“We are all apprentices in a craft where no one ever becomes a master.”
“The greatest part of a writer’s time is spent in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book.”
“If it sounds like writing, I rewrite it. Or, if proper usage gets in the way, it may have to go. I can’t allow what we learned in English composition to disrupt the sound and rhythm of the narrative.”
“Write. Rewrite. When not writing or rewriting, read. I know of no shortcuts.”
—Larry L. King, WD
“Know your literary tradition, savor it, steal from it, but when you sit down to write, forget about worshiping greatness and fetishizing masterpieces.”
“One thing that helps is to give myself permission to write badly. I tell myself that I’m going to do my five or 10 pages no matter what, and that I can always tear them up the following morning if I want. I’ll have lost nothing—writing and tearing up five pages would leave me no further behind than if I took the day off.”
—Lawrence Block, WD
Who wants to become a writer? And why? Because it’s the answer to everything. … It’s the streaming reason for living. To note, to pin down, to build up, to create, to be astonished at nothing, to cherish the oddities, to let nothing go down the drain, to make something, to make a great flower out of life, even if it’s a cactus.”
These methods are the same methods that:
1) Allowed leadership and courage to overcome the skepticism we had in the caves.
2) Its these methods of empiricism
3) Its these methods that allow inferences, intuition, and abductive logic to take us to the next stage in human development. Science is a poor language to talk about the future–if abductive logic isn’t involved
4) Without relationships–and actually a long line of them–there wouldn’t be a United States or a you. Relationships are grounded in an epistemological basis that is beyond what can be tested in a laboratory.
5) You couldn’t live and experience life in all its freshness, originality, and creativity without some degree of non-scientific evidence.
6) Not even scientists only use science as their only form of proof.
Gut check–is there any human or scientist who lives by “I don’t do it unless there is scientific evidence to prove it.” That would be simply silly. Life is too original and people too different and life is advancing too fast for science to provide answers to all of lifes questions–particularly those about our future.
This worldview is telling you to deny whats on the inside of your head in terms of your experience of reality–that turns you into an autonomon–that has no experience, no evidence, and not much of a way to improve their lot in life. Its a form of paralysis thats terminal. (not to mention the previous problem I outlined with respect to leaving the cave in the first place).
Moreover, your argument ends in an ideology in which we have nothing but physics & chemistry & biology departments in universities. Thats rolling the clock back on knowledge and the human experience in vastly counter-productive ways. (talk about functional book burning–we’re talking about crushing whole departments).
Economic Cost of Addiction on the US Economy:
Also, here are the stats/evidence/proof of sin you were looking for:
Illegal Drugs: $181 billion dollars per year
Alcohol: $185 billion dollars per year
Tobacco: $193 billion dollars per year
Total: $559 billion dollars per year
Also, the economic cost of crime:
In the United States, more than 23 million criminal offenses were committed in 2007, resulting in approximately $15 billion in economic losses to the victims and $179 billion in government expenditures on police protection, judicial and legal activities, and corrections (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004a, 2007a, 2008).
So sin is real, very real. Sin has real consequences.
I can also get out the cost of additions & broken families if you’d like….. (I probably will do so anyway)
Economic Cost of Broken Families on the US Economy:
The cost of broken families:
The linkages between family collapse and various forms of social failure were established decades ago. (A fine roundup of solid social science is The Case for Marriage, by Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher.) Reams of sophisticated research have documented what everyday experience confirms: that family fragmentation damages enormous numbers of boys and girls. Not all children in tough family situations do poorly, but more than enough do. “It is very hard,” two sober scholars concluded in a 2010 Educational Testing Service report, “to imagine progress resuming in reducing the education attainment and achievement gap without turning these family trends around.” The very idea, they said, of a “substitute for the institution [of marriage] for raising children is almost unthinkable.”
Others have developed ways of measuring the most obvious economic and social effects of family fragmentation. Perhaps the most elementary is to calculate how much money government spends to keep single mothers and their children out of dire poverty. In 2008, Georgia College & State University economist Benjamin Scafidi calculated that family fragmentation cost U.S. taxpayers $112 billion annually. And Scafidi purposely left out some quite substantial costs:
– The study considered only female-headed households, although male-headed households represent about one-sixth of single-parent homes.
– Scafidi disregarded a number of major government programs, notably the Earned Income Tax Credit, insofar as “existing data” didn’t allow his team to “quantify them with confidence.”
– He disregarded the not-trivial sums public schools wind up spending on social problems tied to out-of-wedlock births and divorce.
– He did not attempt to monetize the human and social capital that stably married parents provide their children, though the increase in young people’s well-being reduces the likelihood of their requiring pricey governmental services when they repeat grades, burden the juvenile-justice and child-protective systems, and so on.
