Nathan Key

Nathan Key: First question, you're teaching philosophy, which totally puts you in a different class than say, myself (I'm looking into grad schools for the future), but whenever I tell people about my own interest in philosophy, they always counter with some sort of "what are you going to do with a philosophy degree?" statement. So, let's go ahead and entertain that question for a moment. Other than just teach philosophy, what's the big goal of yours? What do you hope to accomplish with your PhD?

Micah Tillman: Teachers have a strange role. Rather than going out and "having lives" themselves, it's their job to help other people live better (live more intelligently, more skillfully, more virtuously).

A teacher of politics teaches other people how to govern, rather than governing for herself. A teacher of architecture teaches other people how to build buildings, rather than building buildings herself. Etc.
 
A teacher doesn't make things; a teacher makes people -- or, rather, a teacher helps people make themselves -- who then go out and make things.

A teacher doesn't shape things; a teacher shapes people who then go out and shape things.

So, it looks like teachers do nothing, make nothing. Everything that is done and shaped is done and shaped by students. But that just means you measure a teacher's success in terms of people, not things. Teachers change the world for the better by changing their students for the better. Or, rather, teachers change the world for the better by helping their students change themselves for the better.

And that means that being a teacher is both arrogant and humiliating . You have to both think you can help your students become better than they are, and accept the fact that your profession relegates you to role of "having once had an influence on" the movers and shakers (rather than being a mover and shaker yourself).  (But to be honest, I'm not sure anyone would want to see me either move or shake, so it's probably best for everyone that I'm just a teacher. . . .)

So, what's my big goal other than teaching? I want to be a writer. I want to write books that will help people think more clearly about their lives, as I gradually learn to think more clearly about my own. And it really helps to have a "Ph.D." after your name, when it comes to getting people to read your books.

Nathan Key: On your blog, you've been writing an ongoing commentary on Paul's letter to the Romans, which I've really enjoyed. Can you tell my readers a little bit more about this project and why it's so important to you?
 
Micah Tillman: Thanks! I'm trying to figure out whether I have to become a Calvinist ("Reformed"), you see. I'm scared that I'll have to.

My formative years were spent in a Baptist church that was part-Reformed, part-Anabaptist.  We were kind of Calvinist, and kind of anti-Calvinist. But I didn't know enough at the time to be as thoroughly confused as I later became.

Things came to a head, as they say, when recently I found a lot of lectures on iTunes U from Reformed Theological Seminary. I "go running" every day, and needed something intellectually-stimulating to listen to. So, I started listening to RTS lectures.

It's been both wonderful and infuriating. The Reformed Theologians are remarkable for their systematic, philosophical approach to theology. I really like that. And Tim Keller, of whom I've recently become a big fan, is a Presbyterian (a Calvinist/Reformed Theologian).

However, the more I listened, the more it became apparent to me that I had some serious problems with some of the central tenets of Reformed Theology.

So, I had to figure out whether the problems I had were legitimate. When I try to "figure something out," I have to write about it. That's how I work through things, explore ideas, develop arguments, and whatnot. That led to a lot of blogging about Calvinism and Reformed Theology, and eventually brought me to Romans.

Calvinists cited so many verses from Romans to support their Doctrine of Total Depravity, that I decided I was just going to have to study the whole letter.

And that meant I was essentially going to have to write a "commentary" on Romans.

It's been fascinating for me so far. I'm five or so chapters in and have already found things -- things that seem hugely important to me -- that I had never noticed before. So far it's not looking good for the Calvinists, but there's a lot of Romans left.  I never know quite what's going to turn up in the next block of verses, so you may get to watch me become a Calvinist before your very eyes. Or you may get to watch me get to the final verse of Romans and say, "Ha!  I knew I was right!"

Of course, once I'm done with Romans, I'll have to then get back to the list of specific verses that I was going through when I ran into the block from Romans (and got sidetracked).

Nathan Key: Hey, I'll definitely be looking forward to those other commentaries, too!

OK, here's a question that I'm interested in. It seems like Twentieth Century Philosophy is often associated with atheism and agnosticism- especially since some of the more preeminent twentieth century philosophers were so adamantly anti-god or anti-religion. But lately, it seems like there's been a renewed interest among Christians regarding philosophy. Why do you think that is?

Micah Tillman: There are at least two reasons: Brian McLaren and the New Atheists.

First: It's Brian McLaren's "fault." Or, rather, it's the "Emergent Church Movement's" "fault," of which McLaren is a prime mover.

