Bucket List

In recent years it has become increasingly clear to me that I need to make an official bucket list.  I find that I'm terrible at achieving goals - especially goals I never set.  Therefore I feel it is time to make these goals official.  There are a few qualities I want for my bucket list.  First, nothing too generic.  I don't want a bunch of stuff that generally everyone would put on their list if there is enough room.  It needs to be something specific to me.  Second, many items need to be fairly difficult to achieve.  There obviously will be a few simpler ones, since there are some relatively simple things that I really, really want to do.  But on the whole, I'd like to make a list of non-easy things that I really want to do.  Third, it all has to be at least possible.   Difficult, but possible.  Would I love to climb Everest?  Sure - but I can't.  I'm out of shape and sweat too much to be able to survive in that kind of cold.  Won't make the list.  With those general rules in mind, here are the first 15 things I can think of for my bucket list.  Notice these are not numbered.  No one thing will be given priority over another on the list, thus no numbering.

• Play a round of golf with a current or former U.S. President (I don't care about his or her political affiliation - it's about the office, not the occupant)
• Meet, get a picture taken with Alvin Plantinga
• Eat Oaxacan Black Mole cooked by Rick Bayless
• Go skydiving solo
• Go to a Lions game at Ford Field
• Go to a Super Bowl the Lions are playing in (obviously this is contingent on them making a Super Bowl during my lifetime at a time in which I can afford it)
• Have something I wrote published in a widely read publication
• Attend an annual meeting of the Society of Christian Philosophers
• Get a hole in one in both regular golf and disc golf
• Visit 6 of the 7 continents (I hate cold too much to care about visiting Antarctica)
• Eat a Kobe steak in Kobe, Japan
• Play a round of golf on the Old Course at St. Andrews
• Compete against a professional athlete in the sport at which he or she is a professional
• Shoot a bull elk large enough that it makes sense to mount, and have it mounted
• Go on one legitimate, well-studied, well-planned, well-funded, extended treasure hunt

I'm sure there are a ton of things I've forgotten or just never thought of, but I think this is a good start.  Ideally I'd like my bucket list to get up to 25 items, so if any of you have any good ideas to add, please share!

On Conversions and Arguments for God's Existence

This is interesting.  I think I'll add her new blog to my very small and random blogroll.  Leah Libresco (right), a fairly popular atheist blogger, recently announced that she has decided to convert to Roman Catholicism.  From what I gather, a big factor in her conversion was the difficulty of believing in a real moral law without believing in a personal moral law giver.  She was influenced by the writings of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton...no surprise there.  Who isn't? 

Anyway, I found it interesting that it was the Moral Argument that was most persuasive to her.  My friend Luke Conway over at The Apologetic Professor started a series of posts rating the arguments for God's existence, but inexplicably left this one out (unless I'm missing one somewhere...if so, then sorry, Luke).  Our philosophy study group discussed the arguments for God's existence once upon a time and it seemed that most everyone considered this one good.  It gets me to thinking, though: what makes an argument for God's existence good, or even great?  Graham Oppy, an atheist philosopher of religion, recently said that a "successful" argument for God's existence is one that will persuade all reasonable theists, atheists, and agnostics who are willing to be objective and aren't prejudiced to their point of view.  To me this sounds ridiculous.  There's probably never been an argument for anything ever that would be "successful" by that definition.  As a Christian who believes humans operate with injured cognitive faculties due to the fall, I doubt it's even possible for such an argument to exist.  Generally speaking, I think that what makes an argument "successful" has to be consideration of the arguments persuasive success relative to other arguments for the same thing, or to arguments in the same field but for other things (so it would be possible to compare the success of the Kalam Cosmological Argument to that of the Evidential Argument from Evil, even though they argue for opposite things).  I'm open to suggestions for changing this notion, though.

My favorite one is the Ontological Argument.  I'm not sure it's the best, but it's my favorite.  Especially Plantinga's version.  It's just so simple it's downright elegant.  But I'm really starting to think that what makes an argument great is its persuasiveness to those not already prone to believing the conclusion.  I'm not sure I've ever heard of anyone coming to a belief in God based on the Ontological Argument or the Argument from Aesthetics, but the late Antony Flew went from atheist to deist based on the Teleological Argument, Ms. Libresco went to Catholicism based on the Moral Argument (as did C.S. Lewis in part, if I remember correctly...though not specifically Catholicism).  A guy I once knew was persuaded to become a Christian based on the Argument from Miracles (specifically the resurrection of Christ). 

