New Year's Resolution (in August)

I know it's far too early to be thinking about New Year's resolutions, but in this case I'm going to need all the time I can get.  I've decided to compile a list of the 50 most important thinkers in Christian theology of the 20th century and read one of each of their books by December 31, 2014.  I thought about going with 100, but that's just not realistic.  I'm not really sure if even 50 is realistic, but it's worth a shot.

The challenge, of course, is coming up with a good, accurate list that represents a variety of genres within the world of Christian thought.  Here are my criteria for making the list:

• With the exception of Heschel (because Judaism is close enough), the thinker must write specifically about Christian theology or philosophy.  There are plenty of great Christian thinkers out there in the fields of psychology or physics or genetics or archaeology or English or a million others.  I don't really care about those fields and don't have much desire to read about them within the context of this project.  I also don't want a bunch of pastoral and Christian self-help stuff either.  I want great works of theology here.

• The thinker must be extraordinarily influential within his or her field.  In some sense, the contours of Christian thought need to have changed as a result of whoever makes this list.  Someone may have been brilliant and perhaps hugely influential to me or you as individuals, but that's not enough to make the list.  They must have been influential on a very broad scale within their fields.

Initially I wanted to make this a list of exclusively orthodox Christian thinkers, but I've changed my mind. There are certain gigantic figures that simply, if left off the list, would have made it deficient.  Those of you familiar with theology will notice that my list is probably unreasonably heavy on the mid-late 20th century. This is largely because of three reasons.  First, there was just more Christian scholarship in the back half of the 20th century.  Second, I'm young, and am thus more influenced by and familiar with late 20th century thinkers.  Third, I include more Christian philosophers than most people would in a list of Christian theologians.  Distinctively Christian philosophy didn't really take off (again) until the late 60s and early 70s, so obviously the philosophy additions to the list will tend to be more from the later parts of the century.

Ok, so here is my 50.  This is my first edition of the list and it is subject to change.  I'm not sure yet if I'm going to rank them in the final version.  The reason I'm posting this on my blog is that I'd love some help.  I'm sure that I'll forget some extremely important people, so if you can think of someone who needs to be on the list, please let me know.

Barth, Karl

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich

Bruce, F.F.

Brueggemann, Walter

Brunner, Emil

Bultmann, Rudolf Carson, D.A.**

Cone, James H.

Craig, William Lane

Crossan, John Dominic

Dunn, James D.G.

Fee, Gordon

Gutierrez, Gustavo Hartshorne, Charles***

Hauerwas, Stanley

Hays, Richard B.

Henry, Carl F.H.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua

Hick, John

James, William Kung, Hans Lewis, C.S. MacIntyre, Alasdair Moltmann, Jurgen Niebuhr, H. Richard Niebuhr, Reinhold Pannenberg, Wolfhart Pinnock, Clark Plantinga, Alvin Rahner, Karl* Ramm, Bernard Robinson, J.A.T. Ruether, Rosemary Sanders, E.P. Schaeffer, Francis Schweitzer, Albert Stott, John R.W. Swinburne, Richard Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre Tillich, Paul Torrance, T. F. Van Inwagen, Peter Van Til, Cornelius Volf, Miroslav Von Rad, Gerhard Weil, Simone Wojtyla, Karol Jozef (Pope John Paul II) Wolterstorff, Nicholas Wright, N.T. Yoder, John Howard

Again, this is a very preliminary list.  Pretty much just the ones that came to mind.  I'd really appreciate some help from some of you out there who are fellow lovers of theology.  I'd be happy to change a few of these if I have a good alternative, but obviously a few are quite immovable.

On a related note: if Vegas were to put odds on my completing this task on time, what would they be?  As of right now (and not including the rest of today in my total), I'd have to finish one book every 9.88 days.  Crap.  This isn't going to happen.  Ok - 25 by the end of 2014 and 50 by the end of 2015.  That gives me 17.18 days per book.  Much more realistic.  The good news is that I have already read a number of these authors, so that makes it much more realistic.

Here are some areas in which I recognize this list is probably deficient: Old Testament theology, narrative theology, feminist theology (and female theologians in general - Marilyn McCord Adams narrowly missed the list in favor of some more classic theologians).  There may be others.  Please help!  I'd like as high-quality a list as possible as I embark on this theological journey than which none greater can be conceived.

*Karl Rahner replaced Alister McGrath - thanks to Derek Pierson for catching this startling omission.
**D.A. Carson replaced William P. Alston - again, Derek Pierson reminded me - I planned on putting Carson on, then he just slipped my mind when I actually created the list.
***Charles Hartshorne replaced Meredith Kline - O.T. studies is already well-represented between Brueggemann, Von Rad, and Heschel, and there aren't any other process theologians on here.  Again, thanks be to Derek for the suggestion.

Debunking the Debunkers: Zombies

Some of you may know that a number of years ago a few friends of mine and I had a blog about zombie survival.  Now defunct, it was fairly popular at the time.  It was even linked to by Kirk Hammett of Metallica, which helped the traffic flow immensely.  Anyway, some of the things we liked to do was pretend that (a) zombies were/are a real possibility, and (b) we were scientific in our approach to zombies.  This led us to the strategy of picking fights with other zombie survival sites and blogs that were inferior.  We'd post about what they had to say and tell everyone why they were idiots and why they should pay attention to us over them.  

All of this led one poor soul from the U.K. to send me an email explaining why I was an idiot for thinking zombies do or could ever exist.  He, of course, gave his credentials as a med student to bolster his claims.  The ordeal was simultaneously hilarious and annoying.  Hilarious because this guy took himself so seriously that he felt the need to give me a resume to debunk something that needed no debunking.  Annoying because this a-hole accused me of actually believing what I was saying.  So, naturally, I felt the need to post his email on the blog, list his email address, and invite any and all readers to email him a piece of their minds.  All good fun.

Anyway, the blog has been inactive for a number of years now, but I read an article today that reminded me of this little kerfuffle: 7 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Outbreak Would Fail (Quickly).  Seriously?  Who does this?  Is there anyone out there who really believes a zombie outbreak is possible?  

Here's the thing: the article's not even that good.  In reading it I got that same feeling of annoyance that I did with the fellow from the U.K.  The obstinate part of my soul welled up and I knew I needed to debunk this debunker.  I will go through each of the seven "scientific reasons" and explain why one's hope for the zombie apocalypse should not be deferred by said reasons.

Objection 1: They have too many natural predators.  Some large (dogs, bears, lions, etc.), most small (insects, bacteria, etc.).

Response: In zombie movies and literature three things typically happen to the large predators.  (a)

They are eaten immediately by the zombies (because zombies travel in hordes and are quite strong, it's difficult for the predator to attack one without being attacked.  See also: water buffalo).  (b) They die from the disease they contract by attacking zombies.  Some diseases out there are transferable between species, so this seems plausible (see also: AIDS).  (c) The predators choose not to attack because they know they will become diseased and die (see also: poisonous tree frogs).

Onto small predators.  The simplest solution to this is just to say that since zombism is caused by a virus, it's reasonable to expect that the virus could and would attack and kill the bacteria causing the rapid decay discussed in the article.  As for the insects, they would probably suffer the same fate as the large predators - be eaten or become sick and die.

But here's the biggest point: it's actually possible that the insects would work contrary to the article's claim.  Take mosquitos for example.  They may not attack anyway, given the lack of live blood and blood flow...so maybe take them or another insect.  If they attack and aren't killed by the disease, the odds are actually pretty good that we could have a malaria-type situation on our hands where insects eat the diseased blood, then carry the disease to other, healthy humans, and thus help spread the disease.  Objection 1 sufficiently debunked.

Objection 2: They can't take the heat.  Heat causes one of two things to happen to corpses: they explode or they mumify - either way the apocalypse is over before it starts.