– Scafidi assumed no benign effects of marriage on fathers’ earning power, although it is well established that stable marriages tend to increase men’s earnings while decreasing the likelihood of their committing crimes and being incarcerated.
– Scafidi assumed that married households avail themselves of governmental services to which they are entitled at the same rate as single-mother households, though in fact lower-income married couples are only about half as likely as single mothers to take advantage of such benefits.
– Scafidi disregarded the Medicare expenses associated with unmarried adults and the elderly even though, as he noted, “high rates of divorce and failure to marry mean that many more Americans enter late middle-age (and beyond) without a spouse to help them manage chronic illnesses, or to help care for them if they become disabled.”
The author continues:
Like a good academic, Scafidi felt compelled to be methodologically cautious; perhaps overly so. But the rest of us are free to observe that the actual cost is considerably above $112 billion a year.
A second way of estimating costs is to figure out how much lower the poverty level would be if out-of-wedlock birth rates and divorce rates were lower. In 2009, Brookings scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill wrote that if the “United States had the same proportion of children living in single-parent families as in 1970, all else equal, today’s poverty rate would be roughly one-quarter lower than it is.” Even more dramatically, Sawhill and another colleague earlier wrote that if family structure had not changed between 1960 and 1998, the poverty rate for black children in the latter year would have been 28.4 percent instead of 45.6 percent.
A third approach reflects the work of several econometricians on the connections between academic achievement and economic growth. In several invaluable studies, economist Eric Hanushek demonstrated the vital importance of a nation’s competence in mathematics and science for its economic success. The quality of learning in these two subjects—which is significantly depressed by family fragmentation—is best measured by standardized tests that have been administered internationally since the 1970s.
Source: Broken Families, Broken Economy
And an even better case perhaps can be made based on the emotional/mental effects of sinful behavior, which I’ll have to add later.
Finally, assuming that sin is a construct is seemingly a form of ethical or cultural relativism in drag. I’ve written on this quite a lot. David Wilkinson does a good job explaining this argument.
As someone who has evaluated his share of arguments, I would suggest the following criteria:
1) Representativeness of data
2) Representativeness of conclusions
3) Credibility of source & data
5) Understanding of context (historical, culture, relevant or iconic precedent in the area, etc…)
6) Lack of overgeneralization, straw person, or excessive reductionism
7) Precision, specificity, and nuance
8) Ability to address objections (i.e. how it relates to and integrate with the oppositions arguments), counter-examples, or alternative perspectives
9) What are its assumptions?
10) Is it reasonable? Is it coherent?
11) Takes a comparative view (i.e. weighing arguments or proof on both sides). This model is followed by the SWOT model.
12) A clear sense of prioritization (i.e. of whats important and what isn’t and helping the reader understand it).
13) Honesty. Openness and honesty about ones premises and assumptions. The purpose of the academy is finding truth. Arguments which don’t attempt to find truth run counter to the purpose of education, the academy, and progress of society.
14) Multiple forms of proof
15) Multi-disciplinary understanding of argument
I would suggest these four additional resources on developing a criteria for creating, evaluating, and comparing the reasonableness and credibility of arguments:
1) Stephen Toulmin (his 7 part criteria is pretty epic) (link)
2) Page on publish.uwo.ca (a PDF on assessing arguments) (link)
3) Criteria for Analyzing Arguments (includes the STAR method) (link)
4) Page on northwestern.edu (short criteria from Northwestern U) (link)
This criteria is for good argument–and ideal. Arguments can certainly have less proof–particular in the case of informal argument–but this argument shoots at what the ideal of argument is in a best case scenario.
Christian apologetics book outline
4) critical thinking
5) answering fallacies (or logical leaps or bad patterns in argument)
6) logical fallacies
7) even more reasons
9) science–two parts
Here are 12 Proverbs from the Book of Proverbs.
20 Out in the open wisdom calls aloud,
she raises her voice in the public square;
21 on top of the wall[a] she cries out,
at the city gate she makes her speech:
Proverbs 1:20-21 (link)
32 For the turning away of the simple will slay them,
And the complacency of fools will destroy them;
Proverbs 1:32 (link) (?)
Proverbs 6:6-8 (link)
Proverbs 7:3 (link)
Proverbs 9:8 (link)
Proverbs 16:13 (link)
Proverbs 22:17 (link)
Proverbs 24:5 (link)
Proverbs 26:10 (link)
Proverbs 28:1 (link)
Proverbs 28:13 (link)
Proverbs 29:18 (link)
Proverbs for Business by Steve Marr is a daily reflection for Christian leaders and business owners. You can purchase the book here (note: Proverbs for Business is also available on Kindle for 4.61, but I prefer actual books especially for a book like this)
This has 19 principles with verses from Proverbs included (link)
Note: Reading though the book of Proverbs is a great exercise in self-reflection. There is no way to include all the wisdom of proverbs in a quick assortment of memory verses.