Dr. Adam M Blood

The theoretical clash between the sacred and the profane is one of the most compelling aspects of the way humans use discourse in the pursuit of truth. Rene Descartes’ method, understood as an attempt to rebuild a body of knowledge by calling all that is known into question, demonstrates this dynamic. As Descartes disavows all previously held assumptions, he makes a deliberate caveat to exempt his faith in God from suspicion. In this essay, I argue that the separation of Descartes’ faith from his method is a meaningful illustration of reasoning from the sacred. I demonstrate that a key role of the sacred is to shape the way a person reasons, even as a sacred belief can hold a vaunted, protected position in that person’s worldview. This status of a belief is characterized by two distinct logical structures: separation and security. Finally, based on this analysis, I explicate a few ways that this type of separation has telling implications for our contemporary moral discourse.

Forensics coaching is often an unorthodox series of tasks in terms of the conventional interaction between educator and student. Due to the increased involvement and time spent together that comes with competitive forensics, coaches often fill the role of de facto sounding board, counselor, and mentor. This often creates a series of demands that are simply difficult to define and comprehend. This essay, which puts into narrative form many of the challenges faced by one forensics coach, argues that the term “ministry,” is a useful descriptive term to comprehend the unconventional and sometimes emotionally taxing work that forensics coaches do. The aim of this essay to help current and forensics coaches understand and respond the demands that come with the profession.

One pervasive feature of modern public discourse is the theoretical clash between the sacred and the profane. This tension often manifests itself in interminable conflicts between appeals to absolute values and consequentialist calculations of outcomes. In this essay, I examine Blaise Pascal’s famous Wager argument in light of the sacred/profane dichotomy. I argue that the central logical conflict in the Wager is Pascal’s attempt to warrant a sacred belief (the belief in God) through a profane, consequentialist calculation (the outcome of a bet). Since sacred appeals permeate modern political discourse, this essay examines the role of the sacred and the profane as competing modes of reasoning. Finally, I envision how a responsiveness to these differing logics can create a new empathetic and charitable approach to political, cultural, and moral controversy.