A trait regarded as one of the chief virtues by contemporary Western societies. Tolerance is often confused with a relativistic refusal to criticize another view or make any substantive value judgments. (See relativism.) However, logically, tolerance is consistent with an attitude of strong disagreement and even disapproval. There are many views I may tolerate (in the sense that I think people should be allowed to hold them) that I think are mistaken or harmful. Tolerance is also sometimes confused with respect, but the two attitudes are distinct. I may respect a committed political rebel even though I do not tolerate his behavior. I may tolerate people whom I do not respect at all.

Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (p. 116). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Veracity Hill

Episode 168: Narrative Apologetics
What value is there in sharing stories? In this episode Kurt speaks with the prolific author and well-respected theologian Alister McGrath on his new book, “Narrative Apologetics.”

Risen Jesus

Resurrection of Jesus: The Evidence on a Napkin

A compelling case for Jesus’s resurrection is so simple that it can be presented on a napkin! In this 10-minute video, Dr. Mike Licona shows how with the use of a logic tree.

Reasonable Faith

A Conversation with Sir Roger Penrose

Dr. Craig talks about his recent one-on-one conversations with the renowned mathematician and physicist.

Logos

• free logos software and book of the month

Kindle Deals

• Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend by Ravi Zacharias- $2.99
• The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel- $2.99
• What’s So Amazing About Grace? by Philip Yancey- $1.99
• Where I Am: Heaven, Eternity, and Our Life Beyond by Billy Graham- $0.99
• How to Be A Christian in A Brave New World by Joni Eareckson Tada- $0.99

Weekly Links

• Let’s Call a Truce on the Age of the Universe by The Stream
• Christians, Stop saying “We Don’t Ask Questions Here”- It’s Unbiblical!- by The Stream
• 7 Traits of Christianity’s Greatest Thinkers (podcast) by reasons.org
• Even science needs more than science to work properly by crossexamined.org
• Is it reasonable to believe in angelic beings? by coldcasechristianity.com
• 3 Tips to having Better Conversations When You Disagree by rzim.org
• Were 1 and 2 Timothy really forged in Paul’s name? by isjesusalive.com
• Deconstruction and Reconstruction- Walking Through Doubt (podcast) by the Alisa Childers Podcast

It is more than likely true that other Hollywood stars had problems behind the scenes before the arrival of Judy Garland, but few would become as well known. As a young teen, Francis Gumm became Judy Garland, and the ruby red-slippered star of The Wizard of Oz had a tumultuous and wild start, to say the least. At MGM (where she stayed until 1950), she was looked over by the tyrannical Louis B. Mayer (who referred to the 4 ft 11 Garland as his “little hunchback”).

After the death of her father, the family was run with an iron fist by Judy’s domineering mother. The pills that Garland had to take at a young age started her down the path of drug addiction, and her cries for help to her mother fell on deaf ears, making it a surprise to no one that she would later refer to her mother as the “real wicked witch of the west.” Future husbands (she would marry five times) only added to a crushed soul in desperate need of care and understanding.

But hot dog, could she carry a tune.

Based off of the stage play “End of the Rainbow” by Peter Quilter, Judy is set in 1968 (a year before her death). With her children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey, Judy (Renee Zellweger) realizes that she is out of money. Learning from her own mother, Judy makes sure to be the best mother she can, but still must drop the kids off at their father’s (her fourth husband) house, producer Sydney Luft (Rufus Sewell).

 The best that Judy can hope for money wise is to perform live in concerts in London. There is also a series of flashbacks to childhood (where she is portrayed by Darci Shaw), where she is under the thumb of Louis B. Mayer and her mother Ethel (Natasha Powell).

It is no secret that music biopics are about as “Oscar Baity” as they get, and Judy is no exception. The main reason most people would see the film is to see the Zellweger performance, and it is truly the only reason to see the movie. She is indeed wonderful, but not to the degree I was hoping. At times, it did seem like she was just screaming “Gimme an Oscar!”, but there were some moments that seemed like I was looking at the real Garland. She does have many of the physical mannerisms down (even seeming like she is under five foot).