Response: First, this is a bit misleading.  The explosion is not really a violent enough explosion to expect the brain to become damaged.  Since zombie lore makes the claim that it's the brain that keeps the corpse animated (somehow), there's no reason to expect such an explosion from bloating to kill a zombie.  Since they're portrayed often as surviving with guts hanging out (and after having suffered massive bloating), this is a pretty weak objection.

The mummification objection is much better.  Still doesn't work, but it's much better.  Here's the thing with mummification: even under perfect conditions (certain organs removed, salts added to make the process happen properly, dry, hot climate) mummification takes about 70 days.  A 70 day period during which a corpse can wreak havoc is more than enough time to make an apocalypse a possibility.  First, during these 70 days the zombies presumably will be making new zombies, thus essentially starting the 70 day clock over for each new zombie.  Say a zombie infects someone on day 50.  That's 120 days.  Say that one infects someone on day 60.  That's a half a year.  Even if you think they'll be so solid by day 50 or 60, that they'll be too frozen, then drop the figure to 40 and multiply by a couple million times.  I think it's fairly clear that humanity will be more or less extinct before they are saved by mummification.

Objection 3: They can't handle the cold.  Zombies are dead, so they will freeze solid in the cold.

Response: The vast majority of the world's population lives in warm climates, so this objection will be largely irrelevant.  Have a gander at this little visual aid:

How much of that circle is in a warm or relatively warm climate?  Roughly 90%.  And as you can see in this next image, the northernmost parts of that circle are not the most dense (the circle had to be made that large to fit both western India and southern Indonesia - not to include Mongolia/southern Siberia).

But have a look at this second map.  Notice how many people live in more or less temperate climates.  Not too cold, not too hot.  Most of the North and South American and virtually all of Europe.

Max Brooks actually makes a great point about the "cold" issue in World War Z (the book).  A lot of people tried to use the cold to their advantage, as this objection would suggest they should.  What happened?  Millions of people had the same idea, they quickly ran out of food and began starving to death.  The population was then thinned out by surviving humans rather than zombies, but the effect remained the same.  I think this scenario was one of the most plausible original thoughts Brooks had in the book.

Objection 4: Biting is a terrible way to spread a disease.  Traveling by air, sex, and fleas is a much better plan for a virus.

Response: Hey wait a minute...did you say fleas?  Like the black plague?  Yes...oh, and in objection 1 didn't you say insects would be a big threat to zombies?  You did?  Ok.  Thanks for that.

Here's some news: when fleas pass along a disease they do it by biting.  Ditto mosquitos.  It's only an inefficient way to spread a disease if the ability to bite the uninfected is in some way inhibited.  So insects are an option here for slow, Romero-style zombies.  Also, more recent versions of zombies have taken this objection seriously and created fast zombies.  The Dawn of the Dead (remake), World War Z (movie), Warm Bodies, 28 Days Later - these all utilize fast zombies.  

The amazing thing in each is that each dramatically OVER-estimates people's ability to shoot accurately (especially where a head shot is required - so, in all except the 28 Days/Weeks Later movies).  This is not just a bold statement - this is the sober truth: if zombies were to exist and they were fast, humanity would have almost no chance of survival.  What most people know of shooting comes from the movies, and the movies are wrong.  The vast majority of shots miss and head shots at running targets will run less than a 1% success rate, especially when multiple assailants are involved (as would obviously be the case with a zombie horde).  Even when shooting at humans, the majority of shots are not fatal, so to expect that to change when head shots are required is pretty far-fetched.  For fast zombies, then, biting just may be the single MOST efficient way of spreading a disease.

Objection 5: They can't heal from day to day damage.  With all their clumsiness they will be toothless, limbless, and all their bones will be broken.

Response:  So?  Aren't they that already in the movies?  It only takes one tooth to bite.  People can still walk around with broken bones.  One doesn't need a limb to bite.  So long as their brains remain in tact the zombies would still be a threat, just slightly minimized with increasing body damage.  But how long would it take for all, or even the majority, of zombies out there to get serious enough damage that they're no longer a threat?  I'm willing to bet it'd take longer than the food and water supply in your house will last.  What do you think?  Honestly - how long could you survive with what you have at home?  The article suggests you watch all the seasons of "24" back to back and by the time you're done you'll be safe.  Poppycock.  In movies, for the most part zombies know not to walk off buildings unless they're chasing someone.  There's not a lot of reasons for them to break bones walking around as slowly and methodically as they do.  I just don't see why anyone thought this would be a persuasive objection.

Objection 6: The landscape is full of zombie-proof barriers.  Mountains, high-rises, bridges, rivers, canyons, etc. spell the doom of zombies by making them easy targets for shooters and causing vast injuries.

Response: First, the author, David Dietle, is clearly not very familiar with the fact that zombies traditionally have been able to survive water (Brooks suggests that the Solanum [the name of the virus] somehow protects them from the corrosive effects of the water), so falling into a river or lake is nothing more than a softer landing than concrete to a zombie - certainly not a death sentence.

But the most glaring problem with this objection is precisely that it would require the would-be survivors to use these natural barriers as hold-outs.  Dietle writes, "In cities, people would likely congregate in the upper levels of high-rise buildings, where the invasion can be held at bay with simple security doors. Also, the streets themselves would keep the undead corralled in straight, easy-to-aim-down lines where they could be picked off by snipers, or just bored office-workers waiting out the quarantine by dropping office supplies onto the undead from the top floors."

Yes, he actually uses this picture as an example.  I don't know about you, but I'm not super crazy about the prospect of living on this rock for weeks on end.

Where to begin!?!  First, if there are enough zombies below to drop stuff on them to kill them, then the outbreak has been going for a while now and would appear to be quite successful.  Second, how much ammo do these snipers have?  How many "snipers" are there?  Say there's a thousand zombie horde running (or staggering) toward you at, say, 300 yards.  How many head shots would a sniper have to deliver to remain safe and at what rate?  We're talking a few hundred consecutive Lee-Harvey-Oswald-speed head shots while having to stop to reload.  The plausibility factor is lacking in this "scientific" reason to think the apocalypse couldn't happen.  There just aren't enough snipers in the world to take advantage of this situation on any regular basis.  Those of us who actually shoot guns know how dramatically implausible it is to think that non-professional marksmen could be counted on to provide this many consistently accurate shots or to even think that we'd have anywhere near the ammo supplies needed for such a task.

Lastly on this: how are the people "congregate[d] in the upper levels of high-rise buildings" going to survive for even a week?  How many of us have worked in a high-rise?  I have.  I can guarantee you one thing - there are not enough food and water supplies up there to last a day with that many people.  You better be damn sure this outbreak isn't going to last, because if it does you are out of luck, my friend, if you thought a high-rise was a great idea.

Objection 7: Weapons and the people who use them.  There are 14 million hunters in the U.S.  An armed force the size of L.A.  The apocalypse would end before it started.  Also the military.

Response: How many of these hunters actually live in L.A.?  Or Chicago?  Or D.C.?  Most nations have far stricter gun laws than the U.S., so how many hunters are there in Tokyo?  Or Beijing?  Or Mexico City?  Or Paris?  51% of the world's population lives in cities where gun owners are few and far between.  In the U.S. it's 79%.  The gun owners that exist in places like L.A. or Chicago are largely unskilled and/or unable to shoot anything at long-range (because the gun owned is a pistol).  How are all the gun owners/hunters in Montana and Nebraska going to help those poor souls in New York City and Boston?  This objection is unfathomably stupid.  Just have a look at this handy little map showing gun ownership percentages in the U.S.

So Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and West Virginia will be fine.  This represents roughly no one when we consider where the majority of the population is located.  If you live in NYC, L.A. San Diego, New Jersey, Baltimore, San Francisco, Honolulu, Chicago, D.C. Boston, or Miami you're positively screwed.

Dietle goes on to suggest that the military and police could handle it.  .50-cals, air support, and MOABs should do the trick.  Yes, because a MOAB is likely an option that will be used on Boston BEFORE things have gotten completely out of control.  These sorts of measures would not even be considered if the zombie apocalypse had not already proven itself a major threat to humanity's existence.  By then it would likely be too late.  Shooting a zombie with a .50-cal isn't much better than shooting one with a .30 cal.  It's actually probably not as good (far less accurate when firing automatic with a .50 from a helicopter than one round at a time with a rest with a hunting rifle).  Combine that with the fact that at any given time about 170,000 active duty troops are deployed worldwide, making it difficult to deploy them immediately against a zombie threat, and this job will be left to the National Guard.  No offense to the National Guard, but they aren't the Marines.  Many of the active duty troops here at home are non-fighting troops, at least for purposes of the zombie battle.  For instance, the Navy won't help much in inner-city Chicago.  Ditto the Coast Guard.  The Air Force can only do so much until the civilian population is entirely overrun and the battle is already being lost (in which case, obviously, the outbreak is/was possible).  You see my point.  Just the mere fact that military assets exist says nothing about their ability to wage and win a war against zombies, especially in the early stages prior to the population having been completely overrun.

Further, the U.S. has one of the most sophisticated and capable military forces in the world.  What happens in other countries that can barely defend themselves from themselves?  What happens in Egypt, where there's already upheaval or in Japan, where there is no standing military?  At the very best, this objection solves for the zombie outbreak in highly advanced nations with extremely capable militaries.  That is to say that it does nothing for the vast majority of the world.

Well, that should do it.  My long-awaited foray back into the world of zombie writing.  Hope you all enjoyed it and, as always, comments are appreciated.

Divine Hiddenness, Prayer, and Agnosticism

This week I was reading through a book I got for Christmas that I've been wanting to read for quite a while.  It's called "Divine Hiddenness: New Essays."  The problem of divine hiddenness, for those of you not familiar, is simply the question of why God, if he is who Christians say he is, hides from (some of) us.  While divine hiddenness is a very interesting topic, I don't really want to write a lot about divine hiddenness here.

I want to talk about Paul Draper's contribution to the book.  Paul Draper is one of the foremost agnostic philosophers of religion in the United States.  I'll give a really brief summary of his essay, then I'll give a few of my thoughts on the topic.  Draper, as I said, is an agnostic, which is to say he's not sure whether or not God exists.  He thinks there is quite a bit of evidence for both theism and naturalism (which entails atheism).  For those of you curious, here's a quick little list of features of our world that he sees as evidence for each:

Evidence for Theism	Evidence for Naturalism
The universe has a finite past	Earth is not the center of the universe
The existence of intelligent life	The universe is much older than humans
It appears we have free will	Life came about via evolution
It appears we have immaterial minds	Physical processes largely determine mental states
The world is full of beauty	Pain and pleasure are systematically connected to reproduction
Some people have religious experiences	The existence of tragedy in the world
	The distribution of religious experience is very uneven

Now, of course these lists aren't meant to be comprehensive, and I'm sure there are plenty of other things Draper would include if that were his goal, but it isn't.  His point is simply that there is a lot of, at least what seems on the face of it, evidence for both positions.  Further, he says that it's really quite impossible to look objectively at these things and know which evidence is stronger.  One can't simply assign number values for strength to each of the facts about the world, take whichever has the highest number, and believe it.  It's impossible to tell what those strength measurements would be.  So unless one has actually had those religious experiences, there's no good reason to sway one direction over the other.

Draper's conclusion is what I find truly interesting, precisely because it's as intellectually honest as they come.  Draper quotes H.H. Price's abbreviated version of the Agnostic's Prayer: "O God, if there be a God, save my soul, if I have a soul."  I quote his conclusion at length.  He says:

“Since...I regard God's existence as a real possibility, I whole-heartedly agree with Price that it is reasonable – indeed, I would say rationally required – for me to behave differently than I would if I were an atheist. For example, I ought to pray – unlike the atheist I believe there just might be a God listening. More generally, I ought to do what I can to cultivate or at least prepare for a relationship with God.”

He goes on to say:

“Religious practice is very difficult for an agnostic, and for some there may be value in that difficulty. After all, human beings are psychologically very complex, to say the least. And it is well known that belief is not strongly correlated with sanctification. Thus, if theism is true, then I seriously doubt that the moral and spiritual development of every single human being is best served by belief in this life.”

He concludes with:

“I hope and even believe that my assessment is the result of an open mind rather than a closed or tender heart. But if this is so, then is the ambiguity of the evidence just an unfortunate coincidence? Or is it designed, not by me, but by a God whose policy is, 'Don't find me, I'll call you...when the time is right”? I don't know the answers to these questions. So for now I will sit on the fence, lost perhaps but still looking, leaning perhaps but not leaping, listening I hope, but not yet hearing.”

I have three things I want to discuss with regard to these comments.  One is directed to others who consider themselves agnostic along with Draper, one is directed to atheists, and one is directed to my fellow Christians.  

First, how should agnostics think about this issue?  Well, I can't see how an agnostic would get

around Draper's conclusion here.  Draper isn't sure exactly what probability to assign to God's existence, but he's pretty sure it's not zero.  If it isn't zero, it seems to me that a Pascalian decision calculus would come into play.  It's not exactly Pascal's Wager, since Draper isn't prescribing changes in beliefs or affirming a faith, but the reasoning is similar.  It's really just a piece of intellectual honesty.  Here's what really struck me: it seems like many agnostics use their agnosticism as an excuse to simply not have anything to do with religion.  I consider this variety of agnosticism intellectual laziness.  One presumably is an agnostic because she doubts both God's existence AND his non-existence.  So why do the vast majority of agnostics out there treat their agnosticism as license to act exclusively as if he doesn't exist?  Shouldn't one equally as often act as if she doubts that God does not exist, and thus act in a way similar to the one Draper describes (prayer, preparing for a possible relationship with God, etc.)?

So next is the question of whether or not any of this is relevant to atheists.  Here's my answer: so long as the atheist assigns a non-nil probability to God's existence, she should act in a similar way as Draper.  There are obviously quite a few atheists who do assign a zero probability to God's existence, and this shouldn't affect them at all.  But to give that sort of thing an absolute zero probability is a bit extreme and I'd guess probably fairly rare among atheists.  Here's the thing - if one grants that God's existence is logically possible then his existence is logically necessary.  On Christian theism, God is a necessarily existent being, which is to say that it isn't so much as possible that he not exist.  Another way to put this is to say that God exists is every possible world.  Plantinga's modified version of the ontological argument makes this point quite clearly:

If God's existence is possible, then he must exist in at least one possible world (even if it is not the actual world).  In any possible world in which he exists he is what he is - which is to say that he is a necessary being.  So in any possible world in which he exists it is necessarily false that God does not exist.  But necessary truths and falsehoods are true and false in all possible worlds (i.e. 2+2=4 in every possible world). It must, therefore, be necessarily false in every possible world (which includes the actual one) that God does not exist.  This, of course, means that it is necessarily false in our world that God does not exist, which means that it is necessarily true that God exists in our world.  

If you're an atheist, are you willing to assess a zero probability for God's existence?  If so...kudos - you're very bold.  If not, then shouldn't you at least be putting yourself in the shoes of the agnostic discussed above?

Finally, just what is the Christian to think about all this?  On the one hand, we know that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)  John 3 makes it pretty clear that (a) belief is necessary for salvation and (b) that belief must be placed in Christ.  The story of Lazarus the Beggar (and many other scriptures) seems to make it clear that that belief needs to take place in this life.  