The problem is that it could just be that the reason some arguments aren't successful isn't because they aren't good, but because most of those who hear the argument don't understand the argument.  This is almost certainly the case with the Ontological Argument - probably 99% of people who've only heard the argument once or twice have no idea the force of the argument or how it comes to the conclusion to which it aims.  This is definitely not the case with any of the design arguments or cosmological arguments or the Argument from Miracles.  I have a hard time thinking that complexity can be considered a flaw in an otherwise valid (and hopefully sound) argument.

Maybe there is a difference between a good argument and a successful argument.  There's no doubt that the Ontological Argument is a good argument - it's been the source of great discussion for just shy of a millennium.  But it's probably not very successful in that I doubt anyone has ever come to believe in God based on the argument.  I just doubt that success is the higher virtue between the two.  The famous math argument to prove that 1=2 comes to mind.  It's tricky, but anyone who knows math knows why it's wrong.  Nevertheless, it may prove to be successful in occasionally tricking those with little math skill (like myself) into thinking that math must be bunkum.  Is it a better type of argument purely because it enjoys occasional success?  I would say no.  It's better for an argument to be good (i.e. correct, valid, sound, etc.) than successful, even if the success of the argument must be sacrificed in order to make it good.

Anyway, now that that's been dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner, I'm just going to rank what I consider to be the top 5 arguments for God's existence...just the ones I like the most, not saying anything about their persuasiveness or success:

5. Anselm's Ontological Argument
4. Teleological Argument (design of the universe/anthropic principle)
3. Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. Moral Argument (sorry this is an outline, but Mavrodes' paper isn't available online)
1. Plantinga's Ontological Argument

Alvin Plantinga is my hero.

I'm pretty sure someone illegally transplanted text from Plantinga's "God, Freedom, and Evil" to get all that on the great interweb.  So Alvin, if you read this (yeah right), I'm sorry - it wasn't me, but I did have to link to it.  To close, I'll just explain my love for Plantinga's argument.  In short, if it's successful, then it proves God exists.  But the key is that even if it doesn't prove God's existence, it still puts the burden of proof squarely on the atheist.  According to the argument, if it is even logically possible for God to exist (if He exists in even one logically possible, but non-actual world), then it is logically necessary that He exists (in every logically possible world, thus necessarily including the actual world).  If sound, this would render probabilistic atheistic arguments like the Evidential Argument from Evil or the Argument from Divine Hiddenness moot, since they don't make claims about logical possibility.

Christian Ethics and Athletic Violence

It's a dreary, rainy, cold-ish Saturday here in Montana. While this is a disappointing state of affairs, it does offer me a chance to blog a little (assuming I'm able to keep myself away from a little addiction we like to call “Minecraft”).  This is longer than a typical blog post, but in order to do the subject justice that's a necessary evil.

Today we explore a particular aspect of Christian ethics that is very dear to my heart – the ethics of sport. Not exactly the most common ethical issue discussed these days, but I think it's important and it's apparently important enough that Philosophia Christi did a symposium on it a while back. I've been meaning to address it for a while now and today just seems like a good time to do so.

Prior to reading this blog, I highly recommend reading the symposium, which can be found here.

The question is this: are any sports morally superior to others? Or perhaps more to the point: should Christians avoid any sports due to conflicts with Christian ethics created by that sport. In the symposium one author (Matthew Roberts) takes a soft view against violent sports like football or rugby, saying that due to potential vices created in both their competitors and fans the virtues of the sports are probably outweighed. Another author (Doug Groothuis) is more explicit in his rejection of violent sports, saying, “Given the formal deficiencies and defects of football, one ought not play it or coach it or watch it or own it or support it (through stadium taxes, etc.). Football reinforces and perpetuates the culture of violence, which must be resisted in every form if we are to regain a measure of sanity and civility in our increasingly violent world.” Michael Austin addresses some of the concerns raised by Roberts and Groothuis, but I think I'd like to address them a bit further.

I want to first take issue with some smaller points made mostly by Groothuis before moving on to the larger point that I think both Groothuis and Roberts err on.  

Groothuis' paper was not worthy of publication in any philosophy journal anywhere.  Throughout the paper he demonstrated quite effectively his lack of knowledge of the subject matter.  Groothuis chose to write his paper before performing a simple Google search to see if there may have been an entire field of philosophy that he was unaware of.  Seriously - go to Google, then search for "philosophy" and "sports" and see what comes up.  Academic journals, books, academic societies, even (as Austin points out in response) a journal specifically for the ethical aspects - all dealing in the philosophy of sport.  How this paper got published I'll never know.  

Beyond that, Groothuis just doesn't know anything about the game of football.  He says:

"Historically, intellectuals have been drawn to write and reflect on baseball. A recent example is columnist and author, George Will. I doubt there is anything of this nature to be said of football. (This, of course, does not imply that no intellectuals like football or than only unintelligent people do.)"