I don’t think any of it is Zellweger’s fault, for she truly does a great job. The problem is that Judy Garland was a once in a lifetime performer. Zellweger is indeed a good vocal performer (as she showed us in 2002’s Chicago, a movie that I saw multiple times in the theater). Nevertheless, being compared to Judy Garland in the singing arena is downright unfair for anyone. As I am typing this, I am listening to both sing one of Garland’s most well known tune, The Man that Got Away (The song came from Garland’s 1954 film A Star is Born, the first remake of the film, for which Garland was nominated for an Oscar but lost to Grace Kelly for a movie called The Country Girl. I have yet to see Kelly in this film, but I am still confounded as to how Garland lost, for she gives one of the best powerhouse performances in history.)

Zellweger (who never sings this song in the movie) does a fine job, but in her own right. There was a uniqueness to Garland, just something that cannot be described, that cannot be replicated. Still, kudos to Zellweger for the effort.

Parents, the film is rated PG-13, mainly for thematic material and language (maybe one F bomb). It is a rather soft PG-13.

In a way, there were two paths that Garland paved the way for others to follow. One would be that of the troubled child star (undoubtedly one no one wants to follow). At the same time, the second path she paved was that of a vocal performer at the top of her game. Those that have followed in her footsteps on this second path would include Julie Andrews, Barbara Streisand, Liza Minelli (Garland’s daughter), Beyonce, and Lady Gaga. In the conversation of 20^th century performers, she ranks right up there with Sinatra (who is given a humorous shout out in the movie).

It should come as very little surprise what song is used to end the film, (“Over the Rainbow”) being that it is Garland’s claim to fame (and possibly the most popular song in film history.) Despite Zellweger’s rendition, I stand firmly in saying it is a song that loses half of its effect if it is not song by Judy Garland.

It is her rainbow of a voice, and it will never be duplicated.

Overall: 3.5/5

Now that you have a simple way of presenting Pascal’s Wager in conversation, you need to be prepared for objections. I’m going to offer what I think are the top ten. They fall into three general categories though. I’ve deliberately made these responses brief so that they are easy to remember for use in conversation. Check out my YouTube channel here and here, as well as the recommended reading for those who want more depth. I’ve drawn heavily on the work of Dr. Michael Rota and Dr. Liz Jackson.

Psychological/Moral Objections

• Objection 1: You can’t force yourself to believe in God, so you can’t choose to wager.
  • Response: This is a straw man because the Wager doesn’t ask you to believe in God. It asks you to commit. Commitment doesn’t necessarily include belief, but it does include actions that you can do while remaining honest. Actions like going to church, forming friendships with religious believers, reading and studying sacred scripture and praying. Prayers can be conditional to remain honest though, like “God if you are there, thank you for this and please help me with that…”

• Objection 2: The Wager is immoral because it is taken for selfish reasons and tries to use God as a means to an end, but that won’t fool God.
  • Response: First, you don’t have to take the Wager for selfish reasons. You can take it to bring joy to God, help others in the most important way possible, or even because it is a potential moral duty. Second, even if you commit for selfish reasons, that can be an initial step on a journey to real faith and a purer love of God.

• Objection 3: It’s wrong to believe on the basis of expected value instead of on the basis of evidence. You risk becoming ensnared in an illusion.
  • Response: If the evidence is roughly balanced, it makes sense to pick a strategy on the basis of expected value. Just reflect on the coin flipping analogy. Also, there are risks of self deception both ways- commitment or non-commitment. No matter which way you choose to live your life, non-rational factors do influence what you believe to be true.

Pragmatic Objections

• Objection 4: The cost of commitment is too high. Think about the consequences of mistaken religious commitment for a martyr.
  • Response: The Wager should be taken on a case by case basis. Perhaps it applies to some but not all. Your job is to figure out if it applies to you though. As you consider the possible negatives in your own case, try to correct for your natural human bias to overestimate the impact of difficulties. And remember, it’s rational to face a high risk of great cost to avoid an even higher risk of greater cost.

• Objection 5: If you choose the wrong god, then every time you go to church you’re making the real God madder and madder. So maybe it’s better to remain neutral.
  • Response: Many religions prescribe the same kinds of actions- helping the poor, tithing, prayer, etc. So even if you practice the wrong religion you’re still taking a lot of actions prescribed by the real religion. Imagine you have two children and you invite both of them to your 50th wedding anniversary. One child comes with a gift he thought you’d like but was mistaken. The other ignores your invitation and says you don’t exist. Which is the better child?