On the other hand, we may be the types to be inclined to see scriptures like Matt. 25:31-46, Romans 1:20, or the many teachings on the boundlessness of God's grace and think that inclusivism is the correct view for a Christian to take.  If one is an inclusivist, then I find it hard to imagine that God wouldn't honor these sorts of prayers.  

Suppose, as Calvin thought, we humans are endowed with a sensus divinitatis - a sense of the divine - that allows us to be able to sense God in a way akin to our other senses.  Suppose further that, similar to sight or hearing, this sense may be damaged in a way to where it does not function properly.  The Christian narrative would say that this feature would be damaged as a result of the fall.  Perhaps those who have religious experiences have them because their sensus divinitatis is functional (or at least partly functional) while others' are less functional or entirely dysfunctional.  

It seems to me that it would be reasonable to think that agnostics of Draper's sort, who dedicate their lives to searching for the truth in these areas and who pray and seek a relationship with a deity they aren't sure exists, must not have properly functioning senses of the divine.  Is that their fault?  Hard to say.  But even if it is, isn't it possible (even probable) that God would honor that effort even in the absence of belief?  Further, what if the so-called "soul-making theodicy" is true (and I'm inclined to think that it is)?  What if God remains silent to some people as a means to developing good characteristics in those people's souls that would not have developed otherwise?  Draper, himself, admits to this possibility.  Possibly God uses his own silence to help some people build character.  To me it seems like quite the virtue to be willing to prepare oneself for a relationship with a being she isn't even sure exists purely on the possibility that that being does exists and is worthy of worship.  I, for one, would not be surprised at all if both (a) inclusivism is true, and (b) this variety of agnostic would be "included".

Lastly, I just want to say how pathetic I felt in reading someone like Draper talking about the fact that he prays to a God he doesn't believe in as a means to "cultivate or at least prepare for a relationship with God."  I'm a Christian who believes with certainty that God exists - how much more should I pray to cultivate my relationship with God?  But do I?  Honestly, probably not a whole lot more than Draper does (I have no idea how much he does, but I have a pretty good idea of how much I do, so I think this judgment is fair).  This, of course, is deplorable.  I don't know how many of my friends are in the same boat here, but I confess that I feel ashamed yet motivated to improve that area where my life is seriously lacking.

On Retroactive Impetratory Prayer

As I was driving today I began thinking again on a theological topic that has crossed my mind before, but that I've never actually put to much proper consideration.  When it comes to the problem of divine foreknowledge, I'm generally in the Molinist camp.  For those of you not familiar with what Molinism is, I recommend that you follow that little blue link prior to reading below.  Or you can just read on and try your best.  Or you can (as I suspect most people will choose to do) just stop reading.

Ok, so here is the question: If today I choose to pray that event E that happened yesterday would not have happened, (a) is it possible that God answer this prayer and (b) is it plausible that God would answer this prayer.  I'm calling this "Retroactive Impetratory Prayer" (hereafter, RIP).

I've come to the conclusion that (a) depends on which theological view to you hold to with regard to divine providence.  Let's start there.

Suppose I am an Open Theist approaching this question.  The Open Theist almost certainly has to answer in the negative.  On Open Theism, God does not have complete, definite foreknowledge.  He can be 99.999% certain of most things and even 100% certain of some things, but most things are probably in the "extremely well-informed guess" category rather than the "absolute certainty" category.  If this is the case, then there is no way that God could really justify answering a prayer that He doesn't know with absolute certainty will be prayed.  There's no way, then, that He actually would answer a prayer prior to its being prayed since it's still possible that the prayer won't be prayed.  This could change once all the necessary and sufficient conditions are met for a given prayer's being prayed.  Once that happens, I would think that answering the prayer prior to its instantiation would be fair game for God on Open Theism as well.

The Augustinian/Calvinist (A/C) (determinism or compatibilism, take your pick) view would also have to answer in the negative.  Strictly speaking, the past happened the way it did because God intentionally caused it to be that way in every case.  For God to answer a prayer prior to its being prayed, God would have to essentially admit that His plan was flawed to start with and then change it.  Of course, some of you A/C folks out there may disagree with my interpretation here, and if so I'd appreciate hearing about it.  One reason you may want to disagree is that this exact same reasoning can be used against the possibility of impetratory prayer of any kind on the A/C view, which is something I bet a lot of folks will want to avoid.  And, incidentally, this is yet another great reason not to hold the A/C view.  Just sayin'.

The Molinist, it seems to me, is the only one who can really entertain the possibility of RIP being able to work on any consistent basis.  First, on Molinism prayer definitely has the potential to impetrate.  That is, God's decisions in the world are definitely affected by prayer.  Second, God knows prior to the creation of the world exactly what prayers will be prayed at what time and by whom.  Third, it seems to me to be possible, if not probable, that God would be willing to take those future prayers into account when guiding events prior to the prayer.  So I think that the RIP issue is one that Molinists are (mostly) unique in having to address.  So there is my answer to (a).  (Brief aside: I'm not really sure if it's possible that a Molinist hold to a B-theory of time.  Haven't thought about it too much.  If one were to do so,  there may be some issues there as well...which I haven't bothered considering.  For now, though, I'm going to assume an A-theory of time and move on.) 

Now, if a Molinist answers affirmatively to (a), then what of (b)?  Well, I think first we need to recognize that on the Molinist account of prayer, God makes the decision of whether or not to answer a prayer prior to the creation of the world, so strictly speaking the time at which a prayer is prayed shouldn't affect His ability or willingness to answer it.  The problems really come when we conceptualize the prayer.  Say E happened yesterday and it displeased me.  Now let's say that I choose today to pray that E never happened.  Well, if I know I pray the prayer in the first place I already know that it went unanswered.  If there is but one timeline (and I think it's pretty reasonable to think this is the case, especially on the Christian worldview), it follows that events I have already experienced cannot be changed.  Those events would have never have been able to take place were my prayer answered retroactively (i.e. prior to my prayer having been prayed).  So, then, if I believe in the possibility of RIP, it follows that if I attempt a retroactive prayer I'm already guaranteed that the prayer was not answered.

But this is not the end of the issue!  Far from it.  No, no.  This is right where it gets interesting.  See, the mere fact that my praying for retroactive answers guarantees that those retroactive answers didn't happen does not mean that such prayers are completely superfluous!  God may actually answer some retroactive prayers, it's just that the believer who would have done the praying would never know it.  However, in order for there to be the possibility of such a prayer being prayed, the believer must actually get in the habit of praying such prayers.  Example:

Suppose there are two separate and unrelated events E1 & E2.  Believer B dislikes both and will pray that both did not happen in the past (these prayers will be P1 & P2, respectively).  God decides logically prior to creation whether or not he will answer either prayer.  Say God decides to answer P2 but not P1, so that E2 would not have happened, but E1 still would.  B would still have to have a mindset that may cause her to pray both P1 & P2 in order for P2 to be answered.  Likely, then, prayers of the P1 variety would still have to be prayed (even though B knows the prayers are superfluous) in order to guarantee that prayers of the P2 variety would also have been prayed (and thus not have taken place).  Otherwise there is no possibility that God know via middle knowledge that P2 would be prayed (since it would not, in fact, be prayed), and thus He would not prevent E2 from obtaining.

So the answer to (b) above would be: no. It is impossible that God answer the retroactive request you are currently praying for.  However, the Molinist can (and maybe even should) believe that such prayers may nevertheless be necessary in order for God to answer other retroactive prayers that she will never actually pray.

I really look forward to some thoughts on this from any of you theology dabblers out there!

**Update**

In a discussion I had on this last night with my roommate, I found that framing the issue in more explicitly Molinist terms was helpful.

