Christians, "free will" cannot be your only or ultimate response to the problem of evil because of what I call the "informational problem of evil" (short thread):
1/
Many evil events can be averted by simply offering a person more information: that bridge is unsafe, your brakes don't work, your door is unlocked, etc. This information is often utterly banal and is often possessed by other human beings (i.e. it doesn't require omniscience). 2/
Giving a person this information obviously doesn't impinge on their free will: they are free to ignore it. And when a fellow human being tells us this information, we never accuse them of taking away our agency. So the atheist can ask: why doesn't God give us this information? 3/
For this reason, "free will" can be part of the answer to the question "why does God allow evil?" but it cannot be the only or ultimate answer. I think a better answer is that evil exists to show God's glory in redeeming, healing, and punishing it. 4/
But even if you reject that solution, it's worth wrestling with the question, since "the justice of God in light of evil" is a major biblical theme. Wrestling will push you towards a more robust theology and towards the cross of Christ, where evil is ultimately conquered. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If anyone is looking for a ton of quotes from primary sources outlining the central tenets of #CriticalRaceTheory, I know a guy who has collected quite a bit of that material... 1/
Sincere question: Is it easier to acquire interdisciplinary knowledge in the sciences or the humanities? (thread)
I'd say it's easier in the sciences, but I'm open to counterargument. The main reason is the universality of math. Math is the language of science and if you 1/
have a good grounding in math, it's amazing how quickly you can pick up other disciplines. For example, problems in engineering or economics or biology look indecipherable at first, but then I'll say "Oh, that's just a Fourier transform" or "I get it: a boundary-value problem" 2/
You can derive a lot from first principles in the sciences, provided you understand the math. The humanities are different because they're so contingent. Knowing 13th-century Spanish history provides me with virtually no knowledge of 2nd-century Chinese history, let alone 3/
I mean this non-pejoratively, but #CriticalTheory is a conspiracy theory without conspirators.
Short thread:
Conspiracy theories argue that the overall trajectory of history and the majority of people's actions are shaped by a powerful, nefarious cabal of conspirators, whose 1/
existence can only be inferred by recognizing subtle, insidious connections between public facts which can be discerned only by people who have gotten "woke".
This is precisely the same argument that critical theorists make, except that the nefarious cabal of conspirators 2/
is replaced by nefarious social forces and hegemonic narratives. No one is intentionally pulling the strings, but we're all nonetheless being controlled. And most people remain in denial and are unable to see the truth until they're enlightened, not by internet forums and 3/
Quick thread on #COVID19 mortality rates inspired by a comment from Dr. @CT_Bergstrom.
Official COVID deaths in NYC are 12,774 out of a population of 8.4M. That means that 0.15% ***of all New Yorkers*** have died of coronavirus in the last two months. 1/
That places a lower bound on the COVID fatality rate in NYC. Even if 100% of New Yorkers have been infected, the fatality rate must be at least 0.15% (but is probably higher).
But can we trust the number of reported deaths? What if they're over-reported? 2/
Here's some data on excess deaths from New York City. There are around 20,000 more deaths than normal since March. Either 1) #COVID19 *and* something else is causing these deaths
or 2) #COVID19 deaths are undercounted
People who are sharing Dr. Erickson's video about #COVID19, please read:
Starting at 4:30, he notes that 19% of #COVID19 tests in CA are positive and then "extrapolates" to 5M COVID cases in CA and then uses this number to argue against a lockdown. This is horrifically wrong. 1/
A parallel argument would be "50% of cancer biopsies in CA are positive; therefore, 50% of people in CA have cancer." That's nonsense.
It doesn't follow that everything Dr. Erickson is false. It doesn't follow that lockdowns are still needed. But two things do follow. 2/
First, the fact that Dr. Erickson could make such a basic, basic mistake removes any warrant for us thinking he speaks from a position of authority on this issue. In the same way, if I say "I am a PhD chemist. I also believe in the four elements of fire, air, wind, and water" 3/
"Oppression" is one of the many common words that has been redefined by critical theory. The Bible and the dictionary define oppression in terms of violence, coercion, and cruelty. In contrast, critical theorists define oppression 1/
in terms of subordination, which can be difficult to detect. For example, in her classic essay "Five Faces of Oppression" Iris Young presents five criteria for "determining whether individuals and groups are oppressed" and for making claims about 2/
"whether one group is more oppressed than another." Because oppression -according to critical theorists- is subtle and deeply embedded in the dominant cultural ideology, people may not recognize their oppression immediately. Therefore, they may have to be taught 3/