dickinson objected to it, not because he disagreed with the concept of revolution, but because he thought it was too soon. Declaring independence in 1776 would destroy the colonies, he said. Unfortunately for Dickinson, he was in the minority--and he knew it. Despite this, he felt compelled to voice his opinion, as "silence would be guilt." When he rose from his seat in Congress on 1 July 1776 to object to the Declaration, he said, "My conduct this day, I expect, will give the finishing blow to my once great...and now too diminished popularity."

He was right. Even though he was a Founding Father, few Americans today know who he was. Those who do know, know of him only as "the man who didn't sign the Declaration." We admire the signers of the Declaration because they were sacrificing their lives. Dickinson--who joined the Continental Army a week after refusing to sign--sacrificed not only his life, but his reputation.

I enjoyed my Theory & Methods class. In it, we discussed the reason why we study history. The professor said studying history must be more than just hobby. It's not about enjoying stories. It's not about memorizing all the facts. It's about studying what was, so we can learn what ought to be. He is thinking in the broad scale of nations and continents. It's a noble aspiration, one I'm trying to adopt, but...I'm afraid I've always studied history for a more selfish reason. I study it so I can learn who those people were, so I can better understand what sort of person I ought to be.

I learned a lot from studying Dickinson.
  • engelishgentleman
    I think your reasons for studying history are just fine. :-) And I still want to read your Dickinson paper.
    by engelishgentleman at 12/10/09 7:11AM
  • ominie
    *raising hand*
    by ominie at 12/10/09 8:15AM
  • runaweasgood
    *raises hand* My history text book didn't talk alot about John Dickenson, but I remember thinking at the time how brave he must have been as a person to hold such a view and stand for it even when in the minority.
    by runaweasgood at 12/10/09 8:28AM
  • thepoeticmadman
    *raises hand* Hah! I told you that writing about Dickenson would be the more interesting topic!
    by thepoeticmadman at 12/10/09 11:01AM
  • rapunzel
    Jared, you were right. I mean, c'mon, everyone knows who Thomas Jefferson was.
    by rapunzel at 12/10/09 11:18AM
  • franky_g
    It's sounds like you're in really cool place. Sadly, my history only goes as far as Dr. Crispel.
    by franky_g at 12/10/09 10:50PM
  • essie
    This is the white bear who never stopped smiling.
    Photobucket
    by essie at 12/12/09 12:39AM
  • kitkat
    I'm so glad grad school hasn't killed your love of history!!!
    by kitkat at 12/12/09 11:02PM
  • bucsfan
    *raises hand* Didn't he write "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania"? =)
    by bucsfan at 12/13/09 8:25AM
  • preciousgoldring
    Interesting post! Thanks for sharing!
    by preciousgoldring at 12/13/09 12:27PM
  • bucsfan
    I can't claim too much, because it was in my U.S. History book. I have to admit, though, before I took this History course, I viewed John Dickinson as quite one-dimensional.
    by bucsfan at 12/14/09 9:06AM
  • bucsfan
    Have you ever heard of Bob Jones? That's the curriculum I'm using. It's very good-- they used to have live classes (high school math, science, and language) broadcast on satellite, but now they have switched over to DVDs and the Internet.
    by bucsfan at 12/14/09 9:23AM
  • slave_of_jesus_jdb
    Thanks, Caroline, that was good to know.
    by slave_of_jesus_jdb at 12/14/09 8:09PM
  • rosesandtherain
    I don't think i'd eve heard of him, until now. Thanks for the lesson!
    by rosesandtherain at 12/17/09 12:29AM
  • melissakae
    All of my government students were assigned "Founding Fathers" and the girl who got John Dickinson actually did a really thorough presentation on him and I learned some of this stuff from her. It's very interesting!
    by melissakae at 12/19/09 4:12PM
  • squishydaisies
    Well, I'd heard of him, but couldn't remember who he was. But now I do!!
    by squishydaisies at 12/22/09 2:54PM
  • squishydaisies
    It's funny Dr. Crispell was always asking who'd heard of such and such a person in our American History class and when no one would raise their hand, he'd threaten to get on to our history teachers. Your title reminds me of that.
    by squishydaisies at 12/22/09 2:55PM
  • engelishgentleman
    That's quite all right. :-) Though I do have some philosophical musings about media consumption more generally, I understand that not everyone will find such reviews relevant. :-)
    by engelishgentleman at 01/02/10 5:29PM
  • katanid
    Personally, I think that your reasons for studying history are far more noble than the reasoning that your professor advocates.
    by katanid at 01/07/10 5:00PM
  • karileeresto
    I think studying history is noble no matter what reason you choose to study it. Both you and the professor study history for good reasons. I used to study history for a hobby but now more and more I find myself studying history for the reason of proving this great country was indeed founded on biblical principles. The other is because of a quote I read on Ms. Rudy's wall in high school that stated "those who refuse to study history are doomed to repeat it". I too would love to read your paper.
    by karileeresto at 01/19/10 9:40AM