Molinism, roughly, is the belief that God obtains His foreknowledge from the combination of three logical moments.  Moment 1: natural knowledge (knowledge of all necessary truths).  Moment 2: middle knowledge (knowledge of the truth value of all counterfactuals).  Next comes the decision to create the world.  Knowledge from moments 1 and 2 are then combined with the knowledge of which world was created, which gives God moment 3: Free knowledge (complete, definite foreknowledge of all circumstances that will obtain in the world and all free choices that will be made by creatures in those circumstances).

Consider the example I gave above in Molinist terms:

Prior to creation, God is presented with 2 counterfactuals:

C1. Given E1, B would freely choose P1.
C2. Given E2, B would freely choose P2.

Assuming both counterfactuals are true, God then weighs whether or not He plans to answer either P1 or P2 (or both) and chooses (still prior to creation) to answer P2, but not P1.

E2 now will never obtain.  B will only ever pray P1 and B will have no idea that E2 (and thus P2) was ever even a possibility.  B will certainly have no idea that God answered P2 without it ever happening.

However, the truth value of counterfactuals is determined by the free creature.  So, the truth values of both C1 and of C2 are in the hands of B.  It just so happens that God knows what B would choose given each circumstance.  So if B does not freely choose to pray retroactive prayers sometimes (already knowing that the prayer will not be answered), then it is a virtual guarantee that the truth values of both C1 and C2 would be false, causing God to not answer P2.

In Memoriam: W. Paul Wheeler 1942-2001

Dad and I sporting our new matching Huskies shirts!

Tonight would have been my dad's 70th birthday party.  This whole month I couldn't help wondering how my life would be different if he were still here for tonight's party.  Where I'd live, what I'd be doing, who I would or would not be married to.  How much would be different in the relationships just within our family?  Heck, even my theological and philosophical beliefs today may be different than they would be had he stayed around.  Dad's death almost certainly changed pretty much every aspect of my life in one way or another.  There are just a lot of things we can't know when we say we wish certain things in the past had turned out differently.  One thing I am absolutely certain would be the same in my life now as it would have been had dad stayed around?  I'd give anything to be attending that party tonight.

The strange thing about losing someone you love is that, contrary to popular belief, time heals very few wounds.  Today I don't miss him any less than I did this day in 2001.  The regrets I had about my time with him then are the same as they are now.  If anything I miss him worse and have more regrets today than I did 11 years ago.  Over time memories fade.  When memories fade we remember less of the good times.  When we remember less of the good times we fall under the impression that there were, in fact, less good times.  This engenders regret over not having created more good times.

But while there are plenty of regrets, there were undeniably plenty of good times.  This month I've really been trying my best to concentrate on those good times.  Well, actually more than "concentrate" on them, I've just been trying to remember them.  No one has ever accused me of having a good memory, so this has been a fairly difficult task.  I'm going to let you, my friends (and probably some family), in on some of my favorite memories of my dad 11 years, 7 months, and 1 day since his death.

To my knowledge, this is the last picture dad and I were in together

- Boxing.  One night at my house in Libby, some friends and I had gotten our hands on some boxing gloves.  I think we were probably 16 or 17 at this point.  Dad would have been 55 or 56.  Naturally, like any young, energetic, athletic whippersnapper, I figured there weren't many guys in their mid-late 50s on the planet that I couldn't handle.  So the inevitable challenge was made.  I think when we started, he didn't realize that I was serious, so he was pretty lackluster with his punches.  Then I popped him pretty good in the chops and his demeanor quickly changed.  All of a sudden I felt like Michael Spinks.  He, of course, was Mike Tyson.  The fight had started well, my confidence was up, and then came the flurry.  Nathan Wirt, who was in the kitchen...doing something, described the sounds he heard as "pop...pop, pop, pop...crash."  The "pops" were dad's gloves hitting my face.  The "crash" was me getting knocked backwards, out the door to my room, and knocking some stuff off the wall as I fell to the wall, then the floor, of our hallway.  Dad will forever be remembered by my brothers and me as a herculean super-human who was rarely beaten at anything ever by anyone...especially us.

- Gopher hunting.  Perhaps our favorite pastime in the hot Libby summer was using high powered rifles to blow up various small, nuisance creatures (in most cases, Colombian Ground Squirrels).  One night, dad told Nathan and I that he was going to take us gopher hunting in the morning.  Sounds great, right?  Yes.  But...we stayed up until the wee hours of the morning, so when dad came in to wake us up at 10:00 to go, we said thanks but no thanks.  We'd rather sleep.  This was unacceptable to dad, since he had specifically set aside this Saturday to spend time with me.  The crazy old man was so stubborn he actually made us get up at 10:00 in the morning!  The nerve!  Anyway, mom had packed us a lunch and we took off.  We had two .22-250s and a .243 and a lot...a whole lot...of ammo.  I don't really know what it was about this day, but I've never seen and/or killed as many gophers in one day as that day.  Those little suckers were everywhere.  We started shooting about mid-way between Libby and Kalispell and didn't stop until we made a complete loop and came back out on the north side of Libby.  Probably about 6 or 7 hours of shooting and at the very least 100 dead gophers.  That was probably the most fun I've ever had with dad in one day and I will forever be grateful to him for costing me my precious beauty sleep.

- The Screwball.  When I was probably 11 or 12 and we were living in Baker, I was always begging dad to play catch.  When dad was in high school, he was one of the best pitchers (if not the best pitcher) in the state of Washington.  His slider was dominant and he was offered an opportunity to play professionally for some minor league club when he was done with high school.  He turned the opportunity down because he felt called to the ministry.  So he went to a small Bible school without a baseball program instead.  Anyway, I knew dad was a high level pitcher thirty-some years ago and wanted to know what he still had in the tank.  I'd never seen a breaking ball in real life prior to this event.  I got him out in the church parking lot and told him to throw me some breaking ball.  I think he thought he was taking it easy on me by throwing a screwball, a pitch he didn't even use in-game back in the day, rather than one of his go-to pitches - a slider or a curve.  So I crouched down like a good little catcher and dad threw.  From the instant the ball left his hand it was making a sound I didn't know a baseball could make and have not heard since from any pitcher I've ever caught.  It was literally fizzing from the silly RPMs he was able to put on it.  Now that I know more about baseball I'd kill to see him pitch more.  It was a thing of beauty.  It had high velocity and very late, very hard, diving break.  I got so scared I jumped up and dove out of the way.  I shutter to think what his money pitches were like in his prime.  He had a game in high school where his starting catcher got injured and the backup had to catch him.  He had 20 strikeouts and over half of them reached base because his catcher was unable to catch the breakers.  This is the only experience I've ever had that makes me feel like I can gauge a little bit just how much greater professional baseball players are than anything I've ever been a part of.  If you gave me a bat and told me to try to hit that, I'd probably still be swinging.  And he was 30 years past his prime.

Look at that sexy beast

- Hunting.  Dad loved to hunt.  He instilled in me a love of hunting that I'll never lose even though I'm not able to hunt as often as I would like.  When I was a kid there were times he would be so kind as to keep me out of school for a day so we could go hunting together, even long before I was old enough to hunt myself.  When I had the chance to kill my first deer I was 10 (yes, two years before I was legal).  Dad let me use his tag and shoot the deer because he trusted me and knew I could do it.  Two years later, when I killed my first buck, dad surprised me by getting the rack mounted and engraved.  Every fall since his death, crisp fall air and colorful, falling leaves remind me of the hundreds of hours spent with dad every fall in the woods.  When he died I got the guns with which I shared the most memories of him.  Even long after those guns cease firing I will always keep them because they are the only mementos I have left from our days hunting together.

