Academia & Ecclesia

One of the most underappreciated 20 th century philosophers is Rudolf Carnap. I’ve always been fascinated and very much influenced by his works (especially “Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology”), although they have been overshadowed by the works of Wittgenstein and Quine, and his philosophical project has been described as a failure. I am just excited about David Chalmer’s new book, entitled Constructing the World , that attempts to bring to light and, at the same time, develop the valuable philosophical insights in Carnap’s Aufbau . I just hope that, with Michael Friedman’s Reconsidering Logical Positivism , Chalmer’s book will trigger a significant resurgence of interest in the works of Carnap. I think that Carnap deserves deep appreciation from the philosophical community.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/october/how-to-read-bible.html

According to Jason Brennan, an ethicist from Georgetown University, “most people shouldn’t vote.” That might be a shocking claim from an ethicist, since many consider the act of voting as an ethical responsibility. For him, most American citizens are politically incompetent due to the fact that most of them are ignorant, irrational, or misinformed about political affairs. He claims that there is nothing necessarily immoral about being ignorant, irrational, or misinformed. However, since the stakes are high during elections, the people will be better served if most people, under the influence of ignorance, irrationality, or misinformation, will not vote. I somewhat concur. As a church member, who held leadership roles in local churches, I worry about many politically incompetent Christians who are so eager to vote. Many American Christians claim that they vote based on their moral convictions. As a matter of fact, some major evangelical denominations even directly encourage their member

http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=6469561661568777605

There seem to be recent collaborations between process theism and the Emergent Movement [EM hereafter]. Claremont School of Theology (CST), an institution that intentionally and directly promotes process theism as its major research project, welcomes the potential for EM to reinvigorate mainline Protestantism. Dr. Philip Clayton, a major Claremont theologian, seems to associate himself with EM, as he speaks in conferences relevant to EM and blogs about EM. In addition, Brian McLaren, one of the major founding parents of EM, is a CST Trustee. Clearly, such collaborations are taking place. I think that they are healthy collaborations that can hopefully reinvigorate mainline Protestantism. While process theism can provide a robust and a coherent set of theological contents that is consistent with the intellectual goals of EM, EM can provide a sense of cultural relevance to the culturally outdated mainliners, who are generally welcoming of intellectually sophisticated theologies (including

For clear and concise analyses and evaluations of the issue pertaining to the constitutionality of the "Affordable Care Act," see Jeffrey Toobin's comment: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/07/09/120709taco_talk_toobin

Some scientists have an anti-philosophy bias. Lawrence Krauss, a famous physicist from Arizona State University, is definitely one of them. Krauss wrote a popular science book on cosmology, where he attempted to answer an old philosophical question: “Can something come from nothing?” David Albert, a philosopher from Columbia University who has a doctoral degree in physics, gave a deeply penetrating critique of Krauss’ book. In the process of answering the interview questions from The Atlantic regarding Albert’s review of his book, Krauss appears to have downplayed the value or significance of philosophy (including philosophy of science). The discussions that develop from the intellectual dispute between Krauss and Albert gave rise to very interesting insights on the value or significance of philosophy and the nature of the relationship between science and philosophy. In order to learn more about it, one can start by looking at Brian Leiter’s blog: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blo

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wealth-or-waste--rethinking-the-value-of-a-business-major.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/feb/01/top-five-regrets-of-the-dying

60% of the electorate in South Carolina for the Republican presidential nomination are evangelical Christians. 40% of them voted for Newt Gingrich. Evangelical Christians generally claim to be social conservatives. They, supposedly, do not want to vote for a candidate who has no respect for the sanctity of life and traditional family values. However, many of them voted for Newt Gingrich, who is clearly a man who does not care for what evangelicals will consider as traditional family values. There are at least three possibilities: many of these socially conservative evangelicals are ignorant, irrational, or hypocritical. Some of them are probably uninformed about Gingrich’s personal life. So, they are ignorant. Some of them are probably incapable of thinking coherently, i.e. failure to perceive the incoherence in voting for someone who is clearly opposed to one’s values. So, they are irrational. Some of them probably do not really vote based on what they claim to believe. So, they are h