On Friday, I went to a lecture by prominent evolutionist Richard Dawkins. The lecture was called "The Purpose of Purpose," hosted by the University of Oklahoma. This was a large event that has its own Web page on the OU Web site and sizeable Facebook group.
During the Q&A, I asked him a question. I wrote down my question and his answer to the best of my memory that night after the lecture.
Me: Professor, thank you for your explanation of the concepts of flexibility and inflexibility. While I was working on my master's degree, I found that a wide variety of materials I read (in finance, economics, history, philosophy) seem to use similar concepts. All of them reference a book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. He uses the concepts of flexibility and inflexibility to explain how science jumps from one paradigm to another in an inflexible way. He argues that because the ideas and definitions in different paradigms are incommensurable, or philosophically incompatible, science cannot progress toward truth. How would you respond to Kuhn?
Dawkins: Thank you for the comment. I remember reading the book and enjoyed it very much, but I've never thought about how my ideas might connect with his. I'm sorry, but I don't have an answer for you right now.
The crowd applauded after hearing Dawkins' answer. Why did they applaud? Did they realize the enormous implications this has for the validity of science itself?
The Kuhn Project
This is part of my ongoing, informal project to find out how people from various worldviews address Kuhn's ideas. I was expecting to find that no non-Christian worldview would have an adequate answer to Kuhn. What I was not expecting was the very limited degree to which scientists have tried to formulate any answers at all.
I left with a great deal of respect for Dawkins. He's taken the time to read Kuhn, he doesn't have an answer right now, and he's honest enough to admit it.
How NOT to React
Here's an example of how not to react to someone like Dawkins:
During the lecture, someone stood up and screamed "I'm a biologist" in front of a crowd of 3500 booing evolutionists, accused Dawkins of being a fraud, and had to be escorted out of the lecture hall. I think Dawkins handled the situation very graciously.
If you have trouble viewing the video, click on the "HQ" box near the lower right-hand corner.
If you look carefully in the footage at 1:03, you can see me standing in line, waiting to ask my question. I'm second in line in the grayish-green dress shirt and black slacks.
The bailouts happening today are eventually going to lead to high inflation. Below is an e-mail I sent to the members of our company. It describes a way to profit from inflation. Rental Properties: A Limited Window of Opportunity
Take a close look at the excerpt by Gary North I've included below. The forecast is stagflation starting in 2010: high interest rates, high inflation, high regulation, and high unemployment.
I'm going to break this down one point at a time. If North is correct about approaching stagflation, this affects our investing strategy.
High interest rates: Low-interest, fixed rate loans will be available for only a short period of time. Getting these loans now and locking in today's interest rate will give us an advantage once rates go up. High inflation will lead to rising property values (in dollars). Rents will rise even faster than property values, increasing the cash flow on rental properties that are purchased and financed today.
High inflation: When this happened in the 1970's, housing prices rose to keep pace with inflation. Property values in Oklahoma City rose faster than inflation because of the oil boom that inflation created. People who bought rental properties early on with fixed-rate, low-interest loans did very well.
High regulation: A greater degree of government control over the secondary market and a greater degree of government ownership may make it harder for investors to get loans in 2010. If this happens, investors who get loans in 2008 and 2009 will have a great advantage.
High unemployment: This will be bad in most parts of the country, but Oklahoma City will not suffer the same problems. Fuel prices will track with inflation, creating an oil and natural gas boom in Oklahoma City. Higher fuel prices will make it harder to import oil, causing us to look more toward domestic production. This is what happened in Oklahoma City from the early 1970's to the early 80's.
For these reasons, 2008 and 2009 will be a great opportunity, perhaps a unique opportunity, to purchase and profit from rental properties and lease options in Oklahoma City. I don't want to discourage the quick-flip strategy, which will work under any economic conditions, but the real opportunity to get rich will be had by paying interest on a 7.4% fixed-rate loan when inflation is running at 8% or more. One Possible Scenario
If inflation is high and property values in Oklahoma City begin to rise at 15% per year, OKC houses will double in value every 5 years. If we buy an $80,000 house for $50,000 with a nothing-down loan (65% LTV) and the property value increases to $320,000, we can sell the house, pay off the loan, and make $270,000 on a purchase that was made with no money down.