- Ping Pong.  Our family used to go to family camp in Hungry Horse, MT almost every year.  One year, when I was probably 10 or 11, I was introduced to ping pong.  I'd probably played a time or two before that, but that was the first time I played at any length and actually tried to get better.  Dad was very good.  He beat me over and over and over and over....and over again.  One thing I really appreciated about him was that he never let me win anything - I had to earn it, which made the (admittedly few) victories so much sweeter.  Anyway, when we got back to Baker, dad was just as excited to start playing more ping pong as I was, so he bought a table from a guy in the church and we started playing a lot.  For my part, I practiced hard.  Forrest Gump had recently come out, so I saw how he practiced against the table in the movie and emulated that trying to get better.  I went for...well...a very, very long time without beating dad.  Not even once.  I was getting better and better, closing the gap, coming closer, until one day I finally clawed my way to a victory.  Immediately upon finally ascending to the mountaintop, I got shot right back down to the valley below looking up.  Literally the first words dad said when the game was over and I was celebrating: "Boy, you're sure getting a lot better.  Pretty soon I'm going to have to start playing you right-handed."  It was then, in utter dejection, that I realized dad had never played me with his right hand.  Ever.  Over hundreds of games.   Hundreds of beat-downs.  He was taking it easy on me.  It took me another two years or so to finally beat him right-handed.  By the time all was said and done I was very good at ping pong.  Through high school only one of my friends ever beat me, and him only twice out of hundreds.  At my best, dad and I still shared about a 50/50 split.

Dad and Gary Halvorson: very bald men in very classy wigs

- Rook.  Dad took his Rook seriously.  Very seriously.  When he was in college teaching my mom to play, his persistent constructive criticism brought her to tears.  While I was never taken to the point of tears, I, too, endured my share of constructive criticism.  But it made me quite good at the game.  Through high school, I'd say my friends and I played an average of 5-10 games of Rook each week.  Dad was often playing with us.  Mom would get mad at him for staying up until 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning playing Rook on a Saturday night when he had to preach in the morning.  The Libby Rook crowd was truly amazing.  Ardell Filler, Gary Halvorson and dad - people we considered "old people" - would play Rook until the wee hours of the morning, especially when Roy Brewer was also in town.  One night over the holidays we had (if I remember correctly) 10 people pull a Rook all-nighter at the Filler residence.  Dad, of course, was there for the duration.  The weird thing about playing with the veterans was that for some reason the game became different with them.  Bids went for 15-20 points less consistently, yet people would still go set.  Two of my favorite Rook memories with dad happened the same night and, I think, in the same game.  It was a game at the Halvorson house between dad, Candace, Gary, Eddie Pohlreich, and one other that I can't remember, and me.  Dad and Eddie were bidding.  Eddie really wanted to keep going, but instead he passed and let dad have it.  He then laid hands on the kitty before dad picked it up and prayed, "God, please put three 10s in this kitty."  Dad picked the kitty up, looked at it, and then performed what is still remembered as his signature move - he slammed his hand to the table in disgust.  He then showed us the kitty...which contained three 10s.  Later that night, dad had taken the bid again.  Eddie was sitting immediately to his right, so he played just before dad.  Dad had a bare 10 of some color that had not yet been played in is hand and Eddie didn't know what to lead.  Somehow dad accidentally dropped the 10 out of his hand.  Eddie then led the 14 of whatever color that was.  Dad, of course knowing that Eddie would never had played that card had he not seen the card he dropped, looked at Eddie with flames coming from his eyes and screamed, "YOU RAT!!!" while knocking Eddie's hat off his head.  He then went on a mini-tirade about cheating when he knew darned well that he (and any other Rook player) would have done the same exact thing in that situation.  Because dad taught me to love Rook and most any other card or board game, I taught many of my friends who almost all play the game (and some at a very high level) still today.  He really can be credited with hundreds of hours of entertainment for us all.

Dad sitting in his office surrounded by a couple thousand books

- Theology.  Dad first introduced me to what theology should look like.  When my friends and I were having an intense debate over the merits (or lack thereof) of the TULIP, dad pointed us to classic sources and had us read them ourselves.  He first opened my mind to the idea that Christians didn't have to be fiat creationists when he read and passed on a book by Hugh Ross.  He never told me what to believe.  He told me what he believed when I asked, but he wasn't afraid to mix it up a bit theologically as well.  Probably the best example of him mixing it up with me was when I was about a senior in high school.  At the time I was trying to be Torah observant and was into Messianic Judaism pretty heavily.  Dad supported me in it while disagreeing with me on it.  In those days I was throwing out some pretty questionable interpretations of Paul.  Interpretations that even if I were to still be Torah observant (which I'm not), I wouldn't use.  Well, dad scheduled a time to sit down and hash through things with Jon Alexander and I.  Rather than just sitting there and throwing out proof texts like 98% of humanity would have done, dad had prepared a semi-scholarly presentation complete with references ranging from the ante-nicene fathers to modern commentators.  That was the first time anyone had properly taken it to me for my loose interpretations of scripture.  At the time I hated it.  But looking back, it showed me to how proper theology is done and definitely showed me that I wasn't doing it right.  I owe my approaches to both learning and discussing theology and philosophy to my dad's approach when discussing my beliefs with me.

I suppose this has been enough story telling.  I could go on, but I won't.  Suffice it to say that I miss my dad greatly and every year it seems I miss him more.  He was such a huge part of my life. He taught me to hunt, fish, shoot, and love the outdoors.  He taught me to love any type of competition whether any sport from pickleball to football or any game, Rook to Balderdash (his favorite board game).  But most importantly, he taught me what a proper marriage should look like and what a man of faith should be.  He still makes frequent appearances in my dreams, which seems odd given how long my mind has had to adjust to him being gone.  I think to some degree this is due to the fact that there are so many conversations and experiences I wish I could have had with him that I know I never can.  When you're in high school you don't think or get the opportunity to have most of the great conversations you want to have later down the road.  I wish I could have talked to him about my career path, my relationships (in failure and success), and life's frustrations.  I wish we could discuss the various theological and philosophical ideas that have come into my life since he passed.  I wish I could ask him how he thinks Justin Verlander would stack up against his favorite pitcher, Sandy Koufax.  I wish we could take that hunting trip to Alaska on which he always wanted to take me.  I wish we could team up just one more time for a game of Rook.  To be honest, there have been times when my faith has waned, shaken by this argument or that event in my life.  Sometimes, in the lowest of those low times, it has felt like the biggest part of what has kept my faith going has been the hope that one day I'll again get to see my dad.  I miss you pops.

In honor of dad's birthday, I'd really love it if some of you who happen to read this who knew him would respond with one (or more) of your favorite memories of him.  Thanks all.

Favorite Athletes of All Time

If one can't meet Michelle, he should at least meet her mayo.

The other day I came across this fantastic picture (left) that my debate buddies (David Maus and David Dickmeyer) from Bethel and I took with a jar of mayo once owned by none other than the great figure skater, Michelle Kwan.  While meeting the jar of mayo was an exhilarating experience, I couldn't help feeling a little disappointed about not having met Michelle, herself.  That's a little odd, right?  That a female athlete would be on my list of athletes I'd like to meet?

Well, Michelle is not alone.  I've decided to compile my list of my top 30 favorite athletes of all time.  This goes for any sport, any era, any point in their career, and any gender.  Keep in mind that this isn't a list of who I think were the greatest athletes in their sport or even the greatest at the time they were playing.  It's only a list of who was my favorite.  The ones I cheered for and the ones who shaped me as a fan; the ones who had a significant impact on my life.  I'd like to hear some who you'd all put on your lists.

30. Nomar Garciaparra.  I was a Nomar fan before the term "Red Sox Nation" was coined and the BoSox became my 2nd most hated team.  Also, he married Mia Hamm.  Pretty solid.

