ProTheism

A True Christian?

2006-12-14T19:45:00.000-08:00

This video is jaw dropping. Watch the whole thing, the last thirty seconds will floor you. My only thought is that this cant be real. *wow*

Are Christians Stupid?

2006-12-06T11:04:00.000-08:00

Well, some unbelievers certainly act like it. Christianity is often relegated to the status of belief in leprechauns, fairies and Santa clause or the flying spaghetti monster. Some skeptics insist on making these comparisons as though the very consideration of theism were an intellectual crime. A little more logic and a little more self education, we are told, will solve our God delusions. All we need is more science,…..science, science, science!!!

Regardless if we know a how to use a bunsen burner, to suggest that unbelievers are generally smarter than believers indicates that they themselves (the unbeliever) are naturally more intellectual than those ‘who believe.’ In other words, unbelievers are far to smart to fall for something so dim-witted as Christianity, Santa, invisible unicorns, leprechauns, and divine spaghetti noodles. Perhaps this is just a result of evolutionary programming?

However, it seems to me that the same reasons that most of the population is not composed of “intellectuals” would be the same reasons that most Christians are not “intellectuals.” But just because most people are not intellectuals and most Christians are not intellectuals, it doesn’t mean that Christianity cannot, or is not, intellectually viable. So even if the unbeliever can stump uncle Bob with the ‘mere possibility of the existence of multiple universes’ does not mean that his objection is successful (perhaps only for an occasion).

Yet, televangelism doesn’t set the bar for Christian theology, ethics, and intellectualism (or philosophy). In fact, on the academic level, the philosophical strength of Christianity has been on stride since Plantinga’s God and Other Minds, in 1967. Quinton Smith, a prominent atheist philosopher explains how theists are not outmatched by naturalists (with much thanks to Alvin Plantinga):

This is not to say that none of the scholars in the various academic fields were realist theists in their “private lives”; but realist theists, for the most part, excluded their theism from their publications and teaching, in large part because theism (at least in its realist variety) was mainly considered to have such a low epistemic status that it did not meet the standards of an “academically respectable” position to hold. The secularization of mainstream academia began to quickly unravel upon the publication of Plantinga’s influential book on realist theism, God and Other Minds, in 1967. It became apparent to the philosophical profession that this book displayed that realist theists were not outmatched by naturalists in terms of the most valued standards of analytic philosophy: conceptual precision, rigor of argumentation, technical erudition, and an in-depth defense of an original world-view. This book, followed seven years later by Plantinga’s even more impressive book, The Nature of Necessity, made it manifest that a realist theist was writing at the highest qualitative level of analytic philosophy, on the same playing field as Carnap, Russell, Moore, Grünbaum, and other naturalists. Realist theists, whom hitherto had segregated their academic lives from their private lives, increasingly came to believe (and came to be increasingly accepted or respected for believing) that arguing for realist theism in scholarly publications could no longer be justifiably regarded as engaging in an “academically unrespectable” scholarly pursuit.

Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism, most influenced by Plantinga’s writings, began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians. Although many theists do not work in the area of the philosophy of religion, so many of them do work in this area that there are now over five philosophy journals devoted to theism or the philosophy of religion, such as Faith and Philosophy, Religious Studies, International Journal of the Philosophy of Religion, Sophia, Philosophia Christi, etc. Philosophia Christi began in the late 1990s and already is overflowing with submissions from leading philosophers. Can you imagine a sizeable portion of the articles in contemporary physics journals suddenly presenting arguments that space and time are God’s sensorium (Newton’s view) or biology journals becoming filled with theories defending élan vital or a guiding intelligence? Of course, some professors in these other, non-philosophical, fields are theists; for example, a recent study indicated that seven percent of the top scientists are theists.1 However, theists in other fields tend to compartmentalize their theistic beliefs from their scholarly work; they rarely assume and never argue for theism in their scholarly work. If they did, they would be committing academic suicide or, more exactly, their articles would quickly be rejected, requiring them to write secular articles if they wanted to be published. If a scientist did argue for theism in professional academic journals, such as Michael Behe in biology, the arguments are not published in scholarly journals in his field (e.g., biology), but in philosophy journals (e.g., Philosophy of Science and Philo, in Behe’s case). But in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, “academically respectable” to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today. A count would show that in Oxford University Press’ 2000–2001 catalogue, there are 96 recently published books on the philosophy of religion (94 advancing theism and 2 presenting “both sides”). By contrast, there are 28 books in this catalogue on the philosophy of language, 23 on epistemology (including religious epistemology, such as Plantinga’s Warranted Christian Belief), 14 on metaphysics, 61 books on the philosophy of mind, and 51 books on the philosophy of science.

The overall indication is that Christianity offers a respectable and defendable worldview (see Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments). Quinton Smith recognizes this as an intellectual (even though he disagrees), but it’s difficult to note others who are willing to make the same public statements. But as long as unbelievers are using arguments from spaghetti (a.k.a. spaghettium ad argumentium), it shows the utter lack of understanding, respect, and unwillingness to have a conversation. Unbeliever’s arguments of spaghetti monsters, leprechauns, fairies, tea pots et al, don’t show their oppositions weaknesses, but their own ignorance and obscurantism.

Evolution 101

2006-11-09T09:41:00.001-08:00

The Believer's Dictionary

2006-10-18T21:33:00.000-07:00

A few months ago a friend emailed me a clever collection of terms he previously retrieved from a message board called “The Believer’s Dictionary.” The list of terms and descriptions are both amusing and sobering. The dictionary provides an overwhelming sense of familiarity when conversing with skeptics. Anyone who has spent a diminutive amount of time dialoging with petulant internet atheologians will immediately appreciate The Believer's Dictionary. I tried to track down the source of this with no avail. I have a suspicion it’s from a Muslim message board due to some specific annotations; however, I am unsure. Regardless, the material is a *must* read! If anyone knows the source, or is able to track it down, please let me know—I would like to provide a link to the original source if I can.

I enjoy reading from The Skeptic’s Dictionary: it’s a useful resource for learning about common nonsense (for example, who first spoke of the imaginary “gray men” aliens, these having been similar to the aliens on an episode of The Outer Limits which had recently aired). All the same, though, I have some bones to pick—more with trendy pseudo-intellectual sorts of skeptics in general than with the Dictionary itself, so I thought I’d list them here as my own dictionary about the common pitfalls of skepticism. So far I have twenty-four entries; with time I may add more. So without further ado, here is The Believer’s Dictionary!

“Ancient = stupid” fallacy: The skeptics’ own version of Erich von Daniken’s famous arguments in favor of the existence UFOs. The absurd misinterpretations and reinterpretations of myths coming invariably from art (poetry, murals, songs, statues, etc.)—which is by definition a nonliteral medium—as being necessarily entirely literal when regarding ancient religions even though modern art is not the same way. This is used as fodder for stereotypes about religion as a universally mythical thing that always ends up getting “explained” by science. (See also THE OL’ SWITCHEROO.) This results in the very most insulting false depictions of ancient people as being dumber than modern people (not more unlearned: dumber)—somehow capable of believing, for example, that lightning is literally the scepter of a god even though it looks nothing remotely like a scepter and sometimes strikes in more than one place at once, or that a chariot literally pulls the sun even though one can never be seen.