Now think bigger: Buy 6 houses with nothing-down loans and sell one of them after the properties have doubled twice. Sell ONE of the properties, pay off all of the loans, and have 5 properties free and clear.
Think really big: Buy 60 houses, sell off 10, and have 50 free and clear.
I suggest that this is the fastest way to become real estate tycoons without using any of our own cash.
I am going to start moving rapidly toward this acquisition strategy. This is why I moved to Oklahoma City in 2006.
The Federal Reserve System has recently pumped in new reserves at a rate of over 300% per annum. Unbelievable? This comes from the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank.
There are not going to be stable prices in America; there is going to be stagflation on a scale that dwarfs the 1970s.
No matter what the average American has believed about the supposed increase of American stocks of 7% per annum, the reality of the 21st century is that no such rate of return is likely simply by buying an index fund of American stocks and holding until retirement. Inflation will eat up the returns. This assumes that there will be positive returns of 7% per annum. This assumption seems utterly naive to me. There is little evidence for this anymore. The entire decade of the 21st century points to the demolition of that dream. We are not out of the woods yet. The stock market can go down even more between now and the end of this recession.
When will the recession end? The optimists are saying that it will end in late 2009. The pessimists are saying that it will end in late 2010. I am a guarded pessimist. But whenever the recovery comes, it is going to come in a completely new context politically and bureaucratically. It is going to come after a year or more of legislation passed by Democrats in Congress and signed into law, no matter who is elected President in November. The new mantra is this: re-regulation. There is going to be re regulation on a scale that we have not seen since the mid-1970s. That was the era of stagflation.
More Stuff
I've also written previously about peak oil, using rental properties to profit from inflation, and the advantages of living in Oklahoma. Now is the time to get moving.
I recently answered a question for someone who teaches at the school I used to work at. The answer, given below, briefly fleshes out the application of presuppositional apologetics to education.
I need to ask teachers how they would defend the cause of Christian Education in a pluralistic society. Specifically, if you were asked to speak in front of a pluralistic audience, how will you present a defense for the presence of a Christian School in the community. Why Christian Education for young people?
There is no neutrality. All education approaches life from a certain point of view. Even the person who says that education should be practiced neutrally is (inconsistently) denying the same opportunity to all approaches that assume education should NOT be practiced neutrally.
In principle and in practice, it is impossible for an educator to escape from his own presuppositions, which influence his choices for direction for the school, curricula, teaching methods, grading methods, disciplinary methods, and so forth. Those presuppositions can change, but they are never neutral.
No society can equally express all possible perspectives in education. Since neutrality is impossible and society is finite, we are forced to pick and choose what educational institutions and methods will be allowed. School rules and, more broadly, societal rules, by their very nature discourage certain kinds of actions and encourage others.
The case for Christian education goes beyond this, however. American culture is derived from Puritan roots, a theology that has produced a growing economy and successful society. Puritanism saw Christianity as a force that should influence and define every activity in life, including education.
Because we have left these roots, we are experiencing problems with economic growth and moral standards. Allowing Christian schools to exist gives individual parents the choice to return to a tested model of success for their own families.
I keep hearing from various people that theology isn't important. Their claim is that theology focuses on intellectual issues that distract us from real life, sort of like debating how many angels can dance on the end of a pin.
My friends are saying these things because they care about the church and about me. They want God's people to continue in their mission unhindered by intellectual baggage.
I understand and appreciate these motivations. However, I can't agree with their claim that theology is unimportant. Theology is a way for us to define our terms and set our goals in a distinctively Christian way. If we do so, we will achieve success as only distinctive Christians can. In fact, that's what I'm talking about when I (in particular) use the term missional. To be missional is to be covenantally successful. I realize that other people will disagree with me, but in order to do so, they have to make a theological case over what is essentially a theological question.