The Broom Closet: An Exclusive Inside Look of My Office on the Third Floor

There is something about this itty-bitty corner of the world that is my office that isn't particularly conducive to paper-writing, thus the huge, honkin' paper due Tuesday isn't any closer to being done than it was yesterday. I have a few guesses as to why this little space is so brain-numbing. The GTAs in the two offices next to mine periodically hold jam sessions, debates, and a capella concerts that consist of gross kindergarten songs I've tried to forget (You know--the ones involving bodily functions and cleaning supplies, etc.). I don't know how the professors aren't bothered by this, but they aren't. My little space doesn't really have room for me to spread my elbows beside me, much less my books, and the walls are the color of a stale coffee cake.

All that aside, this little office provides me plenty of story fodder, particularly from my two officemates, who shall remain nameless, though I'll call them Bill and Bob. They both look like absent-minded geniuses--or homeless hobos, depending on the day, their amount of sleep, and my mood.

Bill refuses to wear anything but sweatclothes, has hair to his shoulders, belches aloud, and consumes entire bags of potato chips in one fail swoop, which might lead one to think he's less than intellectually gifted, but then he nearly collapses in grief when he gets a "B" on a book review (first B he's gotten since high school). Bob is calmer, more well-kempt, but with a beard that steadily grows bushier and bushier, until one day he walked in with a face smooth as a babe's behind. Bill jumped back in his seat and cried, "Whoa! Your beard's gone." Bob replied he got tired of seeing all the gray whiskers in it. Bob recently went through a rough patch; he had too many contradictory sources for a research paper. It got him down and depressed for a while, until he finally figured out he would just make something up like all the other historians had (Can't blame him, history is more fiction than fact, it seems).

They treat me with respect, commiserate with me, and share their dried blueberries and coffee with me. Their desks are across from each other, while mine's tucked away in a corner. I sit behind my partition, listen to them debate about whether it would be cheaper to pay back the interest on their loans or remain professional students all their lives, and I smile.
  • desi
    Thanks for telling us about this little part of your life :) I hope you get that paper done soon.

    Hope you are well!
    by desi at 12/03/09 2:16PM
  • thepoeticmadman
    Hahahaha. A nice look into graduate school. You should read Phd comics! Here's a link to a funny one. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1237
    by thepoeticmadman at 12/03/09 3:20PM
  • thepoeticmadman
    http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1197
    by thepoeticmadman at 12/03/09 3:21PM
  • snoopy
    haha!! I like! :)
    by snoopy at 12/03/09 3:33PM
  • ominie
    "...the color of stale coffee cake." Haha! I like... last night I was trying to figure out how to describe the smell of a room... stale coffee came to mind :)
    by ominie at 12/03/09 5:26PM
  • engelishgentleman
    You are SUCH a good writer. You have a gifting for making things interesting!
    by engelishgentleman at 12/03/09 7:29PM
  • the_rainy_dog
    What quirky officemates! They make for a good amusement. :-)

