Author Archives: mhick255

Wow – I love Netflix! (They paid me $15 to say that.)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s so rare when a company seems to do everything right.  I mean, it’s totally shocking – that a large, national corporation appears to operate in a logical, friendly, dare-I-say wise manner.  Yet every interaction I’ve had with Netflix has gone swimmingly.  Including today.

For 4th of July, we went down to my parents’ house.  Elizabeth’s mom was gracious enough to let us borrow a portable DVD player so that the kiddos would not get overly bored on the 6-hour car ride.   Among the movies we brought were one of Agatha’s favorites, The Wizard of Oz, and an movie borrowed from Netflix, Alice in Wonderland.  During the trip, I put the Wizard DVD into the Alice Netflix envelope, just as a way of keeping it safe temporarily.  When we returned home, Elizabeth took the Alice envelope, logically thinking it contained Alice, and mailed it back to Netflix.  Imagine her surprise when she opened the DVD player and found…Alice.  Doh!  We had mailed Netflix our own DVD.

Today, I called customer service.   For complete transparency, I was on hold for over 10 minutes, but I was at my desk, so I just put the phone on speaker and did some work.  After I explained the situation, here’s how the conversation went.

ME: “…and so we sent back our personal copy of Wizard of Oz by mistake.”

NETFLIX GUY: “Classic movie!”

ME: “Yeah.”

NG: “Did you get an email from us?”

ME: “No.”

NG: “Oooh – that’s a problem.  See, they take out every DVD from its sleeve, and if they had caught the mistake, you would have gotten an email.   But if it’s a movie we stock, then they would have assumed it was one of ours and just put it back into circulation.  I’m afraid you’re not getting in back.  I’m sorry.”

ME: “Sure, I understand.”

NG: “Well, seeing as how it wasn’t Netflix’ responsibility…”

ME: “Yeah?”

NG: “…I’m afraid that the best that we can do is…”

ME: “Yeah?” [expectng him to say some corporate version of “losers weepers”]

NG: “…offer you either a $15 refund on your credit card or give you a $15 credit on your next billing cycle.”

ME: “What?”

NG: “Actually, I take that back.  It would be a $14.99 credit.  So your next bill will only be $3.  You can use the $15 to buy a new copy of Wizard of Oz.  Try Amazon.  I bet you can get one for only seven or eight bucks on there.”

ME: “Really?”

NG: “Yeah, they’re really reliable.  They have everything.”

ME: “No, about the credit.”

NG: “Oh – sure.  It will show on your next bill.  Can I do anything else for you today, Mr. Hickerson?”

ME: “What do I do with Alice in Wonderland?”

NG: “Just wrap it up in a paper towel, put a Post-it note on it with your email address, and mail it back in one of your other envelopes.  We’ll take it from there.”

ME: “Thank you!”

Then, less than 15 minutes later, I got an email asking me if I was satisfied with my customer service experience.  I am mightily, mightily impressed.  (And, of course, I discovered that Netflix is a BBB member to boot.)

For another, less direct thing that Netflix is doing well, check out the coverage of the Netflix Prize.

Who is the Church?

Posted on by
2

In case you hadn’t heard, Pope Benedict reiterated the official Catholic position that Protestant churches are not “full churches,” since they are not “governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”  Instead, they are “ecclesial communities.” 

Some good coverage:

I don’t have anything original to contribute to this discussion, but, a few years ago, Miroslav Volf wrote a terrific book entitled After Our Likeness: The Church As the Image of the Trinity.  Volf lays out a free church ecclesiology based on Jesus’ statement, “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matt. 18:20).  He responds to both an Orthodox theologian, John Zizoulas, and a Catholic theologian, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (who has since become Pope Benedict). 

I found the book to be very helpful in thinking about my church, which comes from a nondenominational, nonsacramental tradition.  Historically, these types of churches have not had a strong ecclesiology (theology of the church).  Volf helped me to develop my thinking of a Scriptural foundation for the free church style of church governance, based on the intentional gathering of Christians.  I strongly recommend it for anyone who, like me, loves the church  and sees it as integral to God’s Kingdom.  

