Why Analogical Skills Matter

It has come to my attention that there are many people out there attempting to use analogies to express their opinions, positions, arguments, and what have you. I think that this is an excellent way to express oneself. In fact, I find that analogies immensely help me express the point I am trying to get across. In fact, analogies have been used as a means of teaching for centuries. In the Greek and Romans school, analogical thinking was among the highest forms of intellectual discourse and reasoning; as it was/is a part of logical reasoning.

The problem that I, and others, have noticed is that among the analogies that are being used, most of these analogies are just plain bad. I’ll give three examples that are popular in Facebook and Twitter conversations and explain why they are bad reasoning, but ultimately the point of this blog is to show why analogical skills matter and how good and bad analogies can affect people’s beliefs.

Three Examples of Bad Analogies

*Before moving on, I want to make something very clear. Two of the analogies I will be discussing are concerned with hot-button issues—Black Lives Matter (BLM) and abortion. What I will argue below is not whether BLM or abortion are right or wrong. What I will be arguing is how the popular analogies used in favor of these are gravely mistaken. So, please keep that in mind.

  1. Analogies for the Trinity

I wanted to discuss this issue because it is more of a light-hearted example that sets up the purpose of this blog well. So, very quickly, the Trinity is a Christian doctrine that claims God is one being, or essence, who exists eternally in three distinct coequal persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Saucy, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001) Because this is a difficult concept to imagine, many have used analogies to try and express this belief. Some have used the three-leaf clover, others have used water (liquid, vapor, solid), the sun (how it is a star, light, and heat), or a man (he is a son, husband, and father) to try and explain this doctrine. However, these are bad analogies.

  • The “water” and “man” analogies are examples of modalism. Modalism is a heresy that states God is not a union of three distinct persons, but is instead revealed as three different people; God has “modes” of being, being a father, then a son, and then the Holy Spirit.
  • The “three-leaf clover” analogy is bad because it falls victim to the partialism heresy. This heresy states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are only part of the Trinity. They compose God when all three are brought together and each person only has 1/3 of the divine.
  • The “sun” analogy is bad because it suggests Arianism. Arianism is the heresy that claims the Son and Holy Spirit are creations of the Father and are, thus, not coequal or coeternal with the Father, much like how light and heat are products of the sun. So, this analogy is out, too. For a funny video on this, click here.

So, when talking about the Trinity, these analogies are not good to use. They distort the actual Christian doctrine even if the person using the analogy does not mean to and believes the orthodox view of the Trinity. So, these analogies, though meaning to be harmless, do not properly teach this Christian doctrine.

  1. BLM Analogy

The BLM analogy goes as follows. Smith is sitting at the dinner table. Everyone has food except for Smith. Smith says, “Smith deserves food.” Everyone else responds, “Everyone deserves food,” yet they do not give Smith any food. Although the statement, “Everyone deserves food,” is true, it does nothing to rectify Smith’s lack of food. The moral of this analogy is to point out two things; 1) Smith deserves food and 2) that the slogan “everyone deserves food” should be abandoned. It is claimed that “Smith deserves food,” assumes that everyone deserves food. There is an injustice in the amount, or lack thereof, of food Smith receives. Here is a link to a version of the analogy. Here are a few reasons why this is a bad analogy.

  • It conflates the issue by confusing the moral claim with actions. This analogy is pointing out two things, 1) that Smith deserves food, and 2) that the slogan, “Everyone deserves food,” is unhelpful and harmful. This analogy is discrediting “everyone deserves food” because Smith never receives food; however, the problem is not with the moral claim that everyone deserves food, but with the action of withholding food from Smith. If the other people at the table truly felt conviction for everyone to receive food (since this is what they are claiming), then their actions would rectify Smith’s lack of food. Thus, the slogan “everyone deserves food” should motivate the people at the table to get Smith food. So, this analogy incorrectly discredits the slogan, “everyone deserves food” due to the wrong action, not actually critiquing the moral claim. So, this analogy is not good.
  • Another reason why this is a bad analogy is that it is meant to promote equality, but it is actually vague regarding equality. It assumes the proposition, “everyone deserves food,” but it only ever argues for Smith to receive food. You should never assume the communication of principles in a slogan or analogy. Assuming that “Smith deserves food” is communicating two things—that 1) everyone deserves food and 2) Smith deserves food—is a failure on the communicator’s part. Saying this slogan remains agnostic as to what the others deserve; it does not communicate anything regarding the other people. Secondly, it is redundant if it assumes the premise “everyone deserves food”. If it is assuming this, then pointing out the fact that Smith deserves food is redundant. Necessarily, Smith deserves food if everyone deserves food. However, when someone only focuses in on one component, then they are necessarily not focusing on the whole. With golf, if you isolate one area of your drive because you keep slicing to the left, then you will, probably, overcompensate and begin to slice to the right. One needs to think holistically of their swing by correcting the problem with the rest of the “swinging components” in mind. Only then will your drive be corrected and not overcorrected. The case with Smith receiving less food is similar. In assuming everyone deserves food, but only focusing on Smith, then this analogy runs the risk of overcompensating for Smith and losing sight of everyone’s deserved food. I think this is easily seen by some of my comments above—discrediting the slogan, “everyone deserves good” due to wrong action, not a wrong moral claim. Thus, this is a bad analogy because it discredits the wrong thing and is, at best, agnostic regarding equality (they very thing it is trying to argue for).
  1. Abortion Analogy

Recently, an author named Patrick S. Tomlinson tweeted a thought experiment, or analogy to argue for abortion. The series of tweets (9) gave this classic scenario. Say there is a fire in a fertility clinic. In one room, there is a five-year-old child and in another room, there is a frozen container of 1,000 viable embryos. You only have enough time to save one, so which do you save? He continues to elaborate on his analogy by saying that no one would save the 1,000 viable embryos. If they do answer it this way, then they are lying. If they answer by saving the five-year-old child, then they have admitted that the 1,000 viable embryos are less valuable than the one child, thus admitting that abortion is okay. Here is a link to his tweets. Here are some reasons why this is a bad analogy.