As best I can tell, it was McLaren who decided that Protestant Christianity needed to do two things: (1) admit it was living in a postmodern world, and (2) embrace postmodernism. (You can do the former without doing the latter, but McLaren thinks we need to do both.  See his A New Kind of Christian series <http://www.amazon.com/New-Kind-Christian-Friends-Spiritual/dp/078795599X/>.)

Once the word gets around that we don't live in the modern world (like everyone thought!), but in fact are living after the modern world, people start to get curious. What is postmodernism? How is it different from modernism? What in the world is modernism, anyway? (I'd suggest Crystal Downing's, How Postmodernism Serves (My) Faith <http://www.amazon.com/How-Postmodernism-Serves-Faith-Questioning/dp/0830827587/>, in response to those questions.)

And once you start asking questions like that, you have to start studying philosophy. Without postmodernism as a philosophical movement, McLaren would have had to turn somewhere else.  Without Derrida and Foucault, there would be no McLaren. Or, rather, McLaren would be a different McLaren than he is today. And that means everyone who is now caught up in the Emergent Church movement would have had to frame what they were doing in completely different terms.

In other words, the legitimacy of the Emergent Church rests on the legitimacy of postmodern philosophy. It's in the postmodernist's critique of modernist ways of thinking that McLaren & Co. found a way to respond to what they thought was wrong with the Christianity they grew up on.

Second: It's the New Atheists' (Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens) "fault."

After 9/11, and in the midst of the presidency of George W. Bush, the atheists of the West felt under attack from "Religious Extremists." So they fought back with a series of books against the idea of God and the fact of religion.

That, in turn, led American Christians, at least, to feel under attack. After all, the New Atheists represent enlightenment, reason, toleration, etc. They're smart, well-respected people. They are the intelligentsia.

So prominent Christians began to respond with their own books. (See, for example, Tim Keller's The Reason for God <http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494/>, and search for "new atheism" on Amazon for any number of others.) 

The New Atheists were claiming that certain ideas (about God, religion, the world) have massive real-world effects (like terrorism, war, political injustice). So, suddenly, philosophical issues weren't just esoteric curiosities. These guys were claiming your way of life is produced by your way of thinking, and that the way Christians think leads to oppression and war.

Naturally, Christians would want to defend themselves.  But to do that, they'd have to get philosophical. They would have to defend themselves in the arena of ideas.

NK: I can't help but make the political leap, now that we've covered some philosophy and religion... Iwas somewhat surprised to find another philosopher who leans libertarian on the political spectrum since I honestly don't meet a lot of libertarian philosophers (I suppose this could be due to the influence of Mill and Marx). Anyhow, I was wondering how you came to believe so strongly in individual liberty? Was that something that you picked up through your study of philosophy or was that something you brought with you?

MT: I came to be a libertarian for a few different reasons.

First: I'm a libertarian because I'm not sure I'm right. Since I'm not sure I'm right, I don't feel comfortable forcing other people to do what I say. And thus I'm surprised at other people who are willing to force other people to do what they say. How could they be so sure that they're right, when I'm not sure that I'm right?  I find it offensive!  Do they think they're better than me?

I'm a smart guy, you see; I've thought long and hard about political issues. I married a person who fundamentally disagrees with me, and go to a church where everyone disagrees with me. I can't help but think long and hard about political issues.

And yet, I'm still not sure I'm right. After all, I live and worship with extremely intelligent people who think I'm wrong! So if someone as intelligent and engaged as I am can't be sure he's right, how could anyone?

Libertarianism, of all the political philosophies (besides anarchism, which many libertarians ascribe to), takes most seriously the idea that people shouldn't force each other to do things.

Second: I was raised a "Back-to-the-Constitution!" Conservative, so that predisposed me to believing in things like "individual liberty" and "limited government."

Third: I got really, really sick of people blaming me for things I hadn't done just because I belonged to some "group" like "America," "Christians," or "Baptists" that had done something. It made me question the entire notion of groups -- and I eventually came to the conclusion that they were an artificial construct.

But if groups don't exist, then what does? Persons. Not individuals, but persons. Here, the work of the Boston Personalists, and some Catholic philosophizing about the dignity of human persons really influenced me.

(A person, for example, can need other people and enjoy traditions without ceasing to be her own person; but an individual has to be different from everyone else, has to be unique, has to be an island.  There can be independent standards for a person, but not for an individual; an individual has to follow his own rules.  And that means you can tell a person that she has to respect your rights, but you can't tell an individual that.  An individual can't accept any norms that come from outside himself, or else he ceases to be a true individual.)