No Avoiding Theology The true question is not whether we have a theology but which one we hold to, if only unconsciously. Even the question about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is important.
Think about this for a minute. Isn't our beef with the public school system the fact that humanism has created a distinctively non-Christian understanding of every subject from biology to government to English? Our problems with government education are really over theological issues. We've allowed secular humanism to define all of the concepts and interconnections between ideas that students study.
As an example, look at how much the concept freedom depends on theological perspective.
God's Law gives freedom, in spite of everyone who says that freedom is to be released from the Law. We are released from the requirement of the Law for our salvation and set free to walk in good works which stem from, but are not responsible for, our salvation.
A free society, in Biblical terms, is one in which we are under God's Law. Since we are servants by nature, if we are not ruled by God's Law, we will serve an ungodly ruler. Ungodly rulers grant us not freedom, but slavery.
Freedom in Other Theologies
Consider the Buddhist theology in the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The characters in the movie are all trying to rid themselves of their attachments in this life in order to achieve true freedom. Mu-bai and Shu-Lien struggle with their romantic attachment to each other, realizing that this is keeping them from being free. Jen runs away from one life situation after anothing, constantly breaking rules in an attempt to break free from dependence on other people. In the end, Jen commits suicide rather than to allow Lo to love her.
The result is consistent with what the Bible teaches: freedom apart from service to God is in fact slavery to another master and is only counterfeit freedom.
Stargate SG-1 is an epic tale about freedom from aliens posing as gods that enslave humans all over the galaxy. The mission of the humans on Earth is to destroy the false gods, which will bring freedom to the galaxy. Their concept of freedom runs into a snag when they rescue a woman named Linea. They realize after setting her free that she was responsible for creating a plague virus that killed half of the people living on her planet. They realize too late that they could have kept her imprisoned in order to save millions of lives.
In order to give the galaxy freedom, the humans on Earth would have had to enslave Linea and hold her captive. They would have taken the place of God in order to maintain order in the universe. They would have become Hobbes' Leviathan, the dictator that would maintain peace by controlling society.
That's the same problem that communism and liberation theology have. In their attempts to free people from horrible dictators, they've placed the same people under the control of a large and tyrannical state. Society is built on servanthood. If men will not serve God, they will serve each other to the point of their own destruction.
What about The Matrix? Freedom seems to be a simple concept in the beginning of the movie: liberation from the machines that control people's minds. The main character, Neo, is the prophesied superhero who will defeat the machines and release people from their grasp. Halfway through the movie, he starts to realize that there is a fundamental tension between his concept of freedom and the optimism of a prophecy that cannot be defeated. If Neo's victory over the machines is the result of a prophecy, is Neo really free to make any choices that would invalidate that prophecy? How is a man truly free if his choices were determined by a prophecy that was made before he was born?
This is the same problem that causes many Arminians to become open theists. Open theists realize that their concept of man's freedom is not compatible with the fact that God knew all of history before any of us were born. Instead of letting go of their definition of freedom, they have chosen to say that God is not all-knowing when it comes to future events.
Tyranny?
Would a society ruled by God's Law be tyrannical? I've addressed that question here. Anyone who wants to disagree would have to re-define freedom as something other than societal obedience to God's Law. Because this would be a theological argument, to disagree with me here would be to concede the point that theology is in fact important.
Theology is so important that where it touches one concept, human freedom, it influences what country we want to live in, how we'll vote, our reactions in situations where we feel people are controlling us, and even whether we believe God is all-knowing.
Whatever happens, I hope never to live in a society where we have forgotten theology, and by extension, forgotten whom we were made to serve. May God rule in our lives forever.
So I will dance with Cinderella While she is here in my arms Because I know something the prince never knew I will dance with Cinderella I don't wanna miss even one song, Because all too soon the clock will strike midnight And she'll be gone.