Atheist’s catch-22: The tendency of many atheists to adhere to a stereotype about atheists in response to that same stereotype. This stereotype is that they’re all morally wretched: they get so angry about this that they resort to crude, childish, spiteful attitudes in response, often to the point of mockery (a massively popular hallmark of skepticism), and in doing so become morally wretched, and as such by attacking the stereotype they end up feeding it.

“Break it, don’t buy it” fallacy: The specific type of ad hominem attack countless millions of skeptics use as a reason to reject religion, that the atrocities, terrorism, crusades, etc. caused by breaking the rules of numerous religions somehow discredits the value or believability of the religions themselves. (You’d think that if anything, that would indicate the opposite.) This makes about as much sense as rejecting the Bill of Rights because of the Patriot Act that defies them in the name of the same country.

Coincidence-clustering bifurcation: The double standard many skeptics hold wherein if something extraordinary happens once or twice then it’s just a fluke, whereas if extraordinary things happens frequently then it’s due to the mathematical principle known as clustering. In other words, nothing can ever convince these skeptics since every possible situation is seen through its own respective presumption. They’ve left no way for anything ever to convince them that they’re wrong. When believers do this it’s called closed-minded blind faith; when skeptics do the same thing here it’s just seeing things scientifically. How about that? See also SCARBOROUGH EFFECT.

Consciousness: To the average non-soulist, somehow the same thing as the soul or equivalent to it in some way. They see consciousness as defining our being ourselves, our being “in there”, so to speak. For some strange reason it never occurs to them that people are themselves, fully “in there”, when dreaming, and we dream while we’re unconscious. Therefore the self and consciousness can’t be the same thing entirely—when we dream we’d be having a self while having no self. See also SELF.

The Ever-shifting Burden of Proof: The mysteriously changeful criterion for who should have the burden of proof in any discussion between skeptics and believers (for example, over the issue of God’s existence)—now it’s the person *introducing* the claim who has the burden of proof, now the person with the *extraordinary* claim, now the person with the *positive* claim—whatever is most convenient for the skeptic at the particular moment.

Freethinker: An irreligious atheist—after all, we open-minded people all know that no one who disagrees with you can possibly be capable of thinking freely.

God: To a skeptic, the word “God” means “whatever particular theory of what God happens to be like (not who He is) according to the prevailing, orthodox, mainstream ideas where the skeptic lives”. This is why “incompatible properties” arguments for God’s nonexistence never involve merely the basic denotation of “creator and ruler of the universe” that you’ll find in any dictionary (usually in those exact words), and also why so many atheists (many of them intelligent people with English as a first language) claim to disbelieve in God because the word doesn’t really mean anything.

Great Lie of Skepticism: “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Few die hard skeptics who ever say this and then see what seems to be a ghost/angel/whatever are likely to actually change their mind like they more or less promised they would. They’ll just keep on denying, saying that they were hallucinating, dreaming, having their senses play tricks on them, etc. Now of course they may very well be completely correct about that, but my point is not the accuracy or inaccuracy of such a conclusion but the dishonest, closed-minded double standard involved.

Identity crisis: The confusion materialists (in the philosophical sense of the word “materialism”) always make between what something is made of, or how it works, and what it *is*. Without this confusion, materialism probably wouldn’t even be a possible belief.

“Knowledge is power” fallacy: Perhaps the single most irrational argument in the history of human beings, the idea that God either doesn’t exist or isn’t good because He knows what’s going to happen before it happens and therefore nobody is free to do anything else. Why should foreknowledge of another person’s choice (assuming that God goes from one moment to the next along with us in the first place, which is improbable) cancel its being a choice at all? Foreknowledge does not equal causation. We know that the people around us are going to die someday: that does not make us murderers. If we went back in time and watched Lincoln give the Gettysburg address, it would not qualify us as his speechwriters. We all know that the sun will rise tomorrow: that does not mean we’re making it happen. How do intelligent people ever fall into this nonsense?! But then there I go, sounding like a skeptic.

“Lack of belief”: An almost comically nonsensical and incoherent phrase used by many atheists as a redefinition of atheism for their own convenient purposes. Flies in the face of every English dictionary ever printed in the history of planet earth. Is never explained precisely, but apparently refers to nonbelief as opposed to disbelief. For example, the atheists ask, wouldn’t someone who’s never heard of God be an atheist? The answer is clearly and undeniably “no”, since the official definition of “atheism”, used universally by all but these select few atheists (even by most other atheists, from what I understand) is someone who has heard of God and disbelieves in Him. “So what do you call people who have never heard of God?” the label-obsessed people ask? Call me crazy, but how about “people who have never heard of God”?

Mind-reading contradiction: The idea that skeptics hold who profess disbelieve in mind-reading yet nevertheless are themselves capable of reading the minds of believers, knowing impossibly all the supposedly psychological reasons for our belief even if they don’t know us at all. The way I see it: either mind-reading is possible, or it isn’t. If it is, I see no reason why prejudiced pseudo-Freudian skeptics should have a monopoly on it.

Mythicism: The disbelief that Jesus (P) never existed, invariably based on the supposed lack of definitive historical evidence for his existence. The problem here is that history up until the invention of recording devices in the nineteenth century is a huge heap of guesswork for modern people, and so very little of it (if anything) can really be known with a tenth the surety everyone blindly assumes exists. Were the mythicists consistent with their logic, they would disbelieve not only in the existence of Jesus (P) but also about half of the people they ever heard about in history class from grade school through college.

Obsolete: In reference to arguments for God’s existence, this means “rebutted at any time by any disbeliever at any point in history, however poorly, illogically or incompletely”. You can imagine how angry the skeptics would get if we believers flipped it around and said the same thing in reference to their own arguments.

The Old Switcheroo: Replacing the ancient meaningless labels like “the action of spirits” which once “explained” why the universe works the way it is with more modern meaningless labels like “the forces of nature” and saying that we’ve now “explained” what people previously thought was something else. One may as well take something people once “explained” by dubbing it ickywicky and “explain” it by calling it glooberflek instead.

Organized religion: Bizarre redundancy used with enormous frequency by skeptics despite the fact that, just by definition, there could never possibly be any such thing as a disorganized religion.

Razor reverence: Blind, more or less religious faith in Occam’s Razor, a general rule that works best as a last resort rather than what many skeptics think it is, which is a near-absolute rule almost along the lines of a law of nature. One more excuse for not having to accept the complexity of life, perhaps: people of all stripes seem to have a problem with that.

Religion: As skeptics define it: “Whatever religion is the prevailing one where the skeptic speaking lives, because of course no other religions exist in the world”. Western skeptical writers judge all religions by Christianity; those in Islamic countries regard Islam as if its beliefs are the same as all religious beliefs; and so on. Prime examples of this nonsense are H.P. Lovecraft’s charge that his problem with “religion” is the idea of a God of everything caring enough about a cosmic flyspeck to send His only son to redeem it (for as we all know, every religion throughout history has taught just that) and Richard Carrier by his own confession declaring, “Yep, I’m an atheist,” after finishing the Bible (for as we all know, it’s impossible to believe in God without believing in the Bible).

Santa lag: The feeling of weariness and vague nausea a theist gets after approximately the 9,000th time hearing an atheist who thinks he’s real cute compare the existence of God to the existence of Santa Claus—an analogy that’s as inaccurate as it is insulting, since Santa Claus is a deliberate lie which the people teaching it never believe in.

