Author Archives: Bruce Nielson

The Parable of the Merciful Judge

Posted on by

Another reprint from Mormon Matters. I came up with the following parable to explain to a Born Again Christian friend why I felt his belief that our actions plays no role in salvation at all was setting up a false dichotomy between influence and merit. It floated like a lead balloon, of course. He didn’t even bother to comment back to me. I later reused it with a carpool of Mormons that all seemed to enjoy it quite a bit more. In case you are wondering, yes, it’s a true story too. (Note: because I’m getting questions about this, I’ll add this – this is not a parable about the atonement nor is the judge here meant to represent Christ. This parable, as with all parables, is limited in scope with the point it makes.)

Once there was a young teenaged boy that was inexperienced at driving and made the mistake of driving home at night without his headlights on. He had turned on his parking lights but had failed to pull the switch just a bit further for the headlights. The roads were well lit, so it was not obvious to such an inexperienced driver that something was wrong.

When a cop pulled him over, he was shocked to find that he had driven the whole way without his lights on. When he was required to go before a judge he immediately admitted his guilt and expressed gladness he had not hurt anyone.

The judge, sensing that this teen would not benefit from having to pay the ticket nor the additional insurance costs, threw the ticket out. The judge added “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Continue reading →

“She’s a Monster”: A Media Generated Controversy

Posted on by

Note: The following is another reprint from Mormon Matters. It took place before it was obvious that Obama was going to beat out Hillary Clinton and long before I had decided to vote for him. So it was politically unmotivated at the time because I would never had guessed I’d prefer him over the Republican candidate. Unlike the lawyer profession, where I feel the ethics of the profession are in fact ethical, I do not feel the prevailing ethics of the journalist profession are at all ethical. In fact, I think they are down right dishonest much of the time. This is not a knock on individual journalists. If I were a journalist, I’d follow the professions ethics and get viewership and keep my job too. But I believe the professions current ethics are… unethical. This was just one of many possible examples.

I am not an Obama supporter and this article is not politically motivated. It is actually a commentary on how the media often creates a controversy rather than reporting an existing controversy. This issue has been weighing on my mind since the Danzig case and the Salt Lake Tribune’s quick retraction of the headline. The Samantha Power story seemed like an apt example.

The headline read:

‘Hillary Clinton’s a monster’: Obama aide blurts out attack in Scotsman interview

As the article explained:

In an unguarded moment during an interview with The Scotsman in London, Samantha Power, Mr Obama’s key foreign policy aide, let slip the camp’s true feelings about the former first lady.”

And thus ended Samantha Power’s advisory role for Barack Obama. But what is the real story here? If the news media was being candid with us, wouldn’t the headline have read:

Continue reading →

John Cage Music and Rejectionism

Posted on by

If there is one thing my lampooning of Conan taught me, it’s that people can turn anything into a religion and can feel persecute over the mere expression of different tastes.

Therefore, let me lead with this disclaimer. I have never heard John Cage music in my life. I have no opinion of his music. I bear him no ill will whatsoever. My only interest in his music is that I was reading a book by Douglas Hofstadter (one of my favorite authors) and came across this passage about John Cage music.

A Cage piece has to be taken in a larger cultural setting – as a revolt against certain kinds of traditions. Thus, if we want to transmit the meaning [of the music to a hypothetical alien culture], we must not only send the notes of the piece, but we must have earlier communicated an extensive history of Western culture. It is fair to say, then, that an isolated record of John Cage’s music does not have an intrinsic meaning. However, for a listener who is sufficiently well versed in Western and Eastern cultures, particularly in the trends in Western music over the last few decades, it does carry meaning – but such a listener is like a jukebox, and the piece is like a pair of buttons. The meaning is mostly contained inside the listener to begin with; the music serves only to trigger it. And this “jukebox”, unlike pure intelligence, is not at all universal; it is highly earthbound, depending on idiosyncratic sequences of events all over our globe for long periods of time.

On the other hand, to appreciate Bach requires far less cultural knowledge. This may seem like high irony, for Bach is so much more complex and organized, and Cage is so devoid of intellectuality. But there is a strange reversal here: intelligence loves patterns and balks at randomness. For most people, the randomness in Cage’s music requires much explanation; and even after explanations, they may feel they are missing the message…. In that sense, Bach’s music is more self-contained than Cage’s music. (Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, p. 174-175)

If Hofstadter is right, then John Cage’s music is a sort of Rejectionism. It’s ‘meaning’ exists relative to the (more) intrinsic meaning in someone like Bach. If Bach were to disappear (and all other composers) John Cage’s music would lose it’s meaning too.

This is what Rejectionism is like in all intellectual or theological schools. It is not devoid of value or meaning, but owes it’s value and meaning in relation to someone else and does not exist as a stand alone point of view.

Positivism vs. Scientific Realism: An Example

Posted on by

For those following my series over at Wheat and Tares, don’t miss out on my latest post: Positivism vs. Scientific Realism: An Example. Here is a teaser:

However, Deutsch is right about one thing. Positivism ultimately fails to grasp the value of believing your explanations. It is only through believing your explanations that you can comprehend them. And only by comprehending them can you refine them into something even more useful.

Discussion: What is Tolerance?

Posted on by

This is a summary version of my last post, plus thoughts for a serious discussion on what ‘tolerance’ really is. I would really ask that people try to look at this ‘proposed definition of tolerance’ and criticize the heck out of it. However, remember the primary rule of rationality. Rationality is to advance a counter explanation, not to shoot holes in someone else’s.

Legal Tolerance is More Important Than “Everyday Tolerance”

When we speak of ‘tolerance’ there are really two kinds or degrees. The first is the more important: we must never make laws (or break laws) to force people to believe in ways we prefer. This is the single most important aspect of tolerance. [1] This form of ‘intolerance’ is therefore about violence or threat of violence, either in the illegal or legal variety.

Everyday Tolerance: Being Respectful in Disagreements

But legal tolerance is not what we generally mean when we speak of tolerance. If it was, then skin-heads that don’t break the law would be as tolerant as anyone else. So I would suggest that when we speak of “tolerance” we generally mean civility in non-violent conflict. This being the case, then I suggest the following “rules of tolerant behavior” for your consideration:

  • Tolerance Does Not Mock Other People’s Beliefs
  • Tolerance Does Not Misrepresent, Lie, of be Deceptive about Other People’s Beliefs
  • Tolerance is Being Respectful and Civil in Your Communication to People of Another Belief
  • Tolerance Does Not Use Stereotypes
  • Tolerance Allows People to State their Own Beliefs; It Does Not State it For Them
  • Tolerance Does Not Use Dual Standards

See my previous post for more detail on each of these.

Continue reading →