First, given the parenthetical, then what's his point?  Second, this is just stupid.  How does one define an "intellectual"?   Does he not consider the fellow philosophers who wrote "Football and Philosophy: Going Deep" intellectuals?  I've seen Groothuis cite Alvin Plantinga in his own work - Plantinga, of course, has made it known that he is a Notre Dame football fan.  President Obama has been ripped by certain detractors for being too much of an intellectual and not enough of a realist, and he's a big Chicago Bears fan.  The fact that George Will and John Roberts prefer baseball to football is in no way a knock on football's intellectual virtues.  

When's the last time a baseball player was seen doing this?

But further on the intellectual aspects of football, in no other sport are schemes and plays more complex than in football.  11 men working in unison to achieve a common goal, often with the intent of first convincing 11 other men that they are trying to achieve a different goal (in the case of counters or screens or play-action).  Before every play (particularly at the professional level) players are required to assess the other team in order to figure out what they plan to do prior to them even doing it.  Mike Leach, head coach for Texas Tech, claims to watch 30 hours of game film each week in preparation for a game just to compete in the intellectual aspects of the game.  NFL players are required to know their playbooks inside and out - some of these playbooks are 800 pages - all have their own unique vocabulary ("flip right, double-X, Jet, 36 counter, naked waggle, X-7, X-quarter" represents one offensive play-call in the NFL according to Jon Gruden).

Groothuis and Roberts both make the point that fans celebrate the violence of the sport, which promotes vice in the fans.  I would argue that this is not true in most cases.  Most football fans do not enjoy seeing grotesque injuries or concussions or the like.  Sure, we like good, solid, legal hits, but we don't want to see injuries and illegal hits.  I've despised the Vikings my whole life, but when Adrian Peterson injured his knee I neither enjoyed it nor was happy it happened.  When ESPN shows football highlights, 90% of them center around well-executed football, often involving no violence at all (in the case of touchdowns, where the defense failed to create violence).  Highlight videos like the one I link to below wouldn't exist if it were the violence the fans celebrated.

Last on the smaller points, Groothuis has the cajones to say that baseball is not only intellectually and morally superior to football, but that it is aesthetically superior as well.  He says:

"Baseball is intellectually superior to football, because of the degree of strategy, finesse, and intelligence required to play it well. Football knows of many plays and patterns, but most of them reduce to speed, strength, and coordination--as opposed to intelligence. In baseball, a pitcher with less than a cannon arm (such as Greg Maddox) can be one of the best pitchers in baseball in light of his intelligence in pitch selection, control, knowledge of batters, and fielding ability."

He later says:

"Both baseball and football require athletic skill for their performance, but I venture to say that an expertly turned double-play, a diving catch in the outfield, or a deftly stolen base (particularly of home) demonstrates more athletic and aesthetic excellence than anything in football. Moreover, nothing in any sport has the dramatic effect of a grand slam home run, especially in a close game."

Again, I have no idea how this paper got published.  Greg Maddox was able to pitch the way he did because he was smart, yes, but also because he had an INCREDIBLE amount of coordination and was able to do things physically with his wrists, fingers, and shoulders that most humans cannot.  There is a very good reason that Maddox is also a scratch golfer and it is not that he lacks pure, raw, physical ability.  What is the difference between good pitch selection and a proper play call or audible in football?  Is there any difference in terms of the mental demand?  What about "fielding ability" in baseball screams that it doesn't come down to "speed, strength, and coordination"?

I can appreciate that a double-play can be aesthetically pleasing.  But really?  A stolen base?  It's a dude running from one base to another.  I'm as big a baseball fan as most people, but let's be realistic - would anyone on this planet (other than Ricky Henderson's mom) rather watch a highlight reel of all of Ricky Henderson's stolen bases than this highlight reel of Barry Sanders' runs?

Ok - enough with the stupid stuff.  I actually lost a bit of respect for Groothuis as a philosopher after reading this paper.  Moving on.


Both Roberts and Groothuis agree on the main objection to football: its violent nature. Roberts lists collisions in football equaling 1600 lbs of force, concussions, ACL tears, etc.  These are seen as bads.  Not only are they bads, but they are the result of violence: a bad that is intrinsic to the game of football.  When violence and its resulting injuries happen in basketball or baseball, the bads are contingent bads, which is to say that the sports can be (and regularly are) played without the bads occurring.  The same cannot be said of football.  Furthermore, the sport promotes vice in its fans, who are taught to celebrate this violence, and thus to celebrate bads.