Scarborough Effect: Believing that God/the afterlife/ghosts/entrail reading/whatever aren’t real because there is no scientific evidence for their existence. Since these things are by definition supernatural and therefore outside what science can detect, what this attitude boils down to is, “Because there is no scientific evidence for its existence, we disbelieve in this thing that could never yield scientific evidence even if it were to exist since it is supposed to be outside the parameters of science.” One may as well conclude that Mexico City doesn’t exist because one can’t find it anywhere in Australia. I named this principle after the song “Are You Going to Scarborough Fair?” in which a series of impossible-to-meet criteria are given as the only way for the narrator of the song to be persuaded of something. See also COINCIDENCE-CLUSTERING BIFURCATION.

Scarecrow Syndrome: The stereotype many skeptics hold that no other reasons (even incorrect ones) for religious belief of any kind, or even belief in the existence of God, are possible except intuitive or emotional ones. Apparently we believers are incapable even of false logic; nothing could ever motivate us but our hearts. Similar to the belief many Bible-bangers have that no one can reject Christianity for any reason except some wicked, selfish desire as opposed to disagreement that the religion’s doctrines appear to be true or even believable. I named this principle so not only because of the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz who had a heart but no brain, but also because the syndrome I’m speaking of here is a form of “straw man” argument. See also MIND-READING CONTRADICTION.

Self: To most non-soulists, the same thing as self-awareness. Since when does someone have to be aware of something in order for it to exist?? See also CONSCIOUSNESS.

Superstition: To a skeptic, any belief in anything whatsoever that’s supernatural or paranormal, however ill fitting a label “superstition” may be to the belief in question even from a disbelieving point of view for anyone who knows what the word “superstition” means.

Falsifying the Un-Falsifiable

2006-09-28T14:48:00.000-07:00

In response to a claim that creationism and ID are unfalsifiable and therefore “not science”, I left the below comment. I though I would post it here as well:

The Designer is not falsifiable per se (I’ll agree). However, creationism makes falsifiable claims. There is more to creationism than “God created the heavens and earth.” When you say that creationism is “not falsifiable”, it comes off (on my end) as a blanket statement. I see it all the time. “Creationism is not falsifiable” on the one hand, but on the other “creationism is demonstrably false” It sounds schizophrenic (CS is simultaneously unfalsifiable and falsified).

Creationism is filled with assumptions that can be tested. However, on both sides of the fence, there are theories that are abstract; they are general concepts that by no means be tested directly. Moreover, only predictions about the physical world which can be drawn from the theory can actually be subjected to test or experimentation. This puts God out of the field of testability and thus He is un-falsifiable in relation to direct scientific detection.

Another thing is that falsification seems to be inappropriately used as this transcendent line of demarcation. However, scientific theories are typically integrated into a much larger framework of presuppositions (via philosophical) and assumptions that not only entice conclusions, but ultimate characteristics of any given theory.

Evolution has its issues as well. When all else fails, evolutionist appeal to the unknown, and even unknowable naturalistic causes that science has not yet discovered, and in reality may never discover.

However, if I may note, saying that creationism is “not science” is used as more of a type of ad hom toward creationism and a semantic smokescreen that tends to demote it’s merits before even engaging the issue. It’s a sneaky way to poison the well. In addition, if creationism can't be falsified, then no possible fact or event could count as evidence against creationism. It would follow, then, that Darwinian evolution does not falsify creationism. However, they make contradictory claims.

Take for example Intelligent Design Theory. ID theorists propose that some features of biological organisms are irreducibly complex; Darwinists (in the complete naturalistic sense), however, deny that any are irreducibly complex. Ipso facto, this contradistinction alone denotes that ID theory can be falsifiable by showing X biological organism are not irreducibly complex. Darwinists contend that there are no irreducibly complex organisms and thus ID’s claim is false. However, if that claim is false, then it is falsifiable; therefore, if ID theorists propose what is possibly a false claim, it is open to falsification. Thus, evidence for Darwinism is evidence against creationism and ID theory and evidence for creation or ID theory is evidence against Darwinism.

We have falsifiable propositions either way, thus, we have theories that are open to falsification.

Meaning out of Pond Scum

2006-09-22T12:37:00.000-07:00

Not only do we only know God through Jesus Christ, but we only know ourselves through Jesus Christ; we only know life and death through Jesus Christ. Apart from Jesus Christ we cannot know the meaning of our life or our death, of God or of ourselves. Thus without Scripture, whose only object is Christ, we know nothing and can see nothing but obscurity and confusion in the nature of God and in nature itself (Pensees, 417).

If we’re convinced that we are just matter in motion, one physical compilation of meat trapped in a bag thickly coated in various skin types, arisen from miraculous spontaneity of happenstance—what meaning can there be outside of utter nihilism?

Under self reflection, there is this ineffable sense of meaning, purpose and reason why we are here. Is this sense a byproduct of delusion? Are all things in vain? “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). Or can there really be meaning when God is not in the equation? This is a very difficult and disquieting question if it’s taken seriously.

The question at hand is not something to take lightly, nor are the conclusions inconsequential. One must take an honest look at their own worldview and take it to its logical conclusion. Does a naturalistic worldview provide meaning? Some argue that God is not required for meaning. However, can they provide a satisfactory answer, or are they deceiving themselves? William Vallicella articulates the road to self-deception and nihilism as follows:

If death is the utter annihilation of the individual person, then life is ultimately senseless and ultimately hopeless. This cannot be evaded by saying that one's life can acquire meaning if it is placed in the service of the lives of others. For their lives too (and the lives of their progeny and their progeny's progeny ad indefinitum) are, on the annihilationist assumption, ultimately senseless and hopeless. Human life is in every case the life of an individual; so even if human beings existed at all times, that would do nothing to insure ultimate meaningfulness.

Of course, there are proximate meanings, hopes, and purposes even if ultimately it is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." One can lose oneself in them. But to do so involves self-deception: one has to mistake the proximate for the ultimate. One has to burden fleeting concerns with a meaning they cannot bear. One has to fool oneself.

For example, one has to fool oneself that writing a book, starting a company, founding a family are all ultimately meaningful when the only way they could have any ultimate meaning is if they were part of a life that had a direction that wasn't about to be cut short in a few years.

To put it bluntly, we have no future if naturalism is true. But we cannot live without meaning. An existential trilemma looms. Either we cultivate self-deception by ascribing to fleeting concerns ultimate meaning, or we recognize their transiency and ultimate meaninglessness when considered in and of themselves and put our faith and hope in a transcendent meaning, or, avoiding both self-deception and the life of faith, we embrace nihilism.

Or consider the white flag swayed by Quentin Smith at the end of his article Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism:

I do not believe my theory differs very much from that of many or most people. There is a sense that my life, actions and consequences of actions amount to nothing when I am considering the value of an infinite universe. Our emotional responses to acts or states of affairs we believe have positive or negative value occur when we are narrowly focused on “the here and now”, on the people we interact with or know about, ourselves, and the animals, plants and material things that surround us in our daily lives. In our daily lives, we believe actions are good or bad and that individuals have rights. These beliefs are false, but we know this only on the occasions when we engage in second order beliefs about our everyday beliefs and view our everyday beliefs from the perspective of infinity. Most of the time, we live in an illusion of meaningfulness and only sometimes, when we are philosophically reflective, are we aware of reality and the meaninglessness of our lives. It seems obvious that this has a genetic basis, due to Darwinian laws of evolution. In order to survive and reproduce, it must seem to us most of the time that our actions are not futile, that people have rights. The rare occasions in which we know the truth about life are genetically prevented from overriding living our daily lives with the illusion that they are meaningful. As I progress through this paper, I have the illusion that my efforts are not utterly futile, but right now, as I stop and reflect, I realize that any further effort put into this paper is a futile expenditure of my energy.