The more I thought about all this, the more it seemed to me that libertarianism was closest to being right.

NK: Obviously the libertarian lens effects (or affects, I never get this right) how you read and study other philosophers, right? So, do you see any apparent difference in your own approach to philosophy and religion because of the libertarian leaning?

MT: Indeed.  First and foremost, libertarianism is the idea that politics is fundamentally secondary, that government is not and should not be central to life. Politics and government are important only insofar as they have the power to impede the real business of living.

Therefore, I am inclined to be very skeptical of any philosophy or religious system that makes politics central, that treats political life as the highest kind, or that claims a person's personhood depends in some way on the political system in which she lives, or the government under which she lives.  I find it difficult to believe anyone who would claim that a person can only find fulfilment in a political group or community (e.g., in a nation, a city, a state.).

Furthermore, being of the libertarian persuasion keeps me on the lookout for the ways in which an idea, or system of ideas, could be used by people to strengthen or expand the use of physical force (by government, or by whoever).  That is, it makes me more sensitive than I might otherwise be to the ways in which ideas are connected with power.

And, being a libertarian makes it harder for me to accept even those places in a philosophy or religion where the idea of groups might be used legitimately. I find, for instance, Paul's talk about the "body of Christ" to be hard (but not impossible!) to swallow, because of how similar it is to the (dangerous) idea of the "body politic."

So, in some ways, my libertarianism puts me at a disadvantage. So, I have to remind myself that even though I feel or believe very strongly in libertarian ideas, I am not certain of them.  I have to remember that one of the reasons I'm a libertarian is that I don't think I've gotten everything figured out. And therefore some ideas that may not make me happy at the moment, may actually be legitimate. 

NK: I think we're on the same page in this regard, and I really like how you said that libertarians are often those who have strong opinions that they DON'T want to impose on others, even if those ideas aren't ideally "Libertarian." Micah, thanks so much for sharing these thoughts with us. I really glad to have a voice like yours to learn from and brainstorm with.

MT: Thanks for the honor!

Wow, I just read an article today that ripped into Abraham Lincoln. Here's an excerpt:

"Lincoln micromanaged the murder of some 350,000 fellow Americans, including more than 50,000 civilians, in order to "prove" his point that the central government is indeed not voluntary, the states were never sovereign (so he said), and that any group of citizens who contemplate leaving it will be killed en masse, their cities and towns burned to the ground, and their wealth and personal belongings confiscated by the U.S. Army. If we standardize for today’s population, Lincoln’s killing machine would lead to the death of more than 6 million Americans." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo174.html)

That's not your typical Lincoln article, huh?

OK, so I know that we all learned in history class that the American Civil War was about slavery. And it was, in part, about slavery. But the thing is... it wasn't actually as much about slavery as Lincoln lovers would have us believe.

We need to remember that, first, Lincoln actually promised during his campaign that he WOULD NOT outlaw slavery. Second, he did not pronounce the Emancipation Proclamation until the Civil War was well underway. And third, the Emancipation Proclamation was more of a posturing move than it was an end to Slavery. Consider that it only proclaimed the end of Slavery in States that had joined the Confederacy rather than all States, including Union States that were actually under Lincoln's authority. These three facts joined together make it fairly clear that the American Civil War wasn't just about slavery. It was about control. Slavery was merely the crowbar that Lincoln used to exert the will of the Central Government, sort of like terrorism was the crowbar that President Bush used to strip US Citizens of their rights during the years after 9/11.

Now, let's be clear- both slavery and terrorism are evils that should be fought! No one argues that. But the fact is, both Lincoln and Bush used these evils as an excuse to undermine the Civil Liberties of US Citizens and States. They used hot issues to expand the control that the Federal Government has over the people of this country. And for that, I think both of them deserve a "Shame on You" at the very least. And in light of the hostile takeover they made on the people they governed, perhaps we should reconsider the rights States actually have under the 10th amendment.

You can read more about that, here:
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/

And you can check to see what your State is doing about it, here: http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/

PS. Even though I'm not too thrilled with Lincoln's actions toward the Southern States, I'm glad that slavery is done with. I just wish we'd been able to do it without a war since every other major country in the world has managed to do so. I wonder if we would have been able to avoid a lot of the racism, prejudice, and hatred that we've experienced had we done away with slavery peacefully instead of through war and reconstruction.