    You might not have a magical formula, but your love and patience is even better. :-)
    by the_rainy_dog at 12/05/09 10:03AM
  • slave_of_jesus_jdb
    Yes, well written. Bravo!
    by slave_of_jesus_jdb at 12/05/09 10:25AM
  • kitkat
    You have a gifting. I always knew there was something about you. (tee hee)
    by kitkat at 12/09/09 6:04AM

a sober realization

It just now hit me how great, important, and challenging a responsibility it is to be in God's image, to be his representative. For instance, I've been fudging on my school recently. No big deal, right? I mean, I worked hard the past four years in college--I deserve a break. But, it *is* a big deal. The cat's out of the bag that I believe in Intelligent Design (not that I was trying to keep it in the bag). So now, my efforts in school reflect not just on me as a student, but as a Christian. They're watching me, to see if I'm actually intelligent, or if I'm just a whacked-out spiritualist (...Well, slight exaggeration, maybe). I don't want to be that religious person who comes across as religious just because her parents were religious, and now she's in grad school, and the only reasons she's still religious is because she hasn't been able to shake off her childhood superstitions. No, I want to be a Dr. Dickey, an intelligent, disciplined individual, who is so strong in his and yet so well-versed in all things academic that people stop and think, "Well, he's smart, and he believes in God...Maybe there's more to it than I thought."

Instead, apparently, I am the person who makes contradicting remarks in class that confuse the teacher and the other students, as they don't understand how I reconcile my own plainly stated personal beliefs with my own plainly stated scholastic beliefs.

Truthfully, I see their point--I see the contradiction in what I said. Honestly, I wasn't thinking. On top of not thoroughly understanding our assignment because I hadn't finished it (the fudging part), I had put God in a little box and history in a little box, and didn't combine the two, or see how the two related to each other, so I blurt out this half-formed idea in class, and now, whatever I say in response to their queries, I think they're going to think I'm backpeddling.

Am I?

...I don't think so. I think...there was truth in my supposedly contradictory ideas...but...I should have been better prepared. I should have been more careful of what I said, I should have been able to give a defense in class, instead of sitting there, dumbstruck, wondering how to dig myself out of this hole, and waiting nearly a whole week to respond to my professor's e-mail. I'm a little scared--scared at how large this once-underestimated responsibility is. What are they going to think of God when this dialogue is over? What they think will largely be a result of what I say to them.

Ok. I need to go to bed. I'll think better in the morning.

  • kitkat
    Don't forget that even if your faith is only as a mustard seed, God can still use that faith to move a mountain. :-)
    by kitkat at 11/18/09 7:14AM
  • engelishgentleman
    From I understand of what you said...I don't think there was, or is, a contradiction over this whole determinism thing. Others (professor) have claimed there's a contradiction, but that doesn't mean there is.

    Remember, you plant and water, but God provides the increase. You do your best with the situation with you've got (this is not is determinism!), but remember that God too has control over the result. Don't allow refuting the false charge of determinism to cause you place to more responsibility on your own shoulders than is appropriate.

    Have you managed to get your reasoning better sorted out? I'll be eager to hear your conclusion.

    Oh, and there's nothing wrong with not having an answer on this beforehand. There are SO many false ideas and false teachings and such out there...it's not possible to have thought about how to refute each and every one of them. I've never heard of anyone equating theism and determinism before, ever. That''s what doesn't make sense to me. There are dozens or hundreds of issues which, if they came in a discussion, I'd not be sure how to answer, and have to say I'll have to think about some more because not something I've ever had to consider, at least not from that angle. That that this should be the case for you...nothing wrong with that.

    I am glad, however, it might spur you to work harder at glorifying God. That's ALWAYS a good thing, whatever else happens. :-)
    by engelishgentleman at 11/18/09 7:33AM
  • dominic
    I added a comment to the post below.