The thing I find odd is that Groothuis says, "[f]ootball reinforces and perpetuates the culture of violence, which must be resisted in every form if we are to regain a measure of sanity and civility in our increasingly violent world."  In every form?  What about, say, in the context of a Just War?  


"The killing of any creature in God's image, no matter how debased that creature may be, is a mournful thing. Osama deserved death, and received it in a just war; however, it is tragic that a man would dedicate his life to evil and receive the penalty of death for his earthly sin." - Douglas Groothuis

But wait...wasn't...wasn't that Groothuis supporting violence given that it was of a particular type in a particular situation?  So maybe the Christian doesn't have to oppose EVERY form of violence, as he says in the paper.   In their papers both Groothuis and Roberts seem to assume that all violence is bad in some moral sense.  They assume that all violence is created equal.

I would argue that this is mistaken, even (especially?) on the Christian worldview.  Biblically, Old Testament characters participated in many, many violent acts and were praised for them later in the New Testament.  Obviously there will be some who follow thinkers like Yoder, Hays, or Hauerwas out there who say the N.T. ethic changed and promotes peace exclusively.  To that I will respond by pointing out that the Hays/Hauerwas notion of N.T. ethics also would prohibit Christians from participating in the military or even the police - it is an ethic of radical non-violence (Hays goes as far as to compare military recruiters to prostitutes).  You really want to go that route?  

But the more pertinent point is from the N.T. itself.  In Acts 10, Peter is called by God via a vision to go meet with a Roman Centurion named Cornelius.  Throughout the course of the story, Peter comes to the understanding that gentiles should be accepted into the Christian community the same as Jews.  Luke takes care to praise Cornelius as being an upstanding man.  At no point in the narrative does either Luke or Peter (as recorded by Luke) criticize Cornelius for being a military man.  Keep in mind that he was a Roman soldier - this means that in all likelihood any war he would be called by his profession to fight would not have been a just one.  Peter didn't see this as even being important enough to mention - he was just happy to accept him into the Christian community.  Luke again in Luke 3:14 tells of a group of recently-baptized soldiers who were told by John the Baptist now that they are Christians they should "[not] extort money and don't accuse people falsely - be content with your pay."  No mention of anything being wrong with their profession or the violence it requires.

So it's fair to think the Christian is at least warranted in thinking that not all violence is a bad.  So there must be something about violence that makes it bad.  What is it?  Well, I would argue that it has something to do with causing needless harm to creatures created with the imago dei.  Certainly hunting (esp. for survival) isn't morally wrong.  But it is violent and it does cause them harm.  But they don't have the imago dei, so it's ok.  So the issue at hand has to come down to the question of whether or not football causes needless harm to its human participants (excluding Gus, Bonzo, and Air Bud).

No one knows if concussions contributed to Seau's suicide

Recently there has been a ton of concern over concussions in the NFL, especially in the wake of the suicides of three former NFL players (Junior Seau, Ray Easterling, and Dave Duerson).  While it is certainly true that the harm from concussions is considerably more than what we used to think, I think it's hard, based purely on that fact to think that the game causes more physical harm than good.  

Consider this study, commissioned by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, on the health of former NFL players.  In a survey of 3439 former NFL players, it was estimated (based on numbers from the general population) that 625 would be deceased.  Only 334 were in fact deceased.  That's about 53% of what would have been the case if the health of retired NFL players was even average, much less below average.  The conclusion has to be that all that time of eating right and working out an extraordinary amount in order to be able to handle the physical toll of the sport actually makes players healthier on the whole.  At the very, very least this should mitigate any perceived bad in the violence.  I would argue that since the result of the game makes players healthier it cannot be seen generally as causing needless harm to its participants and thus cannot be considered a bad at all.

This argument can (and should) be applied to any violent sport when discussed from an ethical standpoint.  MMA is probably the most controversial in this respect right now.  A new documentary (below) is in the process of being made about the convergence of faith and MMA.  Many MMA fighters at the highest level are professing Christians (Jon Jones and Benson Henderson are both outspoken Christians and the champions of their respective weight classes).  Given the extreme conditioning that goes in to this sport, in the long-run it participants are likely to be healthier for having competed than they would be had they not.  If my definition of "bad violence" is right, then MMA should be perfectly acceptable on the Christian ethical worldview as well as football, rugby, or virtually any other "violent" sport.

If Groothuis and Roberts want their points based on the violence of the game to hold up they must first provide a working definition of a "bad", then make one of "bad violence".  Until that happens, and they provide a good reason to prefer those definitions over mine, all arguments about anything inherent in the game promoting vice in either the players or the fans are moot.  Christians should feel comfortable coming home from church on Sunday and watching football...all day long.