Two weeks back, I wrote a rather fun post called Why Do the Rich Always Foot the Bill? and it got quite a lot of comments. One I especially enjoyed was from Jeff. He made a comment about the redistribution of wealth and how rich people tend to leave their kids big piles of money. He said that this is still redistributing wealth, it's just that it's within the family rather than to the entire community. His thought has stuck with me and I've been turning it over in my head during the past two weeks. 'Cause it's true. Willing your estate to another person in the event of one's death is a redistribution of wealth. Unless you bury your fortune in the ground, someone will make off with it after you die.

So we're left with a conundrum- what is the MOST FAIR way to redistribute wealth?

On one side we have those who believe that each individual has a right to his own property and should also have the right to decide what to do with it- whether that decision is to sell it, trade it, give it, or horde it. And at the end of their life, if they choose to leave it all to a local charity or to their family, it's their prerogative and we shouldn't interfere.

If we follow this line of thinking, we should treat any decision a person makes (in regard to their own property) with the utmost respect. They're choices about what to do with their property while they are living and after they are dead are to be followed. Just as we wouldn't take their children's allowance money, we also wouldn't take their inheritance. Both of these would interfere with the property rights of the individual.

And of course, once given to another individual or organization, that property would become bound to the individual to whom it was given. We should respect the rights of that individual regarding their newly acquired property as well.

Then there are those on the other side who believe that all resources should be used for the greater good of all mankind- that no one truly owns anything, whether they worked for it or not- and that there should be institutions in place to ensure that all resources are equally distributed to all people everywhere.

Following this line of thinking, since no one truly owns property at all, anything and everything can be legally taken by an institution or individual and rationed out others as long as the institution or individual has the needs of the many in mind. This is a collectivist mindset that values the whole as greater than the sum of its parts and will champion the rights of the many over the few.

In this paradigm, no one has the right to decide what's best for himself and his property. He is under obligation to the rest of the people in his community and country.

Pork Projects are those little line items that creep into legislation as Congressmen fight to represent the people they've been elected by. Unfortunately, a process that was supposed to help Congress truly practice representative democracy has become a legalized system of bribery where Representatives are allowed to add their pet projects to a bill in order to make it more favorable to them- even if their own interests have little or nothing to do with the legislation in question.

Pork Projects are becoming more and more of a problem because (as we've seen with the Cap & Trade and upcoming Healthcare Legislations) bills that could be concisely worded and clearly understood are being transformed into 120 page documents that no one has time to read and understand fully before voting occurs. This means that legislation is being passed without our Representatives even reading about it or knowing exactly what they are voting on.

President Obama promised to mandate transparency procedures that would require 72 hours of public access to each bill in its entirety- but we've yet to see this happen and probably never will. Of course the reality is, I don't think the Executive Branch actually has the Authority to tell the House when or how it will vote on bills, but even if it did I doubt that it would really follow through on it.

This is basically because of three reasons:

1. Congressmen Won't Give Up The Ability to Represent Their People

Killing one's private agendas means giving up an arena where one can fight for a "piece of the pie." What I mean is, ever year there's only so much money (supposedly) and so many bills (supposedly) that can be distributed or voted on (respectively). With limited resources, one has to do everything possible to maximize the representation of the community at the national level. That means writing as many little line items as possible, whenever possible. No one will want to give up that ability. It means being less effective.

2. Congressmen Won't Give Up The Ability To Bribe Other Congressmen

If I want Bill A passed and the only way to do it is to add in line item C, D, & F (to appease the interests of my fellow representatives), you'd better believe that I'd want to keep the ability to add in those extra perks to make my bill more appealing.

3. Congress Needs a Back Door to Slip in Big Government

I know this will probably make me sound paranoid, but the reality is "Fly By Night Legislation" happens. It's tricky, it's devious, and it's real. The Patriot Act is a good example of "Back Door" legislation that was passed with all sorts of unconstitutional and inappropriate laws in it. It went through because the big ideas included in the legislation didn't sound so bad. It was passed during a time of heightened fear and patriotism (notice what they named it, although I'd argue that the Patriot Act is one of the more unpatriotic pieces of Legislation ever passed) and so a lot of things slipped through the cracks that wouldn't have if they were saved for an individual bill or given a little bit of "sunlight" and exposure.

Needless to say, unless some very brave individuals set up to change the system- Pork is probably here to stay. And it will only get worse as time goes on.