  • An obvious problem with this analogy is it begs the question (an informal fallacy, see this article for a quick brush-up) by discrediting one of the answers right off the bat. Perhaps there is someone out there who truly does value 1,000 viable embryos over one five-year-old child. Who is Tomlinson to say that there is no one out there like that? But, this is only a minor point.
  • The major flaw with this analogy is actually very easy to see. I don’t know if Tomlinson knows this, but this is a classic example of a conflict of moral absolutes only shifted to an abortion scenario (of course, this is only a conflict of absolutes for the pro-lifer, according to Tomlinson’s final analysis). Typically, this example deals with a train. Say you are watching a train that is approaching a fork in the tracks. The train is headed for the left, which leads to a broken bridge and everyone on the train will die, say, 100 people. If you switch the tracks and the train goes to the right, then it will run over 10 people (because it’s realistic for 10 people standing on train tracks). So, do you allow 100 people to die by doing nothing or do you do something and kill 10 people. Tomlinson’s analogy is, for all purposes, the same analogy. Why this is a bad analogy is because one’s answer only says one thing, not two. If you choose to save the five-year-old child, then all you are saying is that the five-year-old has more value than the 1,000 embryos. Tomlinson clarifies this in a later tweet. However, he still believes that this analogy proves that abortion is morally acceptable because the five-year-old child has more value. But, in order to show that abortion is morally acceptable, he must demonstrate that having less value than a five-year-old child is a low enough value to permit abortion, and this analogy does not do this. Here is an analogy to show that his analogy is wrong. Let’s replace the abortion analogy with a money analogy; the five-year-old child with $100 and the 1,000 embryos with $50 (This in no way assumes that I value a five-year-old child as $100). So, if I say that $100 is more valuable than $50, does it mean that stealing $50 is not a crime because it is less valuable than $100? No, of course not. This analogy says nothing about the crime of stealing. What does this analogy say about the value of $50? It only says that $50 is less than $100, which is to say almost nothing at all. The classic example with the train is not meant to prove whether 10 or 100 people have such less value that it is morally acceptable to kill or allow them to die. All it is meant to show you is which has more value. Therefore, it only shows one thing, not two; thus this analogy is bad. It does not prove that abortion is morally acceptable. The only thing it does is cause one to think with would they save.
    • And, just to be clear, this is not an easy example as Tomlinson so quickly brushes over, “there is a right answer,” as he said. In the classic example, there is no right answer. Doing nothing may seem to relieve you of moral responsibility, but perhaps people have a moral duty to save others within their ability. Thus, saving the 100 people even though you are not the cause of their death if you don’t, maybe the right option. While the other option is directly causing the death of 10 people, so it would seem that you are directly responsible for their deaths, but 10 deaths are not as bad as 100 deaths, so maybe it is justified? The point of this critique is that this is a tough example and should not be lightly taken and so flippantly used as Tomlinson used it. Not to be rude, but a simple perusal through any introduction to ethics books would quickly clear up this erroneous thinking.

Why Are Analogies So Important?

Here is a list of reasons for why analogies are so important:

1) Analogies Are Like Pictures For Our Arguments

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, an analogy is the same way. It is meant to demonstrate our meaning and intentions through a (sort of) story. Stories have been an excellent way to communicate truth and teaching others over the centuries. Many religions and ancient societies solely used stories to teach child their rules and morals.

2) Analogies Are An Easy Way For Us To Explain Universals

Universals are moral principles, laws of nature, they are the things that can be seen in many instances even if the circumstances are different. For example, kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is bad in Florida. Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is bad in North Carolina, too. So, the universal is “kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is bad” no matter where you are. Analogies are an easy way to expose the universals we are wanting to argue for and communicate.

3) Analogies Manifest One’s Feelings and Intentions Behind Their Argument

In the case of the BLM analogy, it is meant to show the importance of equality, so it uses an example everyone can relate to, food. The injustice it seeks to reveal and the feelings behind the scene are clearly seen through the example of someone not getting any food. Analogies can communicate our feelings and intentions more clearly than our formal arguments.

4) Analogies Will Ultimately Fail, No Matter What

Every analogy will ultimately fail. The trick is to make your point through the analogy before it fails. Every analogy fails because it’s a different event than the one you are arguing about, so it doesn’t “match-up” perfectly to what you are discussing. Take the train analogy, for example. The analogy breaks down when one considers why there are 10 people just hanging out on the railroad tracks and why you couldn’t just yell at them to move or why they wouldn’t move once they saw the train barreling down towards them. So, this analogy isn’t realistic, but the point of the analogy remains intact before it breaks down. This is important to remember when considering an analogy’s importance because it really shows that analogies are meant to augment our arguments, not be our arguments. Tomlinson seems to forget this. His series of tweets were meant to be an argument for abortion, but all he used was an analogy and some anecdotal comments. If you only use an analogy, then the best you’ll get is an ambiguous argument that those in favor of can only say, “Hooray,” those against can say, “Boo,” and the rest of the audience who are lost in the ambiguity can say, “Huh?” Analogies are vastly important, but their importance is limited and requires an argument to augment.


The Nature of Education: A Fine Line between Learning and Indoctrination

There are many conversations about education—its importance, its purpose, and how it ought to be “distributed” to the public. There is a current conversation going on concerning higher education—college and post-undergraduate studies—and whether it has been helpful for society. Unfortunately, this current conversation has been in the context of conservative politicians due to the apparent liberal culture that is cultivated among students at the majority of universities. I say, “unfortunately” because the discussion on education is, and has been, a political one. I think a better conversation regarding education should be one that is away from politics and is more philosophically inclined as to understanding the nature of education. It is also an unfortunate conversation because some have concluded that higher education is rendered useless because of the political influence. The purpose of this post is not to weigh in on this political conversation, but to take a look at the nature of education and how it differs from indoctrination.

On a side note, to me it is ill-fated that so many good conversations have “gone political.” Several of my recent posts have had a political dialogical slant, which I don’t enjoy, but I blame the fact that so many topics have been abducted by politics. I’d rather stay completely out of those kinds of conversations, so please do not read any of this as a political propaganda.

The Nature of Education

Education is a strange thing. It’s something we go through for the first part of our lives, and hopefully continue to engage in it “unofficially” even once we graduate. Education, in its most basic form, is a systematic approach to teaching. Education has to do with knowledge, or learning. We all learn differently and have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are good at analytics (mathematics), while others are good at the arts (music, poetry, painting, etc.). Some can learn just by watching someone else demonstrate the rules to a discipline, while others have to actively engage in the discipline. There is a wide range of strategies and tools to help people acquire knowledge. Yet, knowledge itself is even stranger (if you need any convincing, just check out this encyclopedia entry). So, if knowledge and education is so strange, what could the nature of education possibly be? Luckily, I think its necessary components are fairly easy to grasp.

It seems that there are at least two major parts that compose this thing called “education.” The first is facts. Education does not seem possible without delivering facts to pupils. Knowledge necessarily requires that facts are comprehended by the knower. It wouldn’t make sense to say we have “false knowledge.” In the case of “false knowledge,” it is not that we know something, it’s that we don’t know something, or paraphrased as a “lack of knowledge”. So, facts are a necessary part of education, and are the most well-known part of education. The second, which is often overlooked, is reasoning. What I intend to communicate by the word “reasoning” is the idea of drawing an inference, logical thinking (deduction, induction, and abduction), drawing a conclusion from the facts, piecing ideas together, etc.

It’s one thing to list a bunch of facts and expect students to learn them, but this cannot be what education is, there must be more. While I do think there are times in one’s education and certain subjects that call for a listing of facts; however, as the pupils becomes more versed in her education this is simply not enough. Think of it as a connect-the-dots game found in those magazines dentists have in their waiting rooms; at least mine always did. A page contains seemingly random dots that are numbered. The directions say to put your pen at the dot with a 1 next to it and draw a straight line from dot1 to dot2. This pattern continues until you get to the last dot. Somewhere during your drawing you will start to see what the image is and by the time you complete the game you’ve drawn it. Education seems to be like this. Someone has to give you the dots (facts) in order for you to connect them (reasoning).

However, it is the reasoning portion of education that is the hardest to teach.