Even Bertrand Russell could not avoid his own brutal conclusion:

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built.

All this is rather depressing, but a gloomy and dismal existence doesn’t falsify naturalism. The naturalist, however, is forced to take a short view of meaning in order to escape the imprisonment of these dreaded implications. Finding meaning becomes the here and now; it’s the plate in front of me; and the burial of ultimate hope. Even if the naturalist is right, what does it matter? What does it matter to me if the species survives? What does it matter to me that others starve? What does it matter to me that he or she is raped? What does it matter to me if the sky falls? What does it matter to that bodies burn? What does it matter to me that possessions are stolen? What does it matter to me that laws are broken? What does it matter to me that I am right and you are wrong?

Why should I not just “get mine?” And why do I care about anyone else who gets trampled along the way? Is there anything outside of subjectivity or nihilism that I can appeal to? Can blind processes fool me into thinking that it matters?

It seems to me then, that there is no satisfaction to be found in annihilation and a naturalistic worldview leads to meaninglessness and despair. We desperately cling to this rock we call earth as it swiftly rotates around our insignificant sun that is barely a speck of dust in the universe. We hold on as if something is awaiting, but we will fade away and the universe shall never notice. We can sink our fingers into society and make it a better place before we turn to dust, but as our carcasses disintegrate, society will perish as well. When the cycle of nature destroys all, it won’t matter if you cared for people or ate them; the universe could care less.

Finding meaning in a framework of blind causes is self delusion. And those who blindly clench their eyes closed and hold on to purpose are disconnected to the reality of their beliefs. William Lane Craig frames the inconsistency as follows:

First, the area of meaning. We saw that without God, life has no meaning. Yet philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning. For example, Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action. Sartre himself chose Marxism.

Now this is utterly inconsistent. It is inconsistent to say life is objectively absurd and then to say one may create meaning for his life. If life is really absurd, then man is trapped in the lower story. To try to create meaning in life represents a leap to the upper story. But Sartre has no basis for this leap. Without God, there can be no objective meaning in life. Sartre’s program is actually an exercise in self-delusion. For the universe does not really acquire meaning just because I give it one. This is easy to see: for suppose I give the universe one meaning, and you give it another. Who is right? The answer, of course, is neither one. For the universe without God remains objectively meaningless, no matter how we regard it. Sartre is really saying, “Let’s pretend the universe has meaning.” And this is just fooling ourselves.

The point is this: if God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning. But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent–for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.

I often wonder why some affirm the dogmatism of materialism, and then act as if there is some ultimate justice, as if they themselves had a right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. The universe does not offer this. There is no contract, there is no guidance; only material on a path to destruction.

However, even though the universe does not know you; God does. What we do in our lives today has an eternal effect. There is such a thing as meaning in life; that ineffable sense of meaning, purpose and reason why we are here, was written on your heart by God (Rom. 2: 15). For if there were nothing lasting longer than you; then meaning would not follow you.

It comes down to a choice in true Pascallian fashion: one can embrace the inevitable outcome of their worldview—despair, or we can follow that innate desire within ourselves that only God can satisfy.

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world." — C.S. Lewis

Science vs. Religion: The False Dilemma

2006-09-11T15:45:00.000-07:00

For whatever reason, some people are ‘hell bent’ on creating this false tension between what they call “religion” and science. Take this video for example:

Here is my observation:

From the outset, the speaker already disclosed his “dislike” of all religions. One can only guess where his conclusions follow.

The speaker never defines what he means by “religion.” He seems to want to muddle up all religions into one class of bogus beliefs. This, however, is problematic, since diverse religions approach science differently.

The speaker asserts that science and religion are not compatible. What are his reasons, you ask? See bellow:

The speaker states that the problem is that “People don’t understand what science is.” He goes on to enlighten us of what science “really” is (and all this time I thought I knew!). The speaker states: “The point of science is really that we can never know absolute truth.” A couple problems (a) This is a self refuting statement. Is it absolutely true that science is really that we can never know absolute truth? (b) That’s not what science intends to do. To the contrary, science helps us to understand reality and how things work in the world, and the universe. Moreover, science rests on the presupposition that there is truth and that their conclusions are reliable.

The speaker states that we can never say that “This is correct.” However, he is stating that he is correct is concluding that science and religion are irreconcilable. Thus, his whole polemic on the incompatibility of science and religion falls apart based on his denial on truth. In making his point about us not being able to state “this is correct”; then we can’t state it’s correct that science and religion are incompatible. In making his point, he refutes himself.

He does make a good point about science consistently correcting itself. However, we don’t have to worry about how gravity may all be wrong. Just because some theories are later corrected, it doesn’t follow that all scientific theories are wrong or will change. To the contrary, science is becoming more precise, even though it’s still self correcting today. Many of the today’s theories are reaffirming yesterday’s hypotheses, rather than overturning them. Though, there are several today, that may be corrected in the future.

Following his polemic, he goes on to state that science can disprove religion conclusively (go figure), but the religious people will believe anyway! So as we see, first he asserts that (a) science shows us we can’t know truth (b) science is constantly changing and we can’t be sure about everything; however, when it comes to religion, (c) he says that science can show it to be “conclusively” wrong. I will give him the Twinkie defense if he wants it.

His conclusion: Science and Religion are incompatible because Religion holds that there are absolutes truths vs, Science which demonstrates that there is no absolute truth. And that is the absolute truth! Again, this is self refuting. Nevertheless, it was interesting.

On the last note, I want to state that there is no controversy of Science vs. Religion (that’s and ‘apples vs. oranges’ scenario). This is a false dilemma. If there is a conflict, it’s Science vs. Science. When it comes to Christianity, the Bible teaches how to get to the heavens, but not how the heavens go (Galileo). There is often a sub-par conflict artificially fashioned between the Bible and Science, but if there is any tension, it’s between science and theology. There is a big difference.

One thing the guy has going for himself is some cool hair and an accent to go with it. Nevertheless, he needs to ascertain what he is stating without chopping his own head off.

From ‘Brain Fry’ to ‘BF’ to ‘Beowulf’

2006-09-06T19:11:00.000-07:00

When I started my blogger account I thought it was going to be a breeze. Just fill in a small form and in seconds you have your own blog. However, one question on the form stumped me: on the Display Name: it stated, “Required: The name used to sign your blog posts.” To my horror, it occurred to me that I wasn’t sure if I wanted to use my real name. There isn’t any specific reason why I cannot per se; but I have a somewhat uninteresting name. I decided that I was going to use a pseudo name. However, making a decision was difficult. Pseudonyms can have various meanings, interpretations and connotations. I had not given it enough thought. Like an impulsive superhero using a bead spread for a cape, in the heat of the moment, I chose the moniker “Brain Fry.” To my demise though, some people took too much poetic license with it. Rather than focus on what I was stating, they focused on my moniker. In addition, I noticed that, due to our natural human condition of ‘typing lethargy’; Brain Fry was frequently gutted down to ‘BF.’ Thus, I just chopped it down to its applied acronym.

However, apparently “BF” can be an acronym for several different connotations (I will let you use your imagination). Some have chosen to make the inference known. Moreover, I have grown bored with my current moniker. I was considering unmasking your phantom blogger, but I thought I might give one more try. I came up with Beowulf.