    I'll be praying for you. I'm glad that you are seeking to glorify God and that the glorification of God is the motivating factor in the education you are pursuing. I think, in that already, you are glorying God.

    At the same time, you do have to remember that God is bigger than you and that even in your imperfections He will be glorified. As long as you speak a good amount of truth, it really should be enough to get an honest heart starting to look deeper for themselves.
    by dominic at 11/18/09 8:18AM
  • thepoeticmadman
    The way I see it is that you don't have to have an answer for every response. You should be willing to give every question due consideration, and the fact that you waited a week to answer the professor should not matter as long as you recognize and identify that you wanted to make sure that you understood what you actually did think before you stated something that you would have to change later. You can't think of everything anyone will ask all the time -- seriously, all you have to do is go to bible class a few times and watch a comment from Far Left Field and watch the teacher squirm to know, "Bet he never thought someone would ask that!

    And, Caroline, the fact that he asked you what you thought already means that you're making an impact.
    by thepoeticmadman at 11/18/09 11:22AM
  • rapunzel
    Thanks, y'all, for your comments. They (and a good night's sleep) have gone a long way to making me feel more positive and optimistic.
    by rapunzel at 11/18/09 1:23PM
  • muma
    Sometimes it's not what you say with words, but what you say with actions that make the most impact. I think your actions speak of a strongly committed Christian woman whose first priority is serving God. You are an inspiration to me every day!
    by muma at 11/19/09 1:10PM
  • nerdosaurus_rex
    Those who have commented above me have made some excellent, perspective-restoring points, so there's not much for me to add.
    I will tell you, though, that this semester I had a classmate who, during a presentation, made a few comments about the liturgy and practices of the Catholic Church that were a bit critical. I didn't think much of it, but the next day he sent an e-mail to the entire class apologizing for those comments; he tried to clarify what he meant and told us that he was a Catholic himself and thus was offering criticism as a concerned believer, not as a caustic outsider. I was really impressed by the fact that he 1) reflected on the potential impact of his words on our beliefs, 2) felt concerned that he might have offended or negatively influenced someone, and 3) went the extra mile in an effort to remedy the situation.
    Anyway, all that to say ... don't get trapped thinking that your chances of being a positive influence on other people hinge on just one moment. As long as you're still alive, you get to revise. :)
    by nerdosaurus_rex at 11/30/09 11:48PM
  • ominie
    It's true what Jared said... sometimes it's best to let them know that you don't have all the answers, or have even finished developing your own beliefs and opinions. I think once they realize that you are willing to re-evaluate your thoughts, they'll understand that you are sincere in trying to do what's right. It's not easy to admit that you don't know everything in a field you should know best (Christianity and the Bible), but once you do admit it, I think it helps to highlight the fact that you do know something and are still learning... as oppose to making up everything you say and do. I hope that made sense?
    by ominie at 12/01/09 6:18PM
  • ominie
    Thank you for your comments. I thought they were really sweet and they helped me to feel better :)
    by ominie at 12/01/09 6:18PM
  • ominie
    ...When I sit down to write fiction, I often think of you and get excited at the thought that you have been dabbling in it this semester, too! :)
    by ominie at 12/01/09 6:19PM
  • essie
    Maybe you SHOULD do a similar post. I was a bit bad-feeling-y about putting those journal entries up there. But I've had some nice feedback about it, and I'm curious to see what you have written.
    by essie at 02/12/10 1:02AM

Does Intelligent Design Allow for Contingency and Free Will?

In my Theory & Methods of History class, we recently "Guns, Germs, and Steel," by Jared Diamond, a New York Times bestseller that argues the view of environmental determinism. This view holds that the fates of the different races were set when they first parted ways after they evolved on the continent of Africa and went to different continents. Diamond argues that because of its climate, fertility of the soil, and lack of large prey, the Eurasian continent was responsible for the European and Asian races' evolution into farmer societies. Conversely, the American, African, and Australian continents were not as suitable for farming and did not have many domesticatable (word?) animals, thus the peoples of those continents became hunter-gatherers. Because of farmers more stable lifestyle, eventually the farmer societies dominated the world, thus leading to the U.S., the U.K., and Japan's dominance in our world today.