Teaching someone to reason well is simply stated as teaching them to think. This is what separates teaching from indoctrination. Indoctrination is obviously bad as it is semi-brainwashing people to think and believe the same way as the “educator,” but its subtleties’ are often overlooked in education. One common way indoctrination can occur in education is when one only presents one side of an argument and/or puts forth bad or misleading arguments for the other side. This is not teaching a person the right conversation and is not teaching them to weigh the options for both sides. Instead, this is only indoctrinating the pupil to believe a certain way; in which education is nonexistent in this scenario.

Teaching people to think can be a dangerous thing. Dangerous in the sense of “creating” thinkers who think differently than you do—if this is, in fact, dangerous. A great example of this is Plato and is star pupil Aristotle. Both are titans in philosophy, yet they differed on many subjects. Plato taught Aristotle how to reason, think philosophically, and come to conclusions on his own. Yet, Aristotle departed from many of Plato’s positions. Is this bad? I don’t think so. This stirs-up good conversations, it sharpens each other’s beliefs, and, if held in a civil context, it can help people find truth.

So, the nature of education, as briefly discussed in this blog, is composed of at least two parts, teaching facts and teaching one to reason with those facts. Education is a beautiful thing and should not be forgotten. It is in the education, not indoctrination, of children that breed the great ideas of tomorrow. This means allowing people to hear the full and accurate conversation in order to decide for themselves what they believe. This may seem dangerous–for, an idea is a most dangerous thing to have–but it’s for the best. People thinking for themselves is what benefits society the most.

Four Popular Arguments that aren’t Helping Popular Topics

Hello all!

I hope your week is shaping quite nicely. It has been several weeks since my last post. My wife, Brooke, and I just had our first baby and everyone is doing well! Scout, our little girl, is unbelievably cute and I am truly blessed to have her in my life. Brooke has recovered well and is adjusting to motherhood like a champ!

This week I wanted to address several popular topics that are not being discussed well. My point in this post is not to argue for one side, though I’m sure you can guess my stance on a few of these. The purpose of this post is to help people think more clearly about popular topics no matter your stance. There are many terrible thinkers out there and it doesn’t help that a large portion of people with a microphone are those terrible thinkers. So, without further ado, here are four popular arguments that aren’t helping popular topics!

1) Popular Argument/Discussion: Such-and-such politician did not speak out against the prejudiced organization. This politician must endorse them!

  • Although it is sad when politicians, such as the president, do not speak out against hate groups, racist agendas and the like, this comment does not actually accomplish anything. For one, someone’s silence on an issue does not necessarily mean they are for that group. Their silence may not be helpful and may actually be harmful, but this is different from giving allegiance to something. Bringing up does not help the dialogue progress.
    • Helpful Argument/Discussion: Keep the discussion on who was directly involved, what they did that was wrong, why it was wrong, how can we avoid continuing these problems, and what are encouraging words and thoughts to keep unity among those who believe what was done was wrong.Also, check out this blog on a related topic! (Click here)

2) Popular Argument/Discussion: people are (or are not) born homosexuals.

  • Some of may find this discussion “old-hat”, but this debate is commonly found in religious circles such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This popular argument centers on whether or not people are born with homosexual desires. I don’t think this is a help, or tenable, argument. The problem with this argument, from either side, is a little hidden. There is, I think, a missing proposition in either side’s arguments. It goes as follows:

People are born homosexuals,

Therefore, homosexuality is good.


Homosexuality is bad (or not natural, as some will say),

Therefore, people are not born homosexuals.

However, both of these arguments are invalid. There is a missing proposition in each argument: If people are (or are not) born a homosexual, then it is good (or bad) that people are homosexual. So, they should look like this:

If people are born homosexual, then homosexuality is good,

People are born homosexual,

Therefore, homosexuality is good.


If people are born homosexual, then homosexuality is good,

Homosexuality is not good (bad),

Therefore, people are not born homosexuals.

Both of these arguments are now valid. The first argument is an example of modus ponens,

If A then B,


Therefore, B.

The second argument is an example of modus tollens,

If A then B,


Therefore, ~A.

However, it should be clear now what the real discussion should center on. Both sides have bought into the idea that if someone is born a certain way, that makes it okay. But, do one’s birth-desires (as I will call them) determine if something is right or wrong? Usually we would say no. Here are two examples. 1) For Christians: the fact that people are born in sin and born with a sin nature does not mean that sin and our fallen nature are good. Why? Because being born a certain way does not determine its moral status. So, if you just replace “homosexual” with “sin nature”, we clearly see that this argument is not sound (true). 2) For non-Christians: if someone is born with Common Variable Immune Deficiency (CVID) to the point of having no antibodies for an immune system, does this mean that CVID is a good thing? Of course not! Why? Because something’s moral status cannot be based on the fact that someone was born a certain way. I say this because the usual response is, “I can’t help that I am a homosexual. I was born this way.” Again, the hidden premise here is that if someone is born a certain way, then that means that certain way is good, or at least acceptable.

  • Another problem with this argument is that it really can’t be proven or disproven. If someone says that they were born a homosexual, someone else really can’t argue with it. It would be like arguing with someone about their favorite color. I can’t argue with someone about their favorite color. That’s something only they would know—accept for the poor fellow in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Likewise, simply saying that you were born a certain way is not an argument in and of itself. So, not only do these arguments not accomplish anything, they are also incorrigible—they cannot be corrected or proven.
    • Helpful Argument/Discussion: Discuss the virtues (or vices) of homosexuality in a scientific, religious, social, and psychological context, and discuss which moral theory (relative morality, absolute morality, pragmatism, etc.) should be ascribed. I think a lot of time has been wasted on this popular argument for (or against) homosexuality.

3) Popular Argument/Discussion: Abortion is about the woman having a choice about her body and anyone who disagrees hates women.

  • I mentioned this argument before in a post about logical fallacies (click here!). There are many problems with this popular argument, one of which is that fact that this is the logical fallacy called red herring. To put the argument forward that abortion directly involves the woman’s worth and her right to choose completely misses the actual conversation. For one, most pro-lifers would agree that women are worth just as much as men, should have a right to make choices about their body, and do not hate women. These are widely agreed on. However, the dissention is between whether the unborn baby is a life. For, if the unborn baby is a life, meaning a person with worth, rights, and separate from the woman’s body, then the listed criteria are irrelevant (women’s worth, right to make decisions about their body, and hatred toward women). However, if the unborn baby is not a life and is merely this weird lump of seemingly growing cells inside of a woman that is poorly labeled “unborn baby” or “fetus”, then the woman should have the right to make a decision about her body, but you would first have to prove that the unborn baby isn’t a life. Thus, the popular argument is unhelpful, irrelevant, and needlessly aggressive.
    • Helpful Argument/Discussion: Discuss why the unborn baby should or should not be considered a life. Point out logical gaps, inconsistencies, and evidence for your position. I believe the reason why the real conversation has not happened is because most pro-choicers have not come up with a reasonable response as to why the unborn baby is not a life. Answers like, 1) babies should be considered lives (people) when they’ve had experiences, 2) taken their first breath, 3) are self-supporting, or, more recently, 4) only if they grow up to be a person (Philosophy Time). The problems with any of these listed arguments are they could be applied to a wide range of people already born and they are irrelevant. How does having experiences grant person-hood to someone? Or, how does taking a first breath grant person-hood? Do you lose person-hood when you hold your breath? And what about people who are not self-supporting, whether through developed disablements or accidents? Have they lost their person-hood and value because they have to rely on people, machines, or medicines to survive? Number 4 is too ridiculous to expound on. I’ll let you to watch the video and decide for yourself. Thus, most of these, and other arguments for abortion really come down to believing there is a special change that occurs when the baby is born; however, not much headway has been made in determining what is that special thing. The point I am making here is that there are not many good arguments out there for abortion, quiet possibly in part because the discussions have focused on the wrong, unhelpful arguments.