There is nothing particularly special about the name; nothing that has some story behind it to link to me. Even the epic poem doesn’t have special ring to it other than some Christian connotations. In short, I just chose it; I don’t know why and I reserve the right to change it again. Nevertheless, it’s changed.

As everyone is aware, ‘typing lethargy’ demands condensing of the name. Thus, if you wish, you can refer to me as “wulf”, not to be mistaken as wolf!

File your complaints accordingly

~Wulf

The Case against Same-Sex Marriage: Without Using the Bible

2006-09-06T18:14:00.000-07:00

I am not particularly fond of divorcing the arguments against same-sex marriage from the Biblical standpoint. My position is that the Bible offers the most authoritative refutation of same-sex marriage as a direct revelation from God. However, there is a case against same-sex marriage that does not depend on Biblical passages. In fact, Frank Turek Offers an argument against same-sex marriage without using a single Bible verse. He presents his case first in summary and fields the common objections. Following, he goes further in depth to substantiate his argument with substantive data and analysis to support his premises. I think Turek’s argument stands or falls on his referenced studies. Given contemporary division on the subject, some may be able to counter his data with new or more reliable data that undercuts his premise that same-sex marriage is detrimental to society. Nevertheless, he offers precise counters to the common objections to notion itself that deserves a reading.

Link:

The Case against Same-Sex Marriage: Without Using the Bible (PDF)

Postmodernism and the Pendulum Swing

2006-09-01T16:43:00.000-07:00

If anyone likes to be trapped in a box, I recommend joining the ranks of postmodernism (post-mo). J.P. Moreland defines post-mo in Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn as:

“As a philosophical standpoint, postmodernism is primarily a reinterpretation of what knowledge is and what counts as knowledge. More broadly, it represents a form of cultural relativism about such things as reality, truth, reason, value, linguistic meaning, the self and other notions. On a postmodernist view, there is no such thing as objective reality, truth, value, reason and so forth. All these are social constructions, creations of linguistic practices and, as such, are relative not to individuals, but to social groups that share a narrative.”

If anything were to tear down a foundation, post-mo does it like no other. I often hear Christians engage postmodern thinkers in the Church through “dialogues.” However, this seems to have been, at least thus far, unproductive. Postmodernism seems to box a person into their own language construct. All values, concepts and meaning are created through your esoteric community, which you cannot escape. This invisible barrier of social deterministic structure and language confine you from other communities; nothing can be communicated in a meaningful way. What’s interesting though is that the post-mo wants us to understand this, as if there is a secret trap door that only they can crawl through and correct you when you’re wrong. But they do this because people, in reality, don't act as if post-mo is true; it’s just lip service.

J.P Moreland has expressed his strong opposition toward post-mo. He states that “[N]ot only are postmodern views of truth and knowledge confused, but postmodernism is an immoral and cowardly viewpoint such that persons who love truth and knowledge, especially disciples of the Lord Jesus, should do everything they can to heal the plague that postmodernism has and inevitably does leave” (Ibid). Now those are strong words, but I think within the context Christianity, Scripture and meaning, he has warrant for intense concern. Post-mo philosophers and theologians; however, fancy their language penitentiary view enough argue in volumes of books in attempt to persuade people outside their ‘community’. Hence, on its face, post-mos’ in action seems self-referentially incoherent.

I particularly like the way Plantinga articulates post-mo as a position with out any real substance:

As we are often told nowadays, we live in a postmodern era; and postmodernists pride themselves on rejecting the classical foundationalism that we all learned at our mother's knee. Classical foundationalism has enjoyed a hegemony, a near consensus in the West from the Enlightenment to the very recent past. And according to the classical foundationalist, our beliefs, at least when properly founded, are objective in a double sense. The first sense is a Kantian sense; what is objective in this sense is what is not merely subjective, and what is subjective is what is private or peculiar to just some persons. According to classical foundationalism, well-founded belief is objective in this sense; at least in principle, any properly functioning human beings who think together about a disputed question with care and good will, can be expected to come to an agreement. Well-founded belief is objective in another sense as well: it has to do with, is successfully aimed at, objects, things, things in themselves, to borrow a phrase. Well-founded belief is often or unusually adequate to the thing; it has an adequatio ad rem. There are horses, in the world, and my thought of a given horse is indeed a thought of that horse. Furthermore, it is adequate to the horse, in the sense that the properties I take the horse to have are properties it really has. That it has those properties - the ones I take it to have - furthermore, does not depend upon me or upon how I think of it: the horse has those properties on its own account, independent of me or anyone else. My thought and belief is therefore objective in that it is centered upon an object independent of me; it is not directed to something I, as a subject, have construed or in some other way created.

Now what is characteristic of much postmodern thought is the rejection of objectivity in this second sense - often in the name of rejecting objectivity in the first sense. The typical argument for postmodern relativism leaps lightly from the claim that there is no objectivity of the first sort, to the claim that there is none of the second. As you have no doubt noticed, this is a whopping non sequitur; that hasn't curbed its popularity in the least. Classical foundationalism, so the argument runs, has failed: we now see that there is no rational procedure guaranteed to settle all disputes among people of good will; we do not necessarily share starting points for thought, together with forms of argument that are sufficient to settle all differences of opinion. That's the premise. The conclusion is that therefore we can't really think about objects independent of us, but only about something else, perhaps constructs we ourselves have brought into being. Put thus baldly, the argument does not inspire confidence; but even if we put it less baldly, is there really anything of substance here? In any event, by this route too we arrive at the thought that there isn't any such thing as truth that is independent of us and our thoughts. The idea seems to be that objectivity in the first, Kantian sense, necessarily goes with objectivity in the second, external sense, so that if our thought isn't objective in the first sense, then it isn't objective in the second sense either. And what has happened within at least some of so-called postmodernisms is that the quite proper rejection of the one - a rejection that would of course have received the enthusiastic support of Kuyper and Dooyeweerd - has been confused with the rejection, the demise of the other - an idea that Kuyper and Dooyweerd would have utterly rejected.

Alvin Plantinga, "Christian Philosophy at the End of the Twentieth Century," The Analytic Theist: An Alvin Plantinga Reader, pp. 332-334

As time passes though, it is my impromptu suspicion that the post-mo pendulum will fade back into the oblivion of ideas that arise on the pendulum, but swing right back away-- or --for the sake of Christians, at least down to the depths outside the veil of value.

“Atheism” and the Burden of Proof

2006-08-17T11:01:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Atheists differ in many ways. To attempt to say that atheists believe “X” is most likely painting with a wide brush. We often try to put the atheist into a conforming box that may not comport with their specific presuppositions. Moreover, atheist may argue differently on subjects like morality, logic and other things that ground their unbelief. However, being an ‘atheist’ means a certain thing—namely that they deny the existence of God or gods.

Often, when I engage an atheist concerning God’s existence, I am often told that the person making the claim bares the burden of proof. However, what the atheist fails to realize is that we are both making a claim on the subject. The Christian claim is (1) God exists and the Atheist claim is (2) God does not exist; thus, both the atheist and theist hold a position on the proposition of God’s existence. Therefore, each side of the debate shoulders a burden for their own position and does not exclusively rest on one side.

There is a primary tactic that the atheist may try to avert their side of the burden. Primarily, they redefine the term “atheism” to “no belief” in God. In this post, I will demonstrate the classical definition of “Atheism” and how the evasion to shoulder their burden is fallacious.