• Objection 6: You wouldn’t turn your wallet over to a mugger who promised to return it with ten times the original amount, so you shouldn’t take The Wager.
  • Response: Your credence in the mugger’s claim should be low, which isn’t analogous to the version of the Wager I offer where the odds are 50/50 like a coin flip.  If he raises the amount he promises to return then your credence gets even lower. There are structurally similar cases to the mugger’s offer though that many would accept, like paying a large amount of money for a risky new medication to treat a life-threatening illness. So the person raising this objection would need to offer an additional argument showing why The Wager is more like the mugging case than the medicine example.

• Objection 7: There are many worldviews with infinite rewards and consequences besides Christianity, and the Wager doesn’t give us any way to choose between them, so it is useless.
  • Response: This is often considered the strongest objection to the Wager. If infinities are being considered though, virtually any religious commitment is equally bad or more advantageous than no commitment at all, so one should practice a religion. “But which one?” the objector asks. “The Wager doesn’t show us.” Well, actually the Wager tells us to practice the one that seems most likely to be true. To figure that out, you need to look at the evidence.

• Objection 8: Any action you take has some chance, no matter how small, of leading to belief in God, whether that is prayer, eating a burger or tying your shoes. When you multiply each probability by the reward though (infinity), it turns out all strategies have an equal expected value- infinity. So then why go to church, pray, read scripture, etc.?
  • Response: It is widely accepted among mathematicians that not all infinities are equal and commonsensical thought experiments reveal this. Imagine you had two eternal “heavens” before you to choose from, both offering the same reward, but neither guarantees you will get the reward. In the first heaven, the probability of you getting the reward is 0.000001. In the second heaven, the probability of you getting the reward is 0.999999. Clearly you should prefer the second to the first, even though both promise an infinite reward. One ought to prefer the worldview with greater credence, other things being equal.

Biblical/Theological Objections

• Objection 9: Paul says, “If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Cor 15:19).  This goes directly against a crucial premise in the Wager, that living a devout Christian life is beneficial even if Naturalism is true.
  • Response: Understanding the context of this passage answers this objection. First, the apostles and recipients of this letter to Corinth faced severe this-worldly costs, unlike the average person living today in a country with religious freedom. It doesn’t follow that since it was bad for them in their context, it is bad for us in our context. Second, Paul’s thought is not, “if naturalism is true then Christians are of all human beings most to be pitied.” Rather it’s more like “if we are wrong in our believing/preaching then we are committing blasphemy against God, putting us outside the true religion and suffering much in this life, which is a lose-lose.” He didn’t even speak to the possibility of no religion being true.

• Objection 10: Salvation is up to God’s will alone. So a person’s choices/actions can’t have an effect on whether he or she attains salvation. But the Wager says our choices/actions can increase our chances of attaining salvation.
  • Response: Those who hold to monergism can still think it’s within the human being’s power to resist God’s saving grace. If that’s the case our choices/actions can have an effect on whether or not we attain salvation. But even if you think grace is irresistible, you can still say that ones choice to commit to God in the way the Wager recommends is a result of God’s grace, just as a Calvinist would say that ones choice to have faith in God is a result of his grace.

Recommended Reading

Michael Rota, Taking Pascal’s Wager pgs. 52-79.

Elizabeth Jackson & Andrew Rogers, Salvaging Pascal’s Wager. Pgs. 59-84.

Veracity Hill

Ep 167: The Reluctant Witness
Do you have fears about sharing your faith with others? Worry no longer! In this episode, Kurt speaks with Don Everts on discovering the delight of spiritual conversations.

Risen Jesus

S3E8 – Season Finale

Dr. Mike Licona and Kurt Jaros review the topics covered in season 3 as well as come of Mike’s personal confessions and reflections after finishing his book, “The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.”

Trinity Radio

Richard Dawkins & Matt Dillahunty: AI, Divine Diddenness, Are We Wired to Believe

Are you wired to believe in God? Can religious experience be explained naturalistically? Will robotic AI ever develop their own religions?