29. Vitor Belfort.  This is the young, pre-Zuffa-UFC Belfort.  He was unbelievable and incredibly entertaining to watch.

28. Reggie White.  He'd probably be slightly higher on this list if he hadn't played for the Packers.

27. Michelle Kwan. America's sweetheart.  I could never understand (and never will) why Jon Alexander insisted on rooting for Tara Lipinski (right/down) over her (left).  Come on, Jon.  Hasn't the time come for you to admit you were wrong?

26. Lloy Ball.  Long-time setter for the US national team.  Was the best in the world for a while and led the US men to a gold in '08.  I got to meet him once!

25. Art Monk.  I had a brief stint as a kid when I was a Redskins fan, and Monk was easily my favorite.  My love for him was very much confirmed during his Hall of Fame acceptance speech.  Amazing!

24. Napoleon Kaufman.  I loved watching him at UW and in the NFL, even though he got a raw deal in Oakland.  Never got the carries he deserved.

23. John Stockton.  Shortish, averageish white dude.  Dominates the record books?  How can I not love him?

22. Calvin Johnson.  Absolute stud, but humble.  The vast majority of people on this list are known for being great people, and not just great athletes (with some notable exceptions).

21. Jason Hanson. He's been a great Lion for so long that I can barely remember a time in my life when I wasn't a Jason Hanson fan.  So yes...a kicker really did make my list.

20. Misty May-Treanor.  I followed her collegiate career, where it was pretty obvious that she was going to be great.  I was a little disappointed when she moved to the beach, but then she became the greatest woman ever there, so my disappointment left.

19. Ichiro Suzuki.  I've been a Mariners fan since the late 80s.  Ichiro is the 2nd greatest Mariner of all time and their comeback into relevance in the early 2000s was due to his arrival.  Shame he's a Yankee now.

18. Roy Jones, Jr.  I got to watch a lot of his fights live, which was great.  For a long time he was in the same position Jon Jones is in now - unbeatable and with the only blemish on his record coming from the fact that he was slightly TOO dominant in a fight.  He was the greatest fighter I've ever watched.  Any weight class, boxing or MMA.

17. Randall Cunningham.  Until he became a Viking.  But man, was he fun to watch.  Great guy, too.

 16. Shawn Kemp.  Other than Vince Carter, probably the best in-game dunker I've ever watched.  Blake Griffin's working on claiming that title as well.  But I grew up a Sonics fan, so the combination of his explosiveness with his Sonicness gives him a high place in my book.  Then he got fat and fathered 74 children.

15. Matthew Stafford.  The long-awaited messiah of the Detroit Lions.  I'm sure by the time his career is over, both he and Calvin will be much, much higher on this list.
14. Eric Bienemy.  The first true favorite college football player I ever had.  I was in love with the Buffs in the late 80s/early 90s and I still remember watching them beat Notre Dame in the national championship when Rocket Ismael's kick return for a TD to win got called back for clipping.  Wow.

13. Darrell Green.  Other than Deion, the best DB I've ever watched.  Great person through his entire career.  Though a Redskin, he was my favorite defensive player in the league.

12. Kurt Warner.  True underdog, undrafted free agent becomes the savior of 2 teams!  He's a great man on top of it all.  Noticing a theme for my favorites?  Character counts.

11. Andre Agassi.  And just as soon as I say "character counts" I go straight to the guy who admitted to doing meth to keep his career afloat.  It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

10. Chris Spielman.  My favorite Lions defensive player ever.  So consistent.  Old school LB.  He also set a lot of sack records for me on Tecmo Super Bowl.

9. Steve Atwater.  I was raised as a Broncos fan (for my AFC team), and Atwater was the most entertaining safety (maybe ever) to watch.  You need - NEED - to watch this video!  He was the greatest pure hitter I've ever seen.  Easily. 

8. Peyton Manning.  Such a classy guy.  Smartest player I've ever watched.  I love seeing him back this year.

7. Marcus Camby.  He is my favorite college basketball player of all time.  I loved him at UMass.

6. John Elway.  Like I said - I was a big Broncos fan (2nd only to my Lions) and Elway was what made them tick.  In my opinion, he's the 2nd greatest QB of all time, right behind Peyton Manning.

5. Corey Schlessinger.  Yes, a fullback is my 5th favorite athlete of all time.  You have to understand, though, that I was a bit of a Nebraska Cornhuskers fan in the early-mid 90s.  Corey Schlessinger almost single-handedly won the Huskers the national title against Miami in '95.  Then he was drafted by the Lions and was Barry's lead blocker for the start of his career.  The perfect storm of fan-dom.  College favorite to pro favorite.

4. Karch Kiraly.  Greatest volleyball player of all time, maybe both indoors and beach.  But definitely beach.  I used to love watching the classic matchups on NBC on Sundays in the summer between he and his partner Kent Steffes against Mike Dodd and Mike Whitmarsh.

3. David Robinson.  The Admiral.  I had the great fortune of growing up when the greatest NBA players of all time were almost all playing simultaneously.  That's an exaggeration, but a whole bunch of them were.  Robinson was my favorite.  Fantastic guy.  Dominant.  I used to wear around a t-shirt with him on the front that said, "David Robinson: the Quickest Big Man to Ever Play the Game."  Might just be true.  Either him or Hakeem.

2. Ken Griffey, Jr.  It was nearly impossible to make him 2 rather than 1b.  But that's just cheating.  I like football more, so Griffey gets the #2 spot.  If he hadn't gotten injured so much he'd have the HR record and would have been clean getting it.  He is responsible for making me a Mariners fan.  I used to have about 150 of his cards.

1. Barry Sanders.  Greatest RB of all time.  Hands down.  Sterling Sharp once said that if Barry Sanders had Emmitt Smith's offensive line he would rush for 3000 yards per season.  He was that great.  And once again - a great man who has done a lot in the city of Detroit both during his playing days and after.  There will never be another like him.

I'm sure I'm missing a couple that I'll kick myself later for not adding.  I think just as much fun as, if not more fun than, making this list would be making a list of players I most disliked.  That list could get far too long, though, so I'll refrain.

Defending Matthew Stafford

Here in Missoula, I have the good fortune of being able to choose between listening to ESPN Radio and listening to FOX Sports Radio.  For the most part, I choose Fox Sports Radio for every show except Collin Cowherd and sometimes Scott van Pelt.  There are a number of Fox guys who refer to ESPN as "the evil four letters."  What an apt name.

ESPN is jam-packed with so many hacks it is often quite unbelievable that it can really be the undisputed king of sports programming.  There is a long list of offenses ESPN is guilty of - being unable to talk about baseball for 3 minutes without changing the subject to the Yankees and Red Sox, pretending the west coast doesn't exist for entire seasons of college football, figuring out a way to pretend that only the most PC view on a topic even exists amongst reasonable people in all areas where sports meets politics, etc.  Today I want to talk about ESPN football analysts and their unmitigated foolishness when ranking NFL quarterbacks.

This will come as no shock to anyone who knows me, but I have to defend Matthew Stafford.  Both Matt Williamson and Ron Jaworski (whom I ordinarily enjoy) have made lists of top NFL players this summer that have drastically under-ranked Stafford in favor of guys who can only be reasonably ranked above Stafford in a popularity contest, which is really what ESPN coverage is all about (see: Tim Tebow).