‘Atheism’ as the “absence of belief” in God

Many atheists are stating that they “lack a belief in God” or have an “absence of belief in God” or they state that they have “no belief in God”, or they state that they are ‘without a belief in God”. In fact, it’s becoming more popular the more it’s tossed out. No thanks to Gordon Stein, he states the position as follows (emphasis mine):

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God. [Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism," p. 3. Prometheus, 1980.]

Definition Problems

The “lack of belief” definition of atheism is a problematic definition for several reasons. You will not find this definition of atheism (at least now) in any reputable dictionary. The lack of belief definition is far too broad in scope. A “lack of belief” (arguably) can be attributed to agnostics, babies, aardvarks, goldfish (name your animal/pet) and perhaps even rocks. Come to think of it, my old shoe on the patio has a “lack of belief” in God. Besides, none of those would identify as an ‘atheist’ [—though my shoe is not talking to me right now (I’ll update)]. You see, the “lack of belief[ism]” brush is far too wide.

Even if the “lack of belief” definition was adopted, who would know what someone meant when they said they were an atheist? One wouldn’t be able to tell if they never thought of the proposition “God does [or does not] exist” or if they were undecided on God’s existence, or if they thought God’s existence cannot be known, or affirmed that God does not exists. Hence, the “lack of belief” definition is entirely inadequate in identifying what the hell an ‘atheist’ is.

Grammatical Efficacy

Another deficiency with a “lack of belief in God” is the grammatical structure. What you find is that atheists who abide in “lack of belief” are simply *shifting the location of the negative* in this sentence. So, the atheist is basically stating that they *don’t believe* in the existence of God—thus, they still have a *negative* within the statement. (See Kenneth G. Wilson’s demonstration of the grammatical shift of the negative in The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Under the explanation of “raising.”

One can demonstrate that the change in definition still does succeed in averting a *position.* For example, take a look at the following examples:

(i) “I don’t believe my wife is at work” is equivalent to “I believe my wife is not at work.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about my wife being at work.

(ii) “I don’t believe they made reservations for dinner” is equivalent to “I believe they did not make reservations for dinner.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about their reservations for dinner.

(iii) “I don’t believe he ran the entire way home from practice” is equivalent to “I believe he did not run the entire way home from practice.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about him running home from practice

(iv) “I don’t believe ‘atheist’ means ‘lack of belief’” is equivalent to “I believe ‘atheist does not mean lack of belief.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about atheists ‘lack of belief’

(v) “I don’t believe in the existence of God” is equivalent to “I believe that God does not exist.” It doesn’t follow that I don’t have *any* beliefs about the existence of God.

As demonstrated, ‘Atheists’ are not approaching this issue with a blank slate, they come to the table *with a belief* about the existence of God—not the lack of one. Stating that they “lack belief in God” will not avert their own standpoint on God’s existence. They have a belief about the proposition of God’s existence; if they had “no belief” they wouldn’t self identify as “atheists.”

What’s interesting, is that you will even find the lack of belief definition and etymology on wikipedia and answers.com (but if answers.com [which usually just uploads wiki] says it--it *must* be true, right?—wrong and wrong again). Wikipedia and answers.com are good resources, but they both have their limitations and set backs. Before I examine the etymology of ‘Atheism,’ lets take a look at how *reputable* dictionaries and encyclopedias define the term.

Classical ‘Atheism’

Despite the popularity of a “lack of belief” definition for atheism, there is a more formidably understood and classic definition of Atheism—one that is held by the majority of the population. Atheism is the: “belief that there is no God.” You will find this definition in the following dictionaries and encyclopedias:

Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology
Etymological Dictionary of English Language
The Academic American Encyclopedia
Random House Encyclopedia
Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
Oxford Companion to Philosophy
The World Book Encyclopedia
Encyclopedia Americana
The Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Encyclopedia of Religion
The Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia.

To illustrate some online examples as well:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, states that Atheism: “means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.”

The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that an Atheist is: “someone who believes that God or gods do not exist.” And an Agnostic is: “someone who does not know, or believes that it is impossible to know, whether a god exists”

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” And Atheism is: “Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods…”

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition states that Atheism is: “denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O’Hair.”

Merriam-Webster Online states that an Atheist is: “one who believes that there is no deity.” And Atheism is: “a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity.” And Disbelief as: “the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue”

1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary states an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being” And Atheism as: “The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being”

Dictionary.com states that Atheism is: 1“Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.” And an Atheist is: “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.” And Disbelief as: “Refusal or reluctance to believe.”

As it can be seen, the classic understanding of “Atheism” and Atheist” is a denial that God exists—Not a “lack of belief” in God.

Etymology

Atheists like Stein and much of the online community also like to argue the etymology of “atheism”. What’s stated, roughly, is that ‘a’ means ‘without’. By attaching ‘a’ to ‘theism’; one is ‘without-theism.’ After arguing this position, then, an ‘atheist’ is just someone who is ‘with the absence of theism.’ Another prominent atheist, George Smith makes the same argument in Atheism: The Case Against God, when he writes, ". . . the term 'a-theism' literally means 'without theism,' or without belief in a god or gods. Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief . . . If we use the phrase 'belief-in-god' as a substitute for theism; we see that its negation is 'no-belief-in-god.'"

From the Online Etymology Dictionary, ‘a’ is: “prefix meaning "not," from Gk. a-, an- "not," from PIE base *ne "not" (see un-).” In addition, ‘no-gods,’ or ‘godless’ is the more logical outworking of the etymology of atheist/atheism. And it makes no sense for an “-ism” to be a based on a lack of belief.

Atheist Theodore Drange, in his article, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism, describes the problems of the alleged “without” etymology of ‘atheism.’

Sometimes the use of the term "atheism" to mean "lack of theistic belief" is supported by an appeal to etymology. For example, Martin, in [Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.], says the following:
"In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[4]"
This argument is rather unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god." Note that there is no "ism" in Greek. Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago.
Another argument sometimes put forward is that we should ascertain what the word "atheist" means by taking a poll among atheists. But that is an unclear suggestion. How are we to decide who is an atheist (and thus to be polled) prior to ascertaining what the word "atheist" means? Let us assume that the poll is to be taken among all those native speakers of English who are not theists. It is still not clear what the result of such a poll would be. I have never seen any statistical result presented on the matter. My conclusion here is that no good case has ever been made for using the word "atheist" in the sense of "one who is without belief in God."

So again, we see that ‘atheism’ is not the absence of theism, but the denial of it.

Equivocating Definitions

In order to avert the burden of proof, some atheists have changed the definition of atheisms to a ‘lack of belief.” This attempts to put the atheist in a non-affirming position and shifts the burden *to the person making the claim.* However, as we have seen, both the atheist and theist are bringing claims to the table and each must defend those claims.

The problem with the “lack of belief” position is that it conceals the atheist’s true position. While asserting that they “lack belief”, they are truthfully holding to the classical position in their philosophy (see above). In their writings, they are demonstrating their rejection of Gods existence (sometimes dogmatically); however, when challenging their position, out comes their ‘sudden’ lack of belief on the issue. In one side of the mouth their parading their disbelief, and on the other side of their mouth their denying *any* belief. For people who are in “absence of belief in God”, they sure do have plenty of ‘opinions’ about the matter. In other words, their equivocating the two definitions of atheism to suit their purpose of evading the burden of proof. This method of argumentation is dishonest and should be pointed out.

