Interactive Metadoxy 6: Knowledge Closed and Bounded

One of the strengths of the blogging medium is the ability, long withheld from authors of all persuasions, of posing a question in print, and actually receiving an answer. Taking advantage of this capability, I am posting a series of (at least to me) thought-provoking questions, in the hopes that anyone reading this blog will offer their perspective. This is post #6 in the series, and likely the last for a while.


Again looking over the World Question Center, I came across an idea that seems exceptionally dangerous to scientific thought, if only because it requires a reshaping of what science thinks it is doing.

Marcelo Gleiser, Physicist, Dartmouth College

What are the limits of knowledge? Are there questions that science can never answer? This got me thinking about the work of my friend Josh Seachris, who is writing his philosophy dissertation on ultimate questions and the necessity of narrative. Can stories answer questions that science never can?

Interactive Metadoxy 5: Worldviews at War

One of the strengths of the blogging medium is the ability, long withheld from authors of all persuasions, of posing a question in print, and actually receiving an answer. Taking advantage of this capability, I am posting a series of (at least to me) thought-provoking questions, in the hopes that anyone reading this blog will offer their perspective. This is post #5 in the series.


I recently came across the World Question Center website and was fascinated by last year's question, "What is your dangerous idea?" One that popped up frequently was conflict between religious worldviews and scientific reality. The contributors are psychologists, physicists, journalists, and others from the academic and intellectual community. I was struck especially by two contributors on the matter (they're short, so give both a read):

Jordan Pollack, Computer Scientist, Brandeis University
Carolyn Porco, Planetary Scientist, University of Colorado and University of Arizona (among other affiliations)

What do you think? Is there a war between religious and scientific worldviews? Is science not only displacing religion, but becoming its ceremonial replacement? Can the "evidence-based silent majority" speak with moral authority?

Interactive Metadoxy 4: Villainy Vivified and Vanquished

One of the strengths of the blogging medium is the ability, long withheld from authors of all persuasions, of posing a question in print, and actually receiving an answer. Taking advantage of this capability, I am posting a series of (at least to me) thought-provoking questions, in the hopes that anyone reading this blog will offer their perspective. This is post #4 in the series.


What are the battles we fight? What forces surround us that we must challenge? Are there any? Is the Christian struggle purely a battle against our own sinful nature? Clearly it is at least this, but should we be expecting more? Humanity seems drawn to stories of battle against evil, and we want to join in. There is a fascinating consideration of this at Coram Deo, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter. Are there villains to fight in our world?

I Guess I'm Just a Bum

Why should I teach a whole semester of microeconomics when this guy can teach both micro and macro in 4 minutes? Special thanks to Dr. Greg Mankiw of Harvard for the link.



BTW, this is my first attempt at a youtube video post, so here's hoping it works.

Interactive Metadoxy 3: At Once Sinners and Saints

One of the strengths of the blogging medium is the ability, long withheld from authors of all persuasions, of posing a question in print, and actually receiving an answer. Taking advantage of this capability, I am posting a series of (at least to me) thought-provoking questions, in the hopes that anyone reading this blog will offer their perspective. This is post #3 in the series.


There are a lot of ups and downs in any church family. Last Sunday our church began holding Communion every Sunday, a step many in the congregation have been hoping and longing for. Even further, we began having wine at communion, rather than grape juice. It is a big step for us, but a good one. In many ways I am very pleased with the direction our church is going, such as with the emphasis placed on Communion. Doug is teaching a class on ethics during CE, which looks to be excellent. RUF is getting a great new group of people this year, and more and more students and friends are involved in missions and mercy work, something we haven't been able to do much of in the past.

Of course, not everything is peaches and mangoes. There has been ongoing controversy regarding public sin in the church which has strained the meaning of membership for many in the church. The session has chosen to keep most of its business behind closed doors, which (when faced with controversy and disciplinary issues) has left some feeling unguided and unshepherded by the Session. All of this is within the environment where one of our elders left the church, and despite what seems like years of preparation we have no date for electing additional elder or any deacons, which leaves all the responsibilities, strain, and authority of the church on just three men. Setting aside, of course, the recent political struggle within our denomination over a peculiar (but not heretical) approach to biblical theology and hermeneutics.

On the one hand, I feel that I shouldn't expect anything different from a group of sinners. We have lots of problems, and lots of good things too. But it leaves me wondering how I am to relate to this body of Christ. When is it proper to speak up and question, and when is it better to be silent and trust? How can I defend this body without dismissing truthful criticisms? Should I be defensive at all? How we, as believers, best fulfill our membership vows and our duties as members of the Body of Christ?