4) Popular Argument/Discussion: Anyone against raising the minimum wage to $15 doesn’t want to help lift people out of poverty.

  • This fairly popular discussion is riddled with unhelpful arguments that distract from the real discussion. What’s wrong with this argument is most people against the $15 minimum wage increase are not for people staying in poverty. Being against the increase does not entail one being for poverty. This unhelpful argument mirrors the abortion discussion we discussed above. It’s a red herring fallacy. It is entirely consistent for someone to be against this increase and be against poverty. If someone wants to argue that the latter is entailed by the first, you’d have to show a necessary connection between them, which would be a lot of work as these two ideas seem to be unrelated.
    • Helpful Argument/Discussion: This discussion really should center on numbers, data, and trends. Are corporations, big and small, able to pay people this much? Will an increase this large put people out of jobs because the company cannot pay that many staff that much money? Would this really lift people out of poverty, or will their hours just get cut? Is this increase viable for the whole country? Why $15 dollars and not more or less? Would this raise the price of goods from the company who now has to pay their employees more? Would the cost of living eventually rise to match this minimum wage raise? And if so, did the cost of living raise because of the minimum wage raise? The good thing about these questions are twofold. 1) There are years and years of data that can be looked at from many different areas (a.k.a. every state, county, and city). So, these questions do not have to remain abstract or visionary. There are real trend-lines for these questions that can help us establish why the cost of living is raising, and if raising the minimum wage will cure poverty. 2) These questions would help move the conversation forward by getting people to look at the data instead of looking at their feelings. Poverty is a big deal and demands our attention—attention spent on helping people, not putting people down who disagree.

There are many other conversations out there that are not being forwarded because popular arguments distract from the real conversation. If a society is to actually improve, then real, helpful discussions must be had between people who disagree. Often times we are just talking past each other, venting our uninformed opinions at someone else instead of talking with someone else. In a time when information is so prevalent, it’s ironic that so many people are uninformed and distracted.

Until next week! Think well!

A Little Morality Goes a Long Way

Hello, all!

This week’s post will be a little short. For those who don’t know, Brooke and I are expecting a little girl to join our family this week or next! Brooke is just over 39 weeks pregnant and Scout LeAnne Stickles is highly anticipated!

With that being said, I did not have much time to prepare for this post.

I thought about what I should write on and the subject of morality came to mind. Morality and ethics are something everyone has thought about. There is an innate sense we have regarding moral actions, justice, and goodness. There have been many different answers as to why humanity has a sense of morality, but today’s post will focus on a simple aspect of the moral dialogue—the “good” and the “right”.

When people discuss moral issues, whether it is a historical issue or a current one, the conversation often confuses the terms “good” and “right”. Many think these things are the same thing, much in the same way as they think “bad” and “wrong” are synonymous. However, this would be a mistake. “Good’ and “bad” are value terms. They express the value of an action. This is probably what most people mean to indicate when they say “good” or “right”. Yet, “right” and “wrong” are action terms, or terms referring to one’s moral duty. So, from these definitions, we can see value and duty terms are not expressing the same thing. In fact, they are very different in their meaning.

At this point, some of you may be thinking that even though they express different kinds of things (value or duty), they could still be used the same way. For, what is good should be the right action and what is bad should be the wrong action. And, I would agree only in part with this estimation. Kicking a baby for the fun of it is a bad action. It is also a wrong action. No one should ever kick a baby for the fun of it. (Also, discussions of morality and ethics often use very dark examples. This is just to make a point easily show that the author is trying to make.) So, in this case, the bad and wrong can both be applied to the same action. Much like saving a baby from being kicked by someone who thinks it is fun is a good and right action.

So, what’s the problem?

The problem arises when there is a conflict of absolutes, or in other words a conflict of principles. This is when someone is faced with only bad options; which is the right choice? Now, not everyone agrees that conflicting absolutes ever happen. Perhaps there is a third, hidden choice. Though I will not argue against this position, I do think it would be very difficult to show that our moral principles are never conflicting in the diverse discourse of life.

Thus, let’s assume that our moral principles sometimes do conflict. We’ll use a fun example. In the third X-Men movie, The Last Stand, it is shown that Charles Xavier put mental blocks in Jean Grey’s mind in order to stop her alternate personality, the Phoenix, from taking over. Aside from brutally ruining the comic version of the Phoenix, Logan (Wolverine) is appalled at what the Professor has done. Logan proceeds to tell Xavier how bad of a person he was by putting mental blocks in Jean’s mind without her knowing. Xavier defends himself by saying, “I had to choose between the lesser of two evils.” What Professor X is saying is that he was given two choices and both were bad: 1) stop Jean’s alternate personality from killing multitudes of people by placing mental blocks, 2) allow Jean to continue to act as the Phoenix and kill more people. However, Professor X believed that he could choose the lesser of the two evils, which was placing the mental blocks. In this scenario, a bad choice was the right choice, according to Professor X. Additionally, he wasn’t saying that because both options were bad, he was justified in placing the mental blocks. He felt remorse for his actions. Instead, he chose the lesser of the evils and recognized it as evil.

A lesson to be learned here is that the right choice should not always be justified. Sometimes it is better to recognize an evil action as evil even if it is the right action.

So, in the case that moral principles do conflict, there will be times when moral actions are bad, but still the right decision. Yet, if an action is bad, what makes it the right one? In the X-Men case above, putting the mental blocks was the right action because it was the lesser of two evils. This, however, is not the only answer that could be given, but it is an answer that will suffice for now.

I hope the rest of your week goes well! And hopefully, our week goes well with the addition of a new member to our family! Until then, think well my friends.

12 Logical Fallacies to Avoid

Hi, all.

I hope you are doing well. This week will be a short post, as promised!

Communication is key. Period. It is used in relationships, community, society, or anything that involves people. Often times, however, we communicate very poorly. There are many reasons for this, but one of the problems (that I often see on social media) are logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is simply an argument that implements incorrect thinking. There are two types of fallacies 1) Formal fallacies and 2) Informal fallacies. For this post, we are concerned with informal fallacies. An informal fallacy is an argument that follows the formal rules of logic, but are incorrect in terms of their content—the evidence in the argument does not lead to the conclusion. Here is an example before moving on to our list:

  • Pure-blood wizards are vanishing in the Harry Potter universe.
  • Sirius Black is a pure-blood wizard.
  • Therefore, Sirius Black is vanishing.

There is nothing wrong with the formal rules. If you want to impress your friends or bore your enemies, the above syllogism is an example of modus ponens:

  • If p then q,
  • p,
  • Therefore q.