The Logical problem of ‘Atheism”

Now that we have cut through the language game, we should note that the classical definition of atheism can put the atheist in a predicament. Some might assert that to be an atheist, you must be in the position to prove a universal negative. Now, I happen to think there is a way out for the atheist. But for dogmatic atheists who pontificate the non-existence of God (there out there), there is a logical dilemma. If all possibilities for the existence of God can be exhaustively enumerated; you can prove the universal; however, you can’t do this when dealing with the proposition of Gods existence.

The atheist then, is philosophically naïve to assume that they can disprove Gods existence. However, the atheist does not have to assert a universal negative to maintain their atheism. An atheist can maintain that while God's existence *cannot be logically or empirically disproven*, it is nevertheless *unproven.* With this qualification, the atheist is not committing a logical fallacy and still maintains their atheism. However, as we can see, the atheist as well as the theist both has a position on the proposition of Gods existence—and therefore, both shoulder the burden of proof for their position , since the Law of the excluded middle does not apply in this situation.

Conclusion

It’s common today to see atheists avert their own burden of proof. One tactic the atheist has done to is to re-define atheism from the “belief that there is no God” to the “lack of belief in God.” However, the re-definition of atheism is fallacious and still fails on its face to avert their burden of proof.

If the atheist says that God’s existence cannot be proven, he’s assuming that the Christian has no proof or that all his proof is wrong, which is the very thing the atheist would need to prove (and thus he’s begging the question). In addition, for the Christian theist, to deny the idea of God is to deny the actual existence of God no matter what language game you want to play. It isn’t good enough for the atheist to say that they ‘lack belief’ of God *therefore* they are denying nothing about "Gods" actual existence. By self definition (no matter how you slice it) atheists must examine all of reality (within their epistemological realm) to evaluate the concept of God. In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God’s existence.

In summary, neither the atheist nor the Christian is “neutral” in their approach to the question of God’s existence.

The question of God’s existence is not acontextual. Atheism and theism arise from alternative systems of belief. Each system of beliefs includes presuppositions about reality, knowledge, and how we live our lives. Thus, each system of belief must be argued for—no language game will change that.

Some atheists do acknowledge that both the atheist and theist bare a burden of proof when arguing the existence of God. Jeffery Jay Lowder comments in the article Is Atheism Presumptuous? A Reply to Paul Copan (2000):

In a recent article, Paul Copan challenges Flew's presumption of atheism, calling it "presumptuousness." According to Copan, "the atheist also shares the burden of proof" because "atheism is just as much a claim to know something ("God does not exist") as theism ("God exists")."[3] I agree with Copan that anyone who claims, "God does not exist," must shoulder a burden of proof just as much as anyone who claims, "God exists."

Both atheist and theist have knowledge claims that must be argued for. Evading the burden of proof demonstrates the weakness of ones own position. It’s high time that atheists who ‘lack belief’ own up on their burden as well as the theist.

A key-board occasion

2006-08-09T18:18:00.000-07:00

Protheism has been barren lately. I am probably writing this to myself because I don’t have any narcissistic delusions of a readership audience. I feel no need, nor do I ever care to develop the need, to post-for-the-sake-of-posting. In fact, I post specifically for my own edification, to reserve my thoughts and have a creative outlet whereby I can look at myself some years down the road and say, “I was like that”? Yes, I do anticipate the retrospect shock from the preservation of my pedantic personality ;-} Also, I’ll admit, my memory aptitude seems to be plummeting; so some post are to “back-up” my thoughts. And who am I kidding? I am just opinionated I suppose!

Truthfully, I am not getting tired of blogging at all. There are a million things I want to post about, but getting to posting is the problem. Though blogging brings me joy, it comes after God, family, work, school and reading. School has opened a big can o' whop a** on me lately and I find that even though I have much to say—my mental jive is spread thin, or perhaps there isn’t enough grey custard juice to keep the rapid synapses in my brain firing. Moreover, when I do find a moments passing, I find myself enjoying someone else’s writing. Other people are so much more interesting than I am and periodically, I can scrape just enough time to agitate someone here and there.

I do plan to continue posting, whether or not it will be anything of value is debatable. So, if I am not just a brain in a vat; if there is actually anyone out there and you’re not just an automated virtual personality, this site is far from dead.

The Reluctant Thinker

2006-06-28T14:17:00.000-07:00

Apparently, there is a double standard when it comes to justifying ones own assumptions on presuppositional matters. The Christian must give an account of all affirmations of the Christian worldview, or such assertions are deemed unfounded and are rejected as unsupported beliefs or non-rational lines of reasoning. Conversely, some atheists have excluded themselves from the burden they impose. This special pleading effect is evident in the area of foundational beliefs—such as morality, logic, reason and so on. However, when those foundational beliefs are represented as deductive premises in an argument, they should not be surprised when they are challenged on it. In fact, their case hinges on many unspoken assumptions for which they often offer no supporting argument.

I have found that some unbelievers may even become infuriated when one points out that secularism has no principled basis for morality. This is often pointed out when a non-believer, such as a secularist, uses morality (e.g. problems of ‘evil’ and ‘suffering’ etc…) to argue against Christianity. Nevertheless, rather than supporting their premise of “evil”; they assume the challenge as a type of personal affront. Responses vary from statements such as “I m a moral person” and “I don’t need a book or a ‘god’ to be moral.” Thus, rather than address the question, they regress on to an erroneous trail of personal and observational testimony. However, when I challenge an unbeliever about their moral premises, I am not judging their character, or calling into question their moral behavior; rather, I am questioning the referent they use that governs their moral system. In other words, I am questioning their own yardstick they use to determine what is-or-is-not moral.

For instance, when an atheist uses the existence of evil as an argument against Christianity, the Christian has every right to challenge the premise of their argument. Recently, I have heard an atheist state that the challenge of moral substantiation is a dishonest tactic to trap the atheist, because the theist already deduces that the atheist cannot provide a basis for morality; thus, Christianity is true by default. Yet, this is untrue—at least in my own challenges. Though I do think that secularism cannot provide a sufficient basis to support their premises and always will fall short of grounding morality in something other than oneself; the position leads to moral relativism or nihilism. However, I don’t think that qualifies the secular position as *necessarily* false. So the intent of the challenge is not to entrap per se, but to entice one to examine and substantiate their position. Thus, such arguments should be challenged until demonstrated otherwise, or is recognized to be flawed.

Though I think their argument to be flawed, I do not think it to be meaningless. Interestingly, the meaning within their argument is not recognized by the very person making the argument. In fact, the very argument counters their polemic against Christianity. From the words of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. ... Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

So the moral argument against God and Christianity has meaning, but not with an atheistic worldview (at least not one than I have seen). The atheist must borrow the Christian worldview of morality in order to argue against the Christian worldview. Ironic.

Case In Point

The Reluctant Thinker (A.K.A. the Reluctant Atheist) has become aggravated and eager to avoid grappling with the theistic challenge of a moral framework. I want to look at his post on the subject of morality to demonstrate my point. Before I start though, the Reluctant Atheist is not a reluctant thinker because he does not think, or that he is unintelligent; he is a reluctant thinker because he is reluctant to think about where his position leads and doesn’t lead. I am sure he is an intelligent man, and many intelligent people hold the same position of morality he does—so this not to an affront on him, but an affront on his position and response to the moral challenge. Nevertheless, there are some very intelligent unbelievers who go to desperate lengths to deny the obvious or silence the opposition with backbiting refusal to engage in order to justify their unbelief.