My professor asked what I thought of the book. I explained I believe in Intelligent Design, and thus had getting over my bias against Diamond after reading his faulty arguments for Evolution in his introductory paragraph. His fairy-tale explanations for Evolution carried into the rest of the book. I explained that I disagreed with his environmental deterministic viewpoint, and that I thought he discounted the role of culture, society, and the individual in shaping human history. I explained I didn't think the current dominant nations today are dominant because their environment thusly planned thier destiny.

The professor was confused. How could I believe in Intelligent Design and yet not believe in determinism? Doesn't the theory of Intelligent Design demand a deterministic viewpoint? He thought perhaps he misunderstood some of the basic concepts of Intelligent Design.

When I e-mailed him, asking how he defined determinism as it pertains to Intelligent Design, he repled:



"That word [intelligent design] suggests to me a structure, a structure that may be intelligently designed, but a structure nonetheless. I assumed, therefore, that the shape of the continents, the location of domesticates such as wheat, and animals such as cattle and pigs, and even the ways diseases evolved were all part of that design. I would have expected, therefore, that Diamond's deterministic approach to history would have fit within the paradigm of intelligent design.

"My skepticism of intelligent design, as I understand it (which may be quite wrong)...is that I find it leaves little room for historical contingency, for things that are unplanned and unpredictable...So while I do accept that people and other living things live within certain material constraints that to some extent determine what they can and cannot do, I also believe that accidents happen...I study people who make choices that often lead to unexpected, accidental outcomes. The determinism of Diamond doesn't leave room for choice or contingency. I assume the intelligent design doesn't either, but perhaps I am wrong and you can enlighten me on that."


I do not feel very well-equipped to enlighten him on the matter, which is disappointing to me for two reasons. First, I ought to be able to offer a good explanation (because I think there is one). Second, my professor is an intelligent and honest man and he deserves a better explanation than one I am able to give.

His questions are good. I imagine to some extent we have all shared the same questions. We've all wondered to what extent God is involved in history, what is providence and what is coincidence. This is something I had been considering recently even before my professor brought it up. It seems that we include God in history when it is convenient, and exclude him when it isn't.


I aplogize, I am need to cut this short. Well, nevermind. This post is incredibly long--it can in no ways be described as short. I will need to cut short my own explanations and disconnected thoughts on the matter because I need to get ready for church.

Jonathan, I know you've already shared your thoughts on this matter (which are good and I'm still mulling over them when I'm not working on my paper). Everyone else, I would love to know what you think. Thank you for your help.
  • engelishgentleman
    :-)
    by engelishgentleman at 11/15/09 6:12PM
  • dominic
    1. I don't see how whether or not ID leads to determinism says anything about whether or not ID is true. Even if it could be shown that ID inevitably leads to determinism that wouldn't be a good reason to be skeptical of ID, would it?

    2. I've been interested in this topic, but haven't done enough work to really speak intelligently (or think clearly) on it yet. I think the idea of compatibalism makes sense: that God can both be in control of everything even to the minutest detail and that we can still have free-will. God, by means of his middle-knowledge, could structure the world in such a way that everything He intends can come about even thought the agents He uses to do those things do so according to their own will (cf. passages like Acts 4:27-28).
    by dominic at 11/15/09 7:22PM
  • rapunzel
    You're right, Dominic--ID's determinisn has nothing to do with its truth. Just because one is troubled by the thought of determinism shouldn't deter one from conssidering the validity of ID, but I imagine to history professoer (being a history student) seems a very large and important questions, as the whole point of studying history is to discover why things happened the way they did, and how we can use this knowledge to affect our future. However, if God caused everything to happen, and will continue to cause all subsequent events to happen, then there isn't much point to studying history.
    by rapunzel at 11/15/09 8:38PM
  • dominic
    Again, though, the determining thing has to be truth and not our careers or interests. Studying history is pointless if the reason we study history has no relation to truth (which I'm sure you know).