But, we would still say the ‘Harry Potter’ argument is incorrect. Sirius Black is not vanishing. There must be an informal fallacy lurking in the background here. But what? Well, check out this list of informal fallacies to avoid when communicating!


1) Hasty Generalization

An argument that forms a conclusion on the basis of insufficient evidence.

Example: This political party said blank, therefore it must be bad!

Just because the disliked political party said it, doesn’t mean that it was wrong or bad. Sometimes the people you don’t like are correct.

2) Sweeping Generalization

An argument that applies a general principle to a specific case to which it does not apply.

Example: If you have a college degree in ‘x’, then you must be qualified for job ‘x’ over someone who doesn’t have a degree.

A college education is good, but it does not entail that that person is more qualified than someone else. If I got a college degree in music, specialized in voice, I would not be more qualified to be the lead vocal in The Avett Brother’s band. Trust me, they are more qualified!

3) Weak Analogy

An argument based on an analogy that does not fit the situation

Example: “Destroying this gate will be easy. I once destroyed a pillow fort wall of blankets!” Gimli said to Legolas as they approached the Black Gate.

Well, Gimli is in for a surprise! His analogy of the pillow fort blanket wall doesn’t quite stand up to the task at hand of storming the Black Gate…. By the way, Gimli never actually said this. Dwarves are prideful, but not stupid!

4) Equivocation

An argument that uses the same word multiples times, but changes its definition during the argument.


  • Pure-blood wizards are vanishing in the Harry Potter universe.
  • Sirius Black is a pure-blood wizard.
  • Therefore, Sirius Black is vanishing.

The word “vanishing” applied to “pure-blood” is meaning that there are not many pure-blood witches and wizards around. They are marrying non-magic people and, therefore, they are not having pure-blood children. However, Sirius Black, though being a pure-blood, is not vanishing. The word used this way is ill-equipped to describe Sirius Black’s condition.

5) Complex Question

The conclusion is assumed in the question presented in the argument.

Example: You are an avid DC comics fan and hate Marvel Comics and your archenemy is attempting to ruin your day:

“Are you a Marvel fan?”

“Absolutely not!!”

“Does your wife know you are a Marvel fan?”

The second question is a favorite of little kids. At least, when I was in elementary school this question was posed often as a way of catching the other little tike in a bind—though it wasn’t usually about comic companies. It assumes that you are a Marvel fan in asking whether your wife knows it. So, this question isn’t a valid question to answer. So, make sure your children know and are equipped to handle the logical fallacies of grade school!

6) Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

            An argument that never addresses the issue at hand, but assume the issue is settled (This is very close to the Complex Question, but is slightly different).

Example: I am undefeatable at the board game Settlers of Catan because I cannot lose!

Essentially, the problem here is that the statement is repeating itself. You could rephrase it as I am undefeatable because I am undefeatable. It doesn’t prove anything. Especially in Settlers of Catan…only the dice decide your fate. And it is often not pretty.

7) Ad hominem

Latin for “against the person,” this is an argument against the opponent, not their arguments.

Example: Christianity can’t be true because there are bad people who claim to be Christians and did terrible things.

On a more serious note, many have used this as an argument against Christianity, citing the Crusades as points against Christianity. The point in acknowledging this fallacy is that a religion cannot be judged based on the people. Religions should only be judged based on the teachings of that religion—this goes for any beliefs, political groups, worldviews, etc. For one, the person claiming a certain religion may not be following the religion’s teachings. The Crusades do not disprove Christianity. All it proves is that some used the banner of Christianity to wage war on others.

8) Ad populum

            Latin for “argument to the people,” this is an argument that appeals to a large number of people instead of appealing to explanatory scope or evidence.

Example: Everyone believes Superman could beat Batman. Therefore, Superman could beat Batman.

This argument doesn’t prove anything. Batman might fool everyone and beat Superman. Or, maybe Superman would beat Batman. Or perhaps, they might learn that their mothers had the same name and become best friends….Okay, okay. That last one was a joke. No way that would ever happen, right? Right? Anyways, the argument doesn’t prove anything by appealing to a large number of people.

9) Red Herring

An argument that diverts the attention off of the subject at hand to another, irrelevant subject.

Example: People against abortion must hate women.

The abortion debate, whether you are for or against, revolves around the unborn fetus in determining whether it should be considered a human life or not. The argument in no way revolves around women’s worth or someone’s feelings regarding women. And bringing up this “argument” only distracts from the real, helpful conversation.

Another, lighter example would be any episode of A Pup Named Scooby-Doo. Child-version Freddy accused the school bully, Red Herring, as the person in the monster costume every episode. No wonder why they named the bully Red Herring. Better luck next time Freddy.

10) Straw Man

            An argument when one distorts and inflates another’s position and proceeds to argue against the inflated position


  • People should avoid Harry Potter because it has witchcraft in it.
  • Witchcraft is evil and wicked and teaches people to be evil and wicked.
  • Anything that teaches people to be evil and wicked should be avoided.
  • Therefore, people should avoid Harry Potter.

Harry Potter does not teach people to be evil and wicked. This argument inflates what the Harry Potter series is actually about. Anything that teaches people to be evil and wicked should be avoided, but since Harry Potter does not teach people to be evil and wicked, this argument accomplishes nothing.

11) Argument from Ignorance

An argument formed from the lack of evidence

Example: “Well Timmy, I didn’t see a monster under the bed. So, I guess there is no monster.”

Yikes! Look out, Mom! Not only did you base your conclusion on the absence of evidence—therefore being convicted of committing an informal fallacy—but you also might have a monster on your hands! She’s in double-Jeopardy, here. I mean, for all she knows, the monster could be invisible.

12) Genetic Fallacy

            An argument that attempts to explain the other opponent’s belief in order disprove that belief.

Example: “You only believe in God because you can’t handle the harsh reality of life.” (Both Freud and Nietzsche used this argument against religion)

These kinds of arguments should be avoided because they don’t say anything worthwhile. Explaining the reason for a belief does not disprove the belief. The explanation could even be true, but it wouldn’t disprove the belief. Maybe people can’t handle the harsh reality of life. Yet, perhaps God knew people couldn’t handle it so he put it in the heart of people to look for Him. And this is why we have religion. You could also call this a “just-so” story. It “just-so” happens that you believe ‘x’ because of (whatever). Just-so stories amount to, “Cool story, bro,” but not much else.

Well, I hoped you liked this list of a few informal fallacies to avoid in a conversation! And as always, think well and have a good week.

Is Time Travel Possible?

Happy Fourth of July!

I decided to write a very patriotic post for this year’s 4th of July. It is a tradition of mine, passed down from my father, to watch the SyFy Channel’s 48-hour Twilight Zone marathon. So naturally, science fiction usually comes to mind when I think about the birth of my country.

This week’s topic will be on the possibility of time travel!

Time is a very paradoxical thing. It’s the one thing everyone knows about, but most cannot explain. Take, for instance, St. Augustine, “What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.” This is one reason why I wrote my thesis on the nature of time and God’s relationship to it. Time fascinates me. I remember I use to have conversations with a friend of mine in college about time travel and what that would entail. It’s partially due to these conversations that I set my mind to reading and discussing time in a philosophical context.