It was film critic Gene Siskel who normally would ask “Is this movie as interesting as the same actors having lunch together?” Had he lived to see The Goldfinch, the answer would be a short and direct no. With actors like Ansel Elgort, Nicole Kidman, Oakes Fegley, Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, and Luke Wilson, it can be safetly assumed that the making of this film would almost be riveting (not to mention some of those behind the camera). Oh how I wish these people were in a different movie.

Alas, that is not the case, and we are stuck with The Goldfinch, based off the 2014 Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Donna Tart (unread by me). The film starts in the aftermath of a (fictional) terrorist attack at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, leaving few survivors. One of which is 13 year old Theo (young talented Oakes Fegley), whose mother was killed in the attack. He is taken in briefly by an upper class family, the Barbour, and finds a somewhat newer mother figure in Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman).We learn that one of the other victims in the attack was an acquaintance of a antiques dealer named Hobie (Jeffrey Wright), who takes young Theo under his wing as the young soul is more than intrigued by “old things” (not to mention Hobie’s adopted daughter Pippa, who also survived the attack and was catching Theo’s eye before the explosion). It is soon discovered by the audience that Theo has stolen a priceless artwork from the rubble, known as The Goldfinch.

He is soon taken away from his deadbeat dad (Luke Wilson) and his girlfriend Xandra (Sarah Paulson) to live with in the outskirts of Las Vegas. Though both seem loving, it does not take much to see that these two only want Theo for the money that his mother left him. The only light in Theo’s young life is his new friend Boris (Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things and the IT films), a Russian immigrant (though he mentions he is from many places).

There is a lot (to say the least) jumping around in this movie, as we fast forward to an adult Theo (Ansel Elgort), who now deals in antiques, and finds pieces of his past childhood experiences, which were mostly nothing short of bad, as certain people of the past have died (and in tragic ways). It is melodrama cranked to the max. I forgot to mention how, when he first moved in with the Harbour family, Mrs. Harbour introduced him to a prescription drug that helped with the affects of the aftermath of the attack (PTSD I guess). This starts Theo into a drug habit that escalates even more when he meets Boris (whose own home life is chaotic with his father). The end of the film shows a crime caper of sorts, which legit makes no sense.

I am sure this film had all the best of intentions (and I am sure the book is great), but the translation from page to screen is not merely lost: it vanishes. There was a lot of source material to work from (I found out the book is in the 700-800 page range), but the film still drags on for too long. Sure, the run time is long (two and a half hours), but even films at that length don’t always seem to drag as much (the first film to come to mind that had about that same length of runtime is The Dark Knight, which never dragged on). The Goldfinch had me checking my watch constantly, and that started about 20 or 30 minutes into the film.

Parents, the film is rated R mainly for language and drug use. There is no sexuality (though it is inferred that some characters have slept with each other). High School and above.

The film is directed by John Crowley, who was at the helm of 2015’s criminally under seen gem Brooklyn. He is clearly a talented filmmaker, but even the best of them have flops. The one bit of light for The Goldfinch is (somewhat poetically) that the man behind the lighting (i.e., the cinematographer) is the legendary Roger Deakins, meaning the film is indeed wonderful to look at.

Toward the end of the film, one character mentions how some good can come from bad. It will be sometime before I discover what good has come from seeing this film.

Overall: 1/5

Logos

• Free Logos software and book of the month

Kindle deals

• A Life for Christ: What the Normal Christian Life Should Look Like by Dwight Moody $0.00
• Surprised by Faith: A Skeptic Discovers More to Life than What We Can See, Touch, and Measure by Dr. Don Bierle $0.00
• How to Be a Christian in a Brave New World by Joni Eareckson Tada $.99
• Peace with God: The Secret of Happiness by Billy Graham $3.99
• The Gospel of the Lord: How the Early Church Wrote the Story of Jesus by Michael F. Bryd $3.99