    But in the case of my second point, if that approach is the right one, even though God is in control of everything, He uses free-will and the laws of nature as major tools to accomplish His purpose. So, one could still look at history to look for cause and effect relationships and use those to apply to the future. Does that make sense?
    by dominic at 11/15/09 9:03PM
  • rapunzel
    Yes, it does in a way. Allow me to reword it to make sure I understand what you are saying. So, essentially, God has a plan, and even though he uses us in that plan, he does not determine what our role in that plan will be (I'm thinking Jer. 18 here). For example, he planned for Jesus to come in the form of a man from the tribe of Judah. He didn't cause Judah to commit sin with his daughter-in-law, but he used Judah's free will choice in his plan.

    I suppose where I still am a little confused is in the broader schemes of history, because the above example shows how we can still have free will and God can still have his own separate plan, but it was still God in control of the broader picture (Jesus coming to earth) and--thank God--there was nothng man could do to prevent that from happening. However, even though I am eternally grateful that it wasn't up to us whether or not Jesus came to earth, it provides an example of how, it seems, man really isn't able to alter the course of history, only perhaps the course of his own life and those immediately around him.

    ...Perhaps the above example isn't a very good one, but perhap I've still managed to make my point. Maybe, lol. I'm working on little sleep and the coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

    I suppose one could still argue that people can alter the course of their history, as Israel, the chosen nation, of her own free will lost her status as the chosen race...

    Y'know, I'm going to finish drinking this cup of coffee and come back to this later. Also, I do definitely agree with you that the determining factor is truth and not our own interests, I was only pointing how such a question can be emotionally distressing.
    by rapunzel at 11/16/09 8:37AM
  • thepoeticmadman
    Think Romans 10. God did not make Pharaoh harden his heart and refuse to allow Israel to leave Egypt just to make himself glorified. In fact, God would have been just as glorified had Pharaoh recognized the LORD's power and let the people Israel leave. God didn't determine Pharaoh's actions, but from our perspective we interpret it through the hermeneutic of the plagues--which in our myopic perspective, is the only way things could have happened.

    Again, but a more dramatic example: The Cross. Did Jesus have to die for God's plan to come to fruition? I don't think so. There's nothing anyone can tell me that would convince me that God wouldn't have been just as glorified had mankind recognized Christ as God's messiah and God himself and refused to crucify him, but instead chose to follow him.

    Where many Christians are deterministic is that they look at historical instances and think, "It had to happen that way!" However, if we take this view, then God makes people sin, which of course he doesn't. Instead, we must recognize that there is only one certain outcome--the glorification of God. However, how that is done is completely up to us as free moral agents.
    by thepoeticmadman at 11/17/09 1:38PM
  • thepoeticmadman
    In relation to history? It perfectly corresponds. The study of history is looking at people's choices, the reasons for their choices, and the consequences for those choices. We, as those believing in a Unmoved Mover merely recognize that God was the first one to make a choice, that his reason for making that choice was to have a relationship with his creation, and that the consequences of that choice was that his creation spurned him more often than not, and that those choices -- in turn -- have consequences of their own.
    by thepoeticmadman at 11/17/09 1:42PM
  • dominic
    Jared, how do you square what you're saying with with passages that speak of the cross as being in God's plan from before the foundation of the world? It seems, once God made the the world He decided to make, it did have to happen, for it was in His plan.

    I don't think your statement that God makes people sin necessarily follows. In a sense, He created the world in such a way that He knew all people would freely choose to sin, but it was still their free choice so that they are still culpable. This is what I like about compatibalism/molinism: it affirms God's sovereignty (a biblical concept) as well as man's free-will (another biblical concept) in such a way that God is seen to be in control of everything but man is still culpable for their sin.