But, time is a tricky thing. If you ask someone what is time and what is its nature, there is a wide range of answers you’ll get. A range as far as from saying time is everything and around everything to claiming that time is nothing at all—it’s just a human measurement of change. So, before we can actually get to the topic of time travel, we’ll have to briefly discuss what time is.

Theories on the Nature of Time

There are three theories on the nature of time. The names are rather unhelpful, but they will suffice for now.

1) The A-Theory of time.

This is probably the more intuitive theory of time. The two major components of the A-Theory are that it affirms a privileged moment (the present) and the passage of time. I call the “present” a “privileged moment” because the A-Theorist believes that the present is different from any other moment in the past and future. It has a privileged existence if you will. This privilege is defined as not just what is available to us, but also that it is the only moment in time existing. The past used to exist and the future will exist, but only the present actually exists. Most people say that times passes and that there is such a thing as the present. I mean, we talk about the “now” and we reference other days based on the present. The word “tomorrow” indicates the day after today and “yesterday” indicates the day before today; they both derive meaning from the idea of the present. The A-Theory is also called presentism.

2) The B-Theory of time.

I know, helpful terms, right? This theory denies both of A-Theory’s propositions. It affirms that there is no privileged moment and time does not pass. This view is not very intuitive at first, but it does have redeeming qualities. The idea of no present seems like crazy talk. But, the B-Theorist claims that the present is merely an illusion – we have the psychological occurrence of a present moment, but it holds no ontological existence. Additionally, on this theory, the idea of the passage of time is also an illusion. Again, this is a psychological occurrence that gives the appearance of the passage of time. This is also the view most scientists hold. Einstein’s theory of relativity seems to lean this way, though it is not a consensus. This is also the view most TV shows take, such as Agents of SHIELD, The Flash, and Dr. Who. If you’ve heard time explained as a four-dimensional cube, then you’ve heard some version of this theory. One way to think about this is to view time as we view space. There is no privileged space named “here” and space does not pass, we pass through space. So, as “here” is a relative term with no ontological preference, so “now” is also. You still may not like this view, but using the spatiotemporal analogy helps understand this position. This view is also called static theory.

3) The denial time altogether.

Many think that time isn’t really anything at all. It’s just the rate at which the Earth passes around the sun and rotates on its axis. I think we lose a lot if we deny the existence of time, but if you’re going to deny time, then at least acknowledge that there would still be time floating statically in space. Time can’t be reduced to the movement of the sun and the rotation of the earth. If you deny time, then time is simply all change, not just the earth’s change. So, the change of your cells regenerating and dying, the change of your conscious mind, the change of the earth’s position to you—these are all things that would constitute the conception of time. In other words, time = change. However, if time is not a real thing, then time travel would have to be impossible. So, this view will not be considered any further.

There are many variations to the first two positions, but I have only mentioned the mainstream views of each for time’s sake. Heh! Time jokes are very timely when writing on time….Okay, I’m done. Before moving on I want to point out that I am assuming the nature of reality is not contradictory. Meaning, a contradiction is only of the mind not fully understanding something. An apple cannot both be an apple and not an apple at the same time and in the same way.

So, based on this, is time travel possible?

Trials of Time Travel: Questions to Answer for the Possibility of Time Travel

1) The Theory of Time trial

Right off the bat, if A-Theory tickles your fancy, then time travel seems impossible. If only the present exists, then there is no past or future in which you can travel to. You might salvage time travel to the past if you held to a growing block theory of some sort. This theory claims that the present exists and the past enjoys a less than full existence, but the future does not exist at all. On this view, you could only travel to the past. However, you’d have to affirm that existence isn’t binary. Meaning, existence isn’t something that is either on or off, it can come in levels. This is because a Growing Block theorist would view the present as having ontological privilege (it’s the real time) and the past having a less-than real existence, but it’s still real; unlike the future that has not ontological status. This seems very strange; how could someone only partially exist? Some do affirm this view of existence, though it would be necessary for the growing block theory. If you hold to B-Theory, time travel might be possible.

2) The Backward Causation trial

Secondly, if time travel is possible, then you would have to affirm backwards causation. Backwards causation is exactly what it sounds like. Typically, causation is this: first there is a cause, then there is an effect. Backwards causation, however, states that the effect can come before the cause. So, if you think backwards causation isn’t possible, then you’d have to affirm that time travel is impossible, too. At least, time travel to the past. Let’s say that you take a gray DeLorean from the year 2017 to 1917. The cause is the gray DeLorean reaching 88 mph and using a flux capacitor. The effect is you arriving in 1917. On a timeline, the effect (1917) is 100 years before the cause (2017). Thus, the effect is before the cause. In addition, if you believe that you could travel to the future, then you would not be able to get back unless backwards causation is possible.

To summarize, if you hold to A-Theory, then you probably can’t time travel. Though, the growing block theory might help you out. Also, if you think backwards causation is impossible, then time travel is out, too. Except for traveling to the future. However, if you hold to both A-Theory, or the growing block theory, and the impossibility of backwards causation, then time travel is out completely. So, at this point, only the B-Theorist who believes that backwards causation is possible can also believe that time travel is possible. Unless you wanted to believe that you could only travel to the future, then backwards causation wouldn’t be necessary. In this, time travel could be viewed as spatial movements—you can go back in forth in space; therefore, you can go back and forth in time.

This discussion has revolved around the metaphysical possibility of time travel: 1) Time would need to be a real thing, 2) B-Theory would have to be affirmed, and 3) backwards causation would have to be affirmed if you want to keep time travel to the past viable. This does not mean, however, that it is actually possible. So, even if it is metaphysically and logically possible, it may still be actually impossible. For instance, it is metaphysically and logically possible that I can jump 30 feet in the air. There is nothing illogical about this. But, I can assure you that I cannot jump 30 feet in the air. So, this conversation will not conclude with explaining how time travel might actually work. I will conclude with a few quick notes on what time travel would be like if it is an actual possibility.

On the B-Theory of time, the universe is a static block of spacetime stuff. The timeline would be static, meaning that it is not flowing and changing like a river, as some have described it. Instead, time should be viewed as a road, stationary and solid. Sometimes the road is straight other times the road is curvy. It is rough in some parts and it is smooth in other parts. This will be seen more clearly in the following questions of the nature of time travel:

Questions about the Nature of Time Travel

  • Could you meet your past/future self?

Yes. Some shows will say that this would create a time vortex or some paradoxical relapse, but this seems unreasonable. If you traveled to your past to meet yourself, you would have a memory of meeting your future self. Moreover, if you traveled to meet your future self, then your future self would have a memory of meeting his future self.

  • Could you kill your ancestor so that you were never born?

No. Remember, if you assume that reality does not actually contain contradictions, then this could not be possible even if time travel was possible. If you killed your ancestor so that you never existed, then you wouldn’t exist to go back in time and kill your ancestor. If you did go to the past to kill your ancestor, you would ultimately fail at killing them. I don’t mean this in the sense that some magical force would stop you or curve the bullet so that it hit someone else. Instead, you would either never get the chance or change your mind about killing your ancestor because, in your history, your ancestor didn’t die prematurely – obviously, because you exist. You would not lack the power to kill your ancestor, you would lack the power to bring about a contradiction. You wouldn’t be able to kill your ancestor because that’s not what happened. This leads us to the next question. (However, there is another theory that might allow you to kill your ancestor so that you were never born. This is will be discussed below.)

