Philosophy

A Head Scratcher

Mark Daniels has some good marriage advice, even for non-Christians (or even non-theists) like me. But I don’t get this:

Sex is great. God invented it, so that shouldn’t be a surprise. He only makes good things.

Really? So are (for instance) smallpox, sleeping sickness, mosquitos and tsetse flies, anthrax, Osama and Adolf Hitler good things? Or did someone else make them?

I mean, it’s a nice sentiment, but is it really a theologically (or logically at all) sound statement?

[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]

Some in comments are defining the problem away, by saying that we don’t really know what “good” is.

Sorry, but that doesn’t wash for someone who doesn’t necessarily believe in God, and particularly doesn’t believe in a God whose every action is good, by definition, which is what seems to be the point here. Once you define “good” in that way, the word really has no useful meaning at all for normal conversation (again, from the standpoint of someone who thinks logically, and likes words to have some kind of commonly-understood meaning, without which it’s impossible to communicate effectively).

Torture = good
Suffering = good
Death = good
Bad = good

Either these statements are all true, which renders the word “good” meaningless, or God isn’t the author of any of them, in which case, who is?

Can’t have it both ways.

[One more update]

I think that some people are missing my point here. I’ve often heard that we can’t know God’s purposes, but that all things have a purpose. Not believing that there is a God, or that everything has a purpose, I obviously don’t agree with that, but it’s a philosophically defensible and at least logically consistent position (though, I think, a trivial one, and one that does indeed rely on faith).

But that’s a different thing than saying that everything that God does is good by most peoples’ understanding of the meaning of that word. That just seems like junior Sunday-school stuff to me, for people unable to grasp deeper concepts, and to defend it by redefining “good” is to engage in sophistry, rather than theology.

General

Unbalanced Transfer Offer

I got a call claiming to be from my Discover Card. The caller asked me if I wanted to make a balance transfer at an attractive rate. I said, “Sure, but I won’t give you my credit card numbers since you can’t authenticate that you really are Discover Card.”

Triumphantly, the agent told me the last four digits of my credit card number, my “member since” date and my last transaction. While this does indicate that the caller has access to my bill or account (or did at one time), it does not authenticate them as Discover Card because they could have stolen a bill from my mailbox.

More insidiously, they could have dialed a wrong number or a house guest or sitter could have picked up the phone. They did not authenticate me before giving me the personal information that they were so proud of. Not that they could have authenticated me since I would be reluctant to provide any personal information to someone who I did not already know was authentic and authorized.

I asked if there was a way to contact them through my number on the back of my card. They said no, but “I can make a notation on your account and customer service can verify its authenticity and you can call me back on a separate number.” While just possibly securely authentic (if the employee isn’t steering me to an illegitimate outsider), it requires me to make two calls. Why not just call the credit card directly and speak with someone else? I could, but my guy would have trouble getting a commission on the transaction. Maybe they should arrange for a share of any transfers I initiate in the next few minutes or ask for me to do a three-way call to my issuer.

I like checks better. They only go back to the offering party after they have been cashed and even then there might not be any evidence of what account I paid off.

Administrative

Continued Light Blogging

I’m in Columbia, MO, attending a wedding, and visiting family. Weather’s decent today (probably low nineties, but humidity’s not bad), but that’s because there seems to be a major drought here, with less than an inch of rain in the last few weeks. Corn crop is down by half.

Transterrestrial–your source for space policy, and farm reports!

Space

One More Thought On Fleet Grounding

I earlier noted the irony that the one part of the Shuttle that has actually been reliable (the Orbiter) is the one that Mike Griffin wants to retire. Both Shuttle disasters were caused by the non-Orbiter parts (SRB in the case of Challenger, ET in the case of Columbia), and those are the pieces that he wants to build the new vehicles out of (SRB as a lower stage for the crew vehicle, and SRB and modified ET for the heavy lifter).

Of course, the response will be that the only reason those failures were a problem was because of the overall system configuration with the Orbiter. Since both the new concepts will have the payload on top, where blow torching from joint leaks, and falling foam won’t cause problems, that makes it OK (though that’s actually not true with the heavy lifter, since the ET was the first casualty from the SRB failure, before the Orbiter broke up).

Which brings up a question: how much side forces were detected during the Challenger launch from the SRB leak (presumably from attempts by the TVC to keep the vehicle straight)? Does anyone know (I assume that the data may be in the Rogers Commission Report)? Would it have caused a problem with “the stick”?

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!