Weekly links

• The power of Paul’s testimony: How investigating Paul’s conversion turned a skeptic into a Christian apologist by isjesusalive.com
• What Does it Mean to be Human? Part 3–Free Will by kirkdurston.com
• Apologetics As Conversation by apologeticsguy.com
• Deconstructing Hinduism — Part 1 by samzlogic.wordpress.com
• Why would a loving God send people to hell? by solas-cpc.org
• Carbon-14 Dating Supports the Writing of the Great Isaiah Scroll Prior to the Crucifixion by reasons.org
• Deconstruction, doubt and finding faith again – Lisa Gungor and Alisa Childers by Unbelievable? (video)
• 12 Reasons to Trust The New Testament by crossexamined.org
• A Snail as Fast as a Bullet, and Other Darwin-Defying Marvels by evolutionnews.org
• Why Do the Many New Testament Quotations and References to the Greek Old Testament Instead of the Hebrew Not Mean the NT or OT Authors Made a Mistake? by christianpublishinghouse.co

In my mind, the two elements that are best exemplified in science fiction is that of fantasy and of the philosophical. We are intrigued by the technical wonder, yet still have reflections of our own life and world as we leave the theater. Certain movies make us think of one of said elements over the other (Star Wars is more fantasy), but others can balance them well (the all time great sci-fi film 2001: A Space Odyssey does this, though it leans a bit more slightly on the philosophical side). The same is the case with Ad Astra, and while it is not up there with 2001 (to be fair, very few are), it is still a wonder to behold.

Set in the near future, Ad Astra (which means “to the stars”) centers on veteran astronaut Roy McBride (Brad Pitt), who also narrates. When a power surge occurs that affects all of mankind, he is approached to undertake a top secret mission and contact the leader of a past mission, Project Lima. The crew of that project was sent to the outer reaches of the solar system in search of extra terrestrial life. It launched nearly three decades prior, led by Roy’s father, H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones).

Roy is told his father has made it as far as Neptune, where the source of the power surge occurred. Along the way, he gets some help from an old friend/collegue of his dad, Thomas Pruitt (Donald Sutherland) and Helen Lantos (Ruth Negga).

Nearly the whole movie revolves around Roy, and Brad Pitt is no stranger to being able to carry a movie (he ranks up with Tom Cruise and Will Smith as one of the biggest stars in the world). He is much more subdued here than he was in Once upon a time…in Hollywood, and that is because the script demands it. Roy is required to keep self check ins, making sure he is fit emotionally and psychologically for each mission (it is said his heart rate has never exceded past 85 during a mission). He is so focused he is barely there mentally for his wife Eve (Liv Tyler).

What’s more, Roy must also live the life of knowing his father is a hero in the public eye, somewhat riding the coat tails. He has indeed looked up to his father, but soon realizes that being like him will indeed take a heavy toll on his life and soul.

Undoubtably, the film is breathtaking in how it handles its visuals. Long before the movie started, a part of me wondered if I should have taken the chance to see this in IMAX, and how I wish I had! Consider the scene on the service of the moon, where the Pitt and Sutherland characters are chased by pirates (since the moon has been colonized) on rovers. We know it is fiction, but it seems like it could actually happen in a century or so. The dangers of space travel are always shown in film (most notably 2013’s Gravity), but the views one would see make those dangers almost worth the risk.

Parents, the film is a very moderate PG-13. There is no sexual content of any kind, and only a few curse words (at least one F bomb I remember). There is also some violence, but nothing too much that would scare a preteen senseless.

There are still many questions raised that will puzzle some audience members (how an animal test subject was alive when the crew wasn’t was confusing). Still, the end result is more than satisfactory. The best part of the film I won’t give away, but it is what Roy discovers at the end of his journey, is something all of us need to remember, and what makes it unique among nearly any science fiction film I have ever seen.

Overall: 4/5

A disposition or character trait that is itself an excellence or good or that tends to lead to what is good, with moral virtues being those excellences that foster human flourishing. In ancient and medieval philosophy ethical thinking centered on the virtues—what they are, how they are related and how they are to be achieved. The medievals accepted the cardinal virtues of the ancient world (wisdom, justice, courage, temperance) and added to them the three principal Christian virtues (faith, hope and love). Both ancient and medieval thinkers tied their account of the virtues as leading to human flourishing to accounts of human nature. Recent ethical theory has seen a rediscovery of the importance of the virtues and the development of virtue theory, which holds that concepts of the virtues are basic to ethics and not reducible to claims about moral duties or what is impersonally valuable.

Evans, C. S. (2002). Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (p. 121). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.