  • Could you change anything at all?

No. B-Theory commits you to a static universe. Thus, you would not be able to change anything. If you went back to stop Kennedy’s assassination, you would ultimately fail because you have knowledge of this past event. This means that it happened. This would go for the future too. Change would be impossible on two fronts. One, the metaphysical, which is what we have been talking about. The Kennedy assassination would be in your history. That means that this happened and it happened in a static universe. So, if you went back in the past to change this, you would lack the power to bring about a contradiction. The other front is an epistemological one. How could you ever know that you changed the past? If you changed the Kennedy assassination, then your memory of history would change; therefore, removing the memory of Kennedy being assassinated because it never happened. This also might mean that you would never have gone into the past to change it in the first place because it never happened. Which means, if you never go back into the past, then Kennedy does get assassinated. So, changing the past would be impossible in a static universe, but it would also cause an epistemological contradiction. Yet, this is not to say that you couldn’t be the one who assassinates Kennedy. It might be that you were always the one who assassinates Kennedy. Maybe this is why the shooter was never found…the shooter was a time traveler!

However, this answer and the above answer assume that the Branching Theory of time does not exist. The Branching Theory of time is the idea that time and other dimensions are possible and may be caused by our world. This is very close, and compatible with the multiverse theory, thought slightly different. The Branching Theory could account for making changes in the past. Let’s say that you go back in time and stop the Kennedy assassination. This seems like it would be reasonable. You do not lack the power to stop such a thing given your knowledge of the event from history books. So, why couldn’t you stop it? In the event that you do stop the assassination, this event is no longer compatible with your history (timeline). What has happened is the timeline has branched off from your previous timeline and began another world (meaning dimension). This is the theory that the X-Men movies used when they made X-Men: Days of Future Past. In this event, you are able to bring about a change, but not a change in the way that we typically think of. The change would not be reflected in your history. Instead, the branch timeline would be different from your timeline. So, the change isn’t a change in the sense that one object contains contradictory properties at different times. Instead, the change only be two different timelines. So, you are in a way changing something, but the term “change” wouldn’t be the used in the normal fashion. Regarding the previous question concerning killing your ancestor, you would still exist because your timeline was not changed, but the new branched timeline would not contain a version of you. Though, it is not certain that you could ever return to your original timeline. Dimensional hopping is different than time traveling. This will be discussed briefly below.

Branching Theory

  • Then, does B-Theory rule out free will?

No.  B-Theory is compatible with libertarian free will, soft determinism, and determinism (or some call this predestination), but it does not necessarily entail any of these views. Saying the spacetime continuum is static says nothing about the will and the ability to act. B-Theory commits one to determinism no more than a history book commits one to determinism.

  • Perhaps time travel in TV shows is just dimensional hopping?

In my estimation, probably. In Dr. Who, The Flash, and Agents of SHIELD, they all have the ability to travel to different times and change the past and future. But, as we have seen, time travel is only possible under very strict circumstances and necessarily removes the ability to change things for that particular timeline. Thus, to keep these shows’ continuity, they might just be dimensional hopping  into different spacetimes and changing things or they are creating multiple branches of timelines off of the original. This would answer the question of how they know they changed the timeline as we saw in the question regarding change.

So, those are my thoughts on time travel! A very interesting conversation and one I hope you enjoyed! For some further reading on the metaphysics of time try these books and articles:

  • “The Unreality of Time” by JME McTaggart (1906) This is where A-Theory and B-Theory were coined.
    • This is a fairly high academic article on time.
  • Travels in Four Dimensions: The Enigmas of Space and Time by Robin Le Poidevin
    • This book is a great introduction to the time discussion on an academic level.
  • Experiencing Time by Simon Prosser
    • More of a higher academic level book.
  • Metaphysics: A Very Short Introduction by Stephen Mumford
    • A more simple read, containing one chapter on time, but other chapters on change and causation.

I hope you have enjoyed this rather long blog! Next week I will return to my 600-word guideline. Until then, think well and live an examined life.

Holistic Thinking: Thinking Well

Hello, faithful followers and newcomers!

Last week we discussed the importance of thinking well. We chalked it up to a progression: we are thinking beings, thinking is for getting at truth, and, finally, truth is what we build our lives on including culture, religion, and political beliefs. It’s easy to see the importance of thinking well. The question that was promised for this week’s post is how one thinks well.

Inevitably, this is a huge topic to discuss. One that is far too long for me to discuss in length. So, instead, I will focus on one major aspect of thinking well that often gets over-looked: holistic thinking. By holistic thinking I mean bringing our thoughts, beliefs, and convictions under one roof without separating them; there are no rigid lines between subject matters. At this point, it would be best to explain holistic thinking by contrasting it with fragmented thinking.

Fragmented thinking is a mindset that believes, consciously or unconsciously, that each subject in one’s mind—be it educational, social, religious, or political—are separated by an insurmountable border. We split up different educational subjects, such as biology and morality, into two different “buckets” that cannot communicate. Meaning, what we learn in biology has nothing to do with what we learn about morality. Our minds are like waffles that hold a certain amount of syrup in each square that does not connect to other squares. An example may help here: Science and metanarratives.

Many have used science to dispel metanarratives. A metanarrative is simply this: meta meaning “beyond” or “informing” and narrative meaning “story” or “series of events.” So, a metanarrative is an account of events that are to be interpreted as meaningful and intentionally leading to an ultimate end. For instance, Christianity teaches a metanarrative—God’s saving act of sending Jesus Christ to take on the sins of the world so that He can reconcile fallen creation back to God. The orthodox Christian view of history is that God has intentionally guided history to this end. An atheist metanarrative may be one of emancipation—the history of humanity is led to be free of the slavery of work, ending with a utopian global nation. However, science has been used to dispel metanarratives by virtue of removing purpose from reality. Science claims there is no purpose to be found in the existence of life, nature, cosmic planetary bodies, or society. Purpose is something found in the human mind to help us get through life; it’s merely psychological.

This is what many have used science to prove, even those who stand by the atheist ideal of a possible, future utopia. Yet, when asked why anyone should regard scientific knowledge as useful, science must go beyond itself for an answer. For, how could science give an account of science? You can’t use the word in its definition. So, science must look to philosophy and politics. Philosophy and politics, then, give a metanarrative to answer this question of science’s improvement and goals over the centuries and why science benefits society; or, in other words, a meaningful history. So, science has been used to dispel metanarratives, but rests upon a metanarrative itself? This is fragmented thinking! (p. 140 in The Passionate Intellect by Norman Klassen and Jens Zimmermann) The dots are not connected between science and metanarratives, thus ending in a contradiction. It “dispels” itself. So, the fragmented belief here is this: a science that dispels metanarratives and the belief in metanarratives are inconsistent. Science and metanarratives are not exclusive to each other; they can communicate. It’s the idea that science can remove purpose, or metanarratives, from reality that is inconsistent with the belief in metanarratives.