Here are each of their lists up to Stafford:

Jaworski
1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Drew Brees
3. Tom Brady
4. Peyton Manning
5. Eli Manning
6. Ben Roethlisberger
7. Philip Rivers
8. Jay Cutler
9. Joe Flacco
10. Tony Romo
11. Matt Ryan
12. Michael Vick
13. Matt Schaub
14. Matthew Stafford

Williamson
1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Tom Brady
3. Drew Brees
4. Ben Roethlisberger
5. Eli Manning
6. Peyton Manning
7. Philip Rivers
8. Jay Cutler
9. Tony Romo
10. Matthew Stafford

Before I get too carried away, let me just recap what Matthew Stafford did last season, and also some career numbers.  In 2011, Stafford threw for 5038 yds, 41 TD, 16 INT, CMP% 63.5.  Put in historical context, in terms of yards this is the 5th greatest season any QB has had...ever.  Going into 2011, this would have been the 3rd greatest season ever.  In fact, this is only 46 yards shy of Dan Marino's record that stood for 27 years prior to last season.  A lesser-known, but equally impressive ranking of Stafford's season last year is that his 41 TDs are tied with Kurt Warner for 7th all time.  Again, prior to last year this would have been tied for the 5th greatest season all-time.

We all know of Stafford's first two injury-ridden seasons.  What a lot of people forget is that until he got hurt in 2010, Stafford was off to a brilliant 6 TD: 1 INT start.  Last year, he had a TD:INT ratio of 2.56:1.  Including 2010 and throwing out the stats from his rookie year (where he inherited literally the undisputed worst team in the history of the NFL), he has a career ratio of 2.76:1.  Put in perspective, Tom Brady's is 2.6:1.  Drew Brees - 1.92:1.  Aaron Rodgers - 3.47 (!!).  Dan Marino - 1.66.  Kurt Warner - 1.625.  Half decent, comparatively, yes?

Obviously this will come down a bit in the future, but you get the point - right now, Stafford is playing at an extraordinarily high level.

Why is he ranked so low?  Three reasons, from what I can tell.  First, he throws to a guy named Megatron.  Second, he's only put in one full season in his (still brief) three year career.  Third, no one wants to infer too much from one season.  Let me address each of these.

Objection 1: Calvin Johnson inflates Stafford's stats.  He demands double and sometimes triple coverage, so ends up getting everyone else open as well as dominating by himself against whatever coverage is thrown his way.

Reply 1:  Shaun Hill had Calvin Johnson, too.  A former starter in San Fransisco and considered to be one of the best 2nd QBs in the league, in 13 games with Calvin Johnson he threw for 16 TD and 12 INT for a 1.33 ratio. 

Reply 2: Matthew Stafford should get more credit for making Calvin Johnson what he has become.  Prior to 2011 (Megatron's first year with Stafford throwing to him for more than a couple games), in 4 seasons, Calvin's best was 78 catches, 1331 yds, 12 TD.  With Stafford at the helm, he immediately improved to 96 catches, 1681 yds, and 16 TD.

Reply 3: Calvin Johnson is not the only #1 wide receiver in the league.  Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson, until last season, were widely considered to be better than Calvin.  Still, at their best they couldn't turn their QBs into historically great QBs.  The Cardinals' rise and fall was with the QB, not Larry.

Reply 4: The rest of the supporting cast in Detroit is actually considerably weaker than some of the other top QBs on the list.  Aaron Rodgers has Greg Jennings (#40), Jermichael Finley (#66), Jordy Nelson (#148).  Tom Brady has Wes Welker, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez (rankings unknown, but all definitely on the list) and the ability to run the ball.  Brees has Jimmy Graham, Marquez Colston, Robert Meachem, Darren Sproles, Mark Ingram (again...can't find their rankings).  MATT STAFFORD HAS NOT ONE OTHER OFFENSIVE PLAYER ON THE LIST OTHER THAN CALVIN JOHNSON!  Not.  One.

Reply 4 is even stronger when we compare Stafford's supporting cast against other QBs above him - Eli, Romo, Cutler, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Schaub - every single one has multiple other offensive pieces (both skill and line) around him that would make every top 200 list.  Again - only Calvin and Stafford are on there for the Lions' offense.

***UPDATE***
 Reply 5: I forgot to include this one when I was writing this last night.  Let's suppose that Calvin was a mere mortal (silly, I know, but just play along).  If we take away a full 50% of Calvin's production, his numbers would look pretty pedestrian.  He would be 39th in the league in yardage and tied for 11th in TDs.  Stafford would still have thrown for 4198 yds (7th) and 33 TD (5th).  If Calvin were even just a good #1, while not being the best he would have put up his 2008 stats listed above.  These would have made Calvin 6th in yardage and 4th in TD.  Stafford would have been 5th in yardage and 5th in TD.  I know that Calvin also inflates the numbers of other guys on the team by drawing coverage off of them, but for the most part this point is a valid one.  When you consider that the Lions' passing attack receives extra coverage already because everyone knows they can't run the ball, I think that effect probably nullifies that extra bit of coverage that Calvin pulls off.

Objection 2: Injuries.  In three seasons, he's played in a total of 29 games.

Reply 1:  Dr. James Andrews, who did Stafford's shoulder surgery, says his shoulder is as strong as or stronger than any shoulder that has never been dislocated.  The odds of him re-injuring it are no higher than for Tom Brady injuring his.

Reply 2: Piggybacking reply 1, Stafford's really never had any other significant injury in his entire career at any level.  If the shoulder's not an injury concern, there shouldn't be one.

Reply 3: Wait...you're knocking him down the list for injury concerns while leaving Peyton Manning at #16 overall?!?  Didn't he just come off a neck surgery that kept him out all last season?  So...if a neck injury doesn't knock Peyton down the list, why does Stafford's injury knock him down?  And what about other guys higher on the list who are coming off seasons in which they, unlike Stafford, actually missed time due to injury?  Andre Johnson, Hakeem Nicks, Adrian Peterson, Jamaal Charles, Jay Cutler, Matt Forte, Arian Foster, Antonio Gates, Darren McFadden, and more...but I don't have insider, so I can't see them all.

Objection 3: He's only had one great season.  I can't justify moving him so far up the list for one year.

Reply 1: He's played 29 games now, which is almost two full seasons.  Typically people aren't afraid to rank players highly when they're going into their third season, so what's the problem?  He's actually going into his fourth year, and is going into a third year in terms of games played.

Reply 2: His one great season is so...much...better than the best season any that at least 5 (9 on Jaworski's list) of the guys above him have ever even sniffed that it has to be considered.  Eli's best year? 4933 yds, 29 TD, 16 INT (2011).  Rivers? 4710, 30, 13 (2010).  Romo? 4211, 36, 19 (2007).  Roethlisberger? 3154, 32, 11 (2007).  Jay Cutler? 4526, 25, 18 (2008).  None of those seasons should ever even be in the same paragraph as the numbers from Stafford's.

Reply 3: Aaron Rodgers was immediately crowned as the next great thing in the NFL after his first brilliant season.  In 2008 he took over the helm.  In both fantasy and reality (can't find a link, so you'll have to trust me) he was rated a top 4 or 5 quarterback heading into 2009 after one big season.

Reply 4: Other guys who are higher on this list have only had one good year.  A.J. Green, Jimmy Graham, Rob Gronkowski, Aaron Hernandez, Victor Cruz, Von Miller, etc...the list could go on and on both sides of the ball.  Why is Stafford the only one who gets knocked for having only one great year?

And there you have it.  There is absolutely no good argument for rating Matthew Stafford outside the top 5 or 6 QBs in the league.  I would rate him at #5, behind Rodgers, Brady, Brees, and P. Manning.

If any of you want to throw out an argument against me, feel free.  But beware - if you're going to use it to argue against Stafford being above Roethlisberger, Schaub, Romo, Cutler, Matt Ryan (Ha!), Joe Flacco (Haha, good one...wait?  That wasn't a joke...), Vick, Rivers, and Eli Manning, it's probably going to really suck.  If I didn't like Jaworski so much, I'd say he should be fired for his list.  Complete poppycock.