I was thinking about Jesus' statement, "Judge Not, Lest Thee Be Judged" the other day when I was sitting in a gathering at Summit Church in Orlando.

It's rather difficult, honestly, writing a blog like this to avoid criticism of other people. I mean, as much as I try to make a humble narration of the things I see around me, I've probably resorted to finger pointing at least as often as true objective commentary. That said, I hope that anyone who reads this blog (especially those with contrary opinions) understands that some of my very best friends are democrats, republicans, socialists, and of course libertarians (I even know a few closet fascists, but I won't call them out here). I love each of them very much and I think that each of us are trying to accomplish the same things with our political agendas. None of us are more or less compassionate toward the poor, the rich, or the middle class- we merely have different ideas about what's the most effective way to meet the needs of the most people.

What's frustrating is that any one of these ideologies could probably work. Socialism has worked in some places just as well as the free market. And dictatorships have flourished just as democracies have. But we rarely acknowledge this. We're each so sure that we have the right answers, we resorts to casting judgment on each other about whether we truly support the needs of the poor or the lives of unborn children or marriage or whatever issue we're most passionate about.

And this is when Jesus' words about judging can become most helpful.

We judge when we assume that Republicans who are trying to protect the rights of businesses are evil because they don't seem to be fighting for the "little guy." We judge when we assert that they don't care about women because they want them to go through with pregnancies. We put the "evil" brand on Democrats who are trying to fight for the rights of homosexuals because they don't seem to respect heterosexual marriage. We shut down their ideas because their sense of social justice involves (in our minds) "punishing" those who are successful at creating wealth. People assume that Libertarians are crazy potheads because we want to legalize marijuana even though most of us think it would actually SAVE lives and lead to less violence.

I know I need to be more humble when I blog. I need to be careful to remember that my friends on the other side of the political isle are usually after the same thing as me. They want to everyone to have the best possible life. I can't be so quick to blow them off- even if I disagree with their methods.

So hold me to that.

I'll do the same for you.

The government usually is the entity that take care of the roads for us- building and maintaining the highways, byways, and residential streets. They use part of our yearly tax money to pay for their upkeep and creation.

So, if I were to willfully damage (or cause damage through negligence) to the roads or other public properties- I might be charged with vandalism, destruction of public property, or at least be forced to pay some sort of restitution.

So now that the government is seriously considering going toward a National Healthcare plan, meaning that the government will be the entity primarily responsible for the upkeep costs of the human body, does this mean that if I eat too much junk food, get fat and need treatment for diabetes I'll be charged with destruction of public property or vandalism?

Just curious.

I talking purely "bad choice" injuries and diseases here, not the genetic ones or ones caused by natural causes. It just seems to me that anyone who willfully destroys themselves might not be the sort of person that the rest of us want to pay taxes to cover?

While it's true that those with a lot of money have an opportunity to help out those who don't, I'm not sure that it's fair to write laws that make it seem like those a certain income bracket are obligated to help others, by force if necessary, through taxation.

But this is exactly what Congress is set to do with the new Healthcare Reform Bill that's sitting in the dredges right now. According to an Associated Press article I found yesterday, "House Democrats are Looking to Tax the Rich for Healthcare Costs."

Now it's true that the Rich can probably afford it.

But that's not the point.

The point is this- anytime we make a qualification that a certain individual owes the government MORE because of a quality they possess (in this case, the quality is that they have more money), we're opening the door to the erosion of liberty across the board- not just against the rich.

Perhaps the next move will be asking our scholarly students with a 4.0 grade point average to "donate" some of their grades to those unfortunate students who couldn't pass Business Calculus. It won't hurt that student to have a 3.9 GPA and the kid who's failing could really use that extra point so that he can get up to a 2.5 rather than a 2.4...

OK, you're right- it's a bit of a stretch to compare GPA's and Wealth.

But the fact of the matter is, you can't make qualifications about some people's wealth without effecting everyone's wealth. Eventually, the qualifier is going to point in the direction of the poor or the middle class- and when that happens it's going to seem unfair and unwarranted- and those of us who were complaining about this sort of thing all along are going to point back to these moments where property rights were eroded and we'll say, you're merely getting the same treatment you legislated on others.

Earlier this week, I posted a blog about Universal Rights. I wanted to continue this idea today, especially since we're heading into the Independence Day celebrations here in the United States. It's always relevant to talk about rights, but it's especially relevant around holidays where we specifically celebrate them!