    The idea is that God knows what a free creature would do in every hypothetical situation. With that knowledge, having considered all possible worlds, He created this world knowing that it would lead to the optimum number of people freely choosing Him (and He being glorified both in that and in the ones who freely rejected Him). On the smaller scale, God knew what Pharaoh, Pilate, and Judas would freely do in any given circumstance and so He created a world where their free choice would square perfectly with His good plan.

    So you have a sort of determinism, but at the same time you have the laws of nature and the free-will of man. So at the end of the day you can both affirm that God IS in control, but that historical endeavors are still useful because God uses the laws of nature and the free-will of man to accomplish His purposes. You could literally look at what God did through most of history and explain it in a completely naturalistic way and still know that it is exactly what God wanted to come about.

    In short, I don't think your statements are contradictory.
    by dominic at 11/18/09 8:14AM
  • dominic
    Wait, Jared, are you saying that humans could have been reconciled to God apart from the cross of Christ? As if we could just "recognized Christ as God's messiah and God himself" and everything would be okay? God would just... what, overlook our sins?
    by dominic at 11/18/09 8:27AM
  • dominic
    “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2.23 ESV)

    by dominic at 11/18/09 9:38AM
  • thepoeticmadman
    Haha, Dominic, first off, to your second statement, an absolute "no."

    Let me try and clarify what I'm saying. God knew when he created man and placed him in the garden that he would sin. However, it was not the only way it could have happened. It was the only that it was going to happen, which God knew from the beginning, so there was no "scrambling for a second plan," as some people see in Genesis 3.

    I think that there is a huge difference between saying that "God knew Adam and Eve would sin in the Garden and so Jesus...." and "God made Adam and Eve sin in the Garden so that he would make sure Jesus...."

    So, in reference to the Cross: Was it the only way man could ever have the sort of relationship with God that God wanted in the Cross? Yes.

    However, I also think that the Cross was the best was God could have saved us, not the only way (cf. the Old Law, unless you believe that sins were rolled forward to the Cross... or the Patriarchal System, etc. These all allowed man to cleanse himself from sin and have a relationship with God, but they were not the type of relationship and had almost none of the advantages that God gave us in the Cross).

    Where I see the difference is in the fine line between the statements, "The Cross had to occur," and "The Cross was going to happen."

    Does that make sense?
    by thepoeticmadman at 11/18/09 11:14AM
  • dominic
    Let me first say that I think I do agree with a large part of what you are saying. Depending on what you mean by, "it was going to happen," I think I can agree with that statement.

    I don't think the sins were "rolled forward" so to speak, but I do think the cross of Christ went backward and forward, so that no one is saved apart from the cross and that the cross was God's saving act once for all (Rom 3:21-26; Heb 9-10; etc.). The law couldn't save anyone, but God could forgive people of faith under the law in light of the cross.

    I think insofar as God determined what He would do before the creation of the world, at the moment of creation and onward, the statement, "The Cross had to occur" is true (Acts 2:23). But what I'm trying to maintain is that this doesn't nullify free-will (not even Judas's!). The idea is that God has a comprehensive knowledge of all possible worlds and of every decision every free creature would make in any given situation. God, then, chose to actualize a world where the laws of nature and the natural course of that world produces every necessary situation for every free creature to freely choose everything that God finally intended. So in a sense, I agree with you, that strictly speaking Judas didn't HAVE to betray Jesus. At the same time, God knew that in the world He chose to create that Judas would choose that. So you can both affirm a level of determinism and a level of human free-will.

    As I said before, this sort of combitibalistic/molinistic determinism can affirm that exactly (even down to the minutest detail) what God wanted to happen happens, while at the same time affirming the usefulness of historical studies since God (for the most part) uses the natural, rational course of the world and human free-will to accomplish His foreordained plan and He will continue to use those same methods in the future.

    If anything is coldly deterministic, removing any real human free-will, it's a purely naturalistic worldview where we are all just the results of random chemical reactions. At least in this biblical form of determinism, we really are free moral agents with meaning and value.
    by dominic at 11/18/09 12:01PM