In the beginning of his post, he states:

[S]omewhere, somewhen, there’s some unwritten rule that we atheists are required to explain how it is that we’re moral creatures, without the benefit of having transcendent guidance.

I hate this crap.

I know why this is hated, because every time this challenge is brought up—they cannot substantiate their claims of theodicy. This is basically saying “talk to the hand.” It gets old defending the indefensible I suppose. I have had this discussion with the author before. When pushed against the wall hard enough, he stated, “Truthfully, my position is ad hoc.” Yet, if a position is ad hoc, it loses its deductive power and thus does not provide adequate premises to argue in favor of theodicy.

Secondly, why is it okay for the atheist to avoid justification for their beliefs, while the theist must be substantiate their beliefs?

Continuing…

At some juncture, I just lose interest. Besides which, I think it’s a trap, a pitfall we fall into as a rule. I mean, really, why on earth do I HAVE to explain it? I don’t. I feel that I (and my fellow atheists) best exemplify by example. To wit: the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.

This is a reluctant thinker’s way of plugging his ears to any critique of his position on morality. He says, “why do I HAVE to explain it”; the answer is—you have to explain it when it’s a premises in your argument. If you’re going to go on the offensive, and give Christianity the finger, don’t expect a free pass. Those who state one doesn’t have to answer on this issue are usually indicating that they cannot answer it.

It would be one thing to corner someone to justify morality when they have not given an opinion on the matter; however, the rub comes in when someone uses a moral deduction to argue against Christianity. Thus, one is required (if they want to preserve the argument) to support the premises of the deduction.

Secondly, the author goes to state that “the large percentile of crimes committed in this (or for the most part, any other) society is committed by religious folk.” So what is being said is that atheists have exemplified superior morality than ‘religious folk.’ However, (1) this is an assertion not an argument (2) only gives a descriptive measure of morality (3) begs the question (4) fails to note the center of moral substantiation—that is to substantiate the prescriptive basis of such actions (5) what of the crimes committed by ‘non-religious folks’. The statement means nothing, and solves nothing without giving prescriptive justification for atheists. For if there is no prescriptive justification, then there is no condemnation of not being moral.

Natural Ethics

Continuing, we now explore the paradox of natural ethics:

Thus far, it seems I’m a moral naturalist.

“Moral naturalism is a form of cognitivism derived from applying evolutionary game-theory to ethics. Rather than interpreting morality as the result of negotiations between members of a large group of free moral agents, moral naturalism sees morality as an emergent phenomenon arising as an unintended side-effect of the interaction of those agents in smaller groups. In other words, morality is not to solve a single problem but a number of recurring problems, in the same manner that natural selection adjusts populations of organisms for changing environmental conditions. This puts moral facts in a class with natural facts about the world, which contradicts the assertion of divine command theory that morality is defined by the arbitrary revelation of God.”

I think that covers it very nicely, thanks.

It’s hard to see how giving a definition of moral naturalism provides a substantiation of morality. At best, this is just inches improved over moral relativism as it provided a more cognitive relation to reality than a reconstruction of reality. Ambiguity does not substitute well for rationality. Moral naturalism seems to affirm that moral values are (1) real, (2) an objective property of the natural (or physical) world. Thus (I presume), a moral decision is either “true” or “false”, depending on the facts of the world as it exists. The problem with this view is that the morals are not mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior.

However, moral naturalism is just another way to adopt Christian values without God. With moral naturalism there is a strong emphasis to base morality on ‘facts’. However, moral naturalist still smuggle in a moral premise, namely the principle that it is wrong to do X as a fact without a priori knowledge. To exclusively base morality on descriptive facts is to enter into a never ending circular abyss. To state that X as a fact is wrong and that X is wrong as a fact is a tautology. Having done this, to then say that “pleasure is valuable” would be to affirm a mere vacuous statement, as would “pleasure is good”

Only with moral knowledge already in place does it make sense to say that you can derive a moral conclusion from a set of facts. Hence, you have to have some standard to evaluate the facts themselves. So, moral naturalism does not answer the question of were morals come from in the first place, which is central to supporting their position.

The problem I see with naturalistic principled morality is that it makes morality arbitrary. One wonders, “Why is rape wrong?” The moral naturalist would have to say, “This tendency proved useful in the processes of natural selection.” So, it seems that rape is not *necessarily* morally wrong. I think most people find this entirely odd. Moreover, naturalistic ethics seems to fall prey to a type of genetic fallacy, in that it doesn't give a reason to believe that certain actions or things are right and wrong; rather, it purely tries to elucidate to why we have certain inclinations of morality as we understand it.

Continuing…

I personally believe that morality is an individual choice, and that one’s environment is a huge factor in that choice.

It’s difficult to put your finger on what certain people actually believe, it’s like their trying to derive some theory to explain away their a priori moral knowledge, but end up going all over the map with ‘naturalistic morals’ to ‘personal choices.’ Nevertheless, regarding morality as an individual choice, I presume without any ultimate accountability--that’s true. Considering evolutionary involvement and moral choices, Jeffery has a question for the atheist:

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’”
~ Jeffrey Dahmer

Continuing…

This isn’t to say I was ‘saintly’: most young boys engage in behavior that would be considered Sociopathic in an adult – it’s a matter of whether it’s a touch, or a wholesale wallowing that makes the distinction. I found the flavor wholly repulsive, and turned my face away from that innate darkness that humans have built into their nature. With no help from religion, I might add.

These statements sound an awful lot like the doctrine of original sin. Yet, while recognizing the “innate darkness” humans have, they venomously deny original sin. Secondly, if humans have “darkness built into their nature”, what makes that darkness wrong? Isn’t that what evolutions has brought? If we have evolved to be natural rapists what does it matter? Moreover, how does one turn their face away from something said to be “innate in humans?”

At least Richard Dawkins is honest about his worldview when he says:

There is at the bottom of it all no good, no evil, no purpose, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.

So if were honest about atheism, aren’t human beings just what natural selection made us to be? Aren’t we just a higher form of animal; perhaps we are some form of killer apes manufactured by evolution?

So, in short, I’m a morally upright individual – I don’t steal, I rarely lie, I’m excruciatingly honest (to my own detriment, I might add), I understand what the word no means (I feel that rape – the ultimate conscious violation – is perhaps the most disgusting crime one being can commit on another), children absolutely adore me, domestic pets as a rule gravitate to me, I’m about as friendly as another human being can be in person, and I won’t strike another person without due provocation. I also haven’t seen the inside of a cell in approximately thirty years (one time was enough: in some things, I’m a fast learner).

Another thing we see here is the “I am a good person defense”; as if that answers the question of moral foundations. Due to natural revelation, the Image of God imprinted on people, and common grace by God, unbelievers retain a remnant of common decency. This classic response gets old, because the question is not, in the first instance, whether an unbeliever can exhibit common decency, but whether moral absolutes are consistent with, or inherent in, an atheist worldview. Saying you’re a moral person doesn’t cut the cheese.

In fact, this quote explains my sentiments well:

In America, however, most of our atheists are actually thinly disguised Christians, or sometimes thinly disguised Jews, who want to retain the humanism taught by the Creator, without believing in the Creator. They believe in the image of God, without believing in God. They want the Kingdom of God; --- compassion, justice, peace, love, integrity, honesty, and commitment; without God, the King.
-- Michael Novak

Following to the end of this post, we see that evolution is now the source of morality:

Which begs the question (for the theists): from whence came morality?

So I’ll paraphrase myself (I’m entitled to), and add to an earlier