Fragmented thinking often times is unintentional. We are taught to keep things in their strict categories. Let math be math and literature be literature. Let science do science and religion do religion. Yet, reality butts up against this thinking and breaks it down. Thinking well is realizing that our beliefs should be holistic. Again, holistic in the sense of allowing our beliefs in biology to affect our view of morality and vice-versa. Thinking well is thinking holistically. If we believe there is purpose in life, then maybe we shouldn’t believe that science “proves” there is no purpose in life. If we believe science tells us facts about the world, then we can’t allow our feelings to determine those facts. If we did, then we’d have to say that science doesn’t tell us facts, our feelings tell us facts. We can’t have it both ways. It’s one or the other.

There are many other aspects to thinking well, but I wanted to look at one general criterion. Rather than having fragmented beliefs and knowledge, thinking well begins with bringing different areas of study together. This acts as a sort of filter for our beliefs and causes us to really take into account the cost of our beliefs. If I have to give up purpose because science tells me to, what am I losing? Can I live without believing in purpose? Perhaps science doesn’t dispose of purpose. You can have both purpose and science. What you would need to give up is the fragmented belief that science and purpose cannot communicate.

However, most of our society thinks fragmentedly. Accumulating belief after belief, not knowing that many of those beliefs conflict with one another. This ends in many needless and useless debates. Instead, let’s think holistically and have a beneficial dialogue about important matters.

Thanks for reading! Next week’s post will be a little more exciting…. We’ll be discussing the possibility of time travel. Until then, think well!

Thinking Things of Thinking Thoughts

Happy Tuesday! Or whatever day you are reading this.

For the past two weeks I have been racking my brain on how I should write this post. For one, there are so many angles from which to write: the angle of fragmented thinking, education, or a mixture of neuroscience and neurophilosophy. Yet, in the end, I have decided to write this post from a much more basic framework and focus on thinking’s importance.

Thinking. It’s something we all do whether we are aware of it or not. We spend our days thinking about what’s next, what’s the correct answer on the test, or does this person feel the same way I do. Thinking gets at the very core of the human person. Our minds are where our feelings, thoughts, and most transparent ideas are located. But, why do we think so much? Or even at all?

I think the answer has ties in different areas, but they all seem to lead to the same place. We think because we are thinking beings…. Great, but what does that even mean?! In other words, our very ontology (the study of being; ontologia meaning ont “being” and ology “study of,” what it means to be or exist) is that of a thinking thing, or the “rational animal” as Aristotle put it. In Christianity, some believe that the image of God is, at least in part, the ability for rational thought. At the very least, it is something that sets us apart from every other living creature.

So, in other words, we think because that’s just what it means to be human: the mental capacity for rational thought. If this is true, that humans by nature think, then what is its purpose? This is a question I believe we all can answer. The purpose of thinking is to get at truth!

The “bread-and-butter” of thinking is knowledge. In our questions above, these are quests for knowledge. However, there are some thoughts that have already obtained the correct knowledge, such as reflective, analytical, or meditative thoughts. In all circumstances, thinking has to do with knowledge. Knowledge in turn has to do with truth. Thus, the purpose of thinking is to get at truth.

Forgoing the conversation regarding the relationship between knowledge and truth, what I mean is our concern with our thoughts is whether they correspond to reality or not. This ranges from DTR (define the relationship) talks, belief in political narratives, religion, and the greater value of Marvel comics over DC. Our thoughts are a way to deal with reality; what is true, what exists, and what we believe.

Therefore, the importance of thinking is monumental!

Allow me to explain. Thinking has to do with truth. When we think about something we are considering its truth-value. This is one way we develop beliefs. So, if our thinking is good, then we are trying to get at truth in a good way. This either leads to good beliefs or bad beliefs, but either way, you got their in a justified manner. Just because you think in the right way doesn’t always mean you come out with good beliefs! However, if you think poorly, then you are trying to get at truth poorly; which always leads to bad beliefs. Either you have arrived at a false conclusion or you are believing the correct conclusion, but you arrived at that conclusion falsely. An example of this can be found in mathematics. The teacher tells you to show your work because having the right answer isn’t enough. In order to know math you must know the correct answer and the correct method. Beliefs and knowledge are the same. Thus, our thinking shapes our beliefs; and remember, ideas are a most dangerous thing to have. Nations, cultures, and religions are built on ideas.

There are many ways to be a good thinker, but that is a conversation for another day. The take away here is this: everyone is a thinker, but not everyone is a good thinker. The difference that separates the good from the bad is thinking well. But how does one think well? This is next week’s topic! So, until then, have a good week!

Introduction to John Stickles: Just the Basics

Brooke and I

Happy Tuesday!

Just the other day I finally published my “About” page with some information on my blog. This, however, is a brief blog on who I am. So, this is the second essential aspect of my blog, click here for the first! (I’ll let you in on a secret, the first essential “aspect” of my blog is, well, my blog! Something must exist for it to have essential aspects/properties, right?)

As I wrote on my “About” page, each blog written will never be more than 600 words. A 600-word introduction to one’s life is a difficult task, but I am a man of my word. So, here are 3 things to know about me!

  1. I am a Christian

First and foremost, I am part of the human race—contrary to what my father and others have suggested. I believe that being part of humanity entails many interesting facts, the kinds this blog will be considering. Yet, to narrow the scope of my identity, I am a Christ-follower. I believe that Christ in my life is the most important aspect of my identity and sets the parameters for the rest of my being. Loving the Lord with all my heart, mind, strength, and soul comes first in my life. The second is to love people. (Luke 10:27) This does not mean that I always succeed at this nor does it mean I think I am better than anyone else. Ironically, recognizing what the Bible teaches, Christianity is a humbling religion. Thus, if anyone is “puffed-up” or becomes arrogant due to their Christianity, then they have completely missed Christianity’s core doctrines. (James 4:6-10)

  1. I am Married to a Loving Wife with a Baby Girl on the Way

Brooke Stickles is her name. Some say she is my “better-half,” to which I cannot really argue. She is a loving and kind woman of God who demonstrates great patience, especially with me. She continually teaches me to have a cool-spirit and gentle heart, both by her actions and words. Plus, she can really show me a thing or two in Mario Cart on the GameCube and writing! In fact, check out her blog, she’s got a lot of good things to say! (https://brookestickles.wordpress.com/)

We have been married nearly three years by the date of this post. August 16th, 2014 was the day we made a covenant before God to give ourselves up for each other. Since then we are learning what that commitment really entails. Though at times it is difficult, we see that there is great beauty in struggling for a lasting community between us with in this marriage. Additionally, God has blessed us with baby girl. Scout LeAnne Stickles will be joining the club around mid-July, and we can’t wait!

  1. I Love to Think!

If you haven’t noticed by now, I enjoy thinking! My favorite topics to think and discuss are philosophy and theology. Another way to put this is I am a lover of wisdom, but don’t assume that this means I am wise! Still working on that part. But, the word “philosophy” in the Greek is “philo-sophia” which means “a friend of wisdom.” We’ll get more into what philosophy is and how one thinks wisely, but for now just know that I seriously enjoy these subjects.

There is a lot more to me than this, of course, but these are the fundamentals of who I am. The next post in two weeks will be on the nature of thinking, why it’s important, and how do we do it well. Until then!