UPDATE: Christianity Today has linked to an editorial they wrote back in 2000 about these same issues.  Very positive view of the Vatican’s position as a way forward, since it recognizes Protestants as fellow Christians.

Our 4th of July Trip

Posted on by
Reply

Over the 4th of July, we went down to my parents’ house.  We visited (in order):

Here are some pictures.  Enjoy!

http://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf

Systems of Belief

Posted on by
Reply

Over at slate.com, this interesting paragraph showed up:

Systems of belief such as religion and even scientific paradigms can lock their adherents into confirmation biases. And then tidbits of fact or gossip appear over the Internet to shore them up. There’s a point of no return beyond which it’s very hard to change one’s views about an important subject.

The writer, Arthur Allen, is discussing a scientific theory that he believes is patently false (the theory that childhood vaccinations have increased the incidents of autism), but that’s not what I’m most interested in.  Rather, I want to focus on the way he makes it sound as if only “adherents” view evidence through a biased lens. 

Here’s the thing: everyone has a system of belief.  It might be not be systematic, it might not be considered a “belief,” it might not even be consistent or agree with any traditional philosophy or religion.  But everyone has one.  It’s impossible not to.  Otherwise, how would you even begin to make sense of the world?   How would you know what to pay attention to, what to ignore, where to start considering a new idea or newly acquired fact? 

Rather than blaming what you perceive as someone’s mistake simply on the fact that they adhere to system of belief,  it’s better to examine that system of belief itself.  Is it consistent?  Does it align with known evidence?  Do you have trustworthy foundations for your system?  Is there a better system that explains what’s going on?

Then, rather than pretending that Person A is judging things based on a system, while Person B is looking at “just the facts,” we should mutually recognize each others’ biases and presuppositions, as well as our own.  If we are aware of our own assumptions – even if we have good reasons for them – then we can much more easily communicate with people whose assumptions differ from ours.   Futher, the other person might have very good reasons for the assumptions they make, even if their conclusions are ultimately wrong.  By understanding and sympathizing with those reasons, we can love our neighbors as ourselves, even if we disagree completely.

The Hubris of (Some) Scientists

Posted on by
Reply

If you happened to read this article in Tuesday’s NY Times, you would have found some pretty shocking statements.

The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is “unassailable fact,” the journal Nature said this month in an editorial on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought. A headline on the editorial drove the point home: “With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”

With all deference, the NY Times quotes Nature as stating, Jews and Christians are ignorant bumpkins.  Why should that trouble my sensibilities?

The article goes on:

Or as V. S. Ramachandran, a brain scientist at the University of California, San Diego, put it in an interview, there may be soul in the sense of “the universal spirit of the cosmos,” but the soul as it is usually spoken of, “an immaterial spirit that occupies individual brains and that only evolved in humans — all that is complete nonsense.” Belief in that kind of soul “is basically superstition,” he said.

Let’s be exactly clear with what V. S. Ramachandran, who is Indian, is saying here. I don’t know what Dr. Ramachandran’s personal religious beliefs are, but he here argues that the Hindu-Buddhist religious concept of “the universal spirit of the cosmos” is scientifically acceptable.  Meanwhile, the Jewish-Christian concept of personal souls is “superstition.”  (Though I’m not aware of any theologians who would consider the soul “occupying” the brain or having evolved.)

If Dr. Ramachandran wishes to believe that, then that’s between him and God (or the universal spirit of the cosmos, as the case may be).  But how, exactly, is this science?  Further, how would Dr. Ramachandran counsel a Christian working as graduate assistant under him?  “Superstition” is a strong word, especially from a professional scientist.

We have heard from scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion can peacefully coexist.  Science, we have been told, discusses the “what” and “how” of the world, while religion examines the “why.” Here is at least one group of scientists who expose that as a false paradigm.  For them, science – understood materialistically, with no room for anything that can’t be measured – determines the whole of truth.