Book Reviews

Takeaway: Taking Jesus seriously on economic issues is hard.

Purchase Links: Paperback, Kindle Edition, Audible.com Audiobook (Paperback is on sale for $6 right now)

Christians often make very bad economists, or at least bad economics writers. They may have good theology, but good theology does not necessarily make good economic sense.  And Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove is OK with that.  He wants to focus on ways that we can re-define our understanding of economics.  This is a common theme of both Christian and non-Christian books I have been reading lately.  Economics is increasingly moving toward mathematical/rational determinism and away from ethical theory.

Wilson-Hartgrove is writing directly to move Christians back toward an ethical understanding of economics.  As a student he wanted to change the world through politics and the religious right.  Then he was deeply affected by a homeless man and began a long journey toward redefining what it means to be a Christian.

Read more

My general review of The Next Story: Life and Faith After The Digital Explosion is basically very positive. I had a lot of disagreements about Challies’ conception of Authority, but still think it is a good book.

But after I read this interview where Challies thought he was not writing a Reformed perspective on technology I thought I would write one more brief post about where I think his reformed perspective is showing through. I am not opposed to Reformed theology, and I do not want him to not write from a Reformed perspective, but I do think it is helpful to be aware of our theology so we can better understand how our backstories play into how we conceive of the world.

Read more

Takeaway: Conceptions of Authority and Truth are changing, the question is are they changing because of culture or technology. And if they are changing, is it a bad thing?

My general review of The Next Story: Life and Faith After The Digital Explosion is basically very positive.  I do not want to distract from the fact that in general I think this was a very helpful book and one that many people would benefit from reading.  But the parts that I most disagreed with revolved around Challies understanding of truth and authority.

Initially, Challies has a discussion of Russell Ackoff‘s DIKW model.  Ackoff suggests that we move from Data (simple description) to Information (answers basic questions like who, what, where, when) to Knowledge (information that has been owned and processed so a person can interact with other types of information) and finally to Wisdom (the application of knowledge, life experience to make good decisions).  Data and information about about the accumulation.  Knowledge is about the comparisons.  And wisdom is about the application.

Challies makes the very useful progression a focus of how our use of education has changed.  Rote memory is much less important because the basic facts are always available. The problems according to Challies, Nicholas Carr and others is that we are in a race to accumulate data and information and do not seem to spend much time with knowledge and wisdom.  Part of this is availability of information.  If a person only has access to dozens of books you will think much more about the individual books and ideas within the books.  If you have access to virtually unlimited data then the inclination is to spend less time on any particular idea.  In many ways, I think this is true partially.  Many people know lots about a little.  But increased specialization also means that people have more time, and are rewarded because they know a lot about a few things.  So while I think that for the average person, there might be a temptation toward data/information and not knowledge/wisdom, I do not think this true of society as a whole.

Read more

Takeaway: Sometimes it is ok to give up.

Purchase Links: Hardback, Paperback, Kindle Edition Audible.com Audiobook

I am intrigued by science.  But I really do not know much about science.  My science education was either quite poor, or I am just a poor science student (or both.)  My high school biology class was taught by a teacher that had two sections, one was for people that had already failed biology once and the second was taught with the same outline.  I never received less than a 90 on any test or quiz, but I am not sure I learned anything either.  My chemistry class I remember distinctly people cheating off of me, but I have no memory of the class other than the oddity that was my teacher.  I took AP physics but remember it even less than the other two.  In college I had one science class which I hated.  It was filled almost entirely by music majors because of off scheduling and a professor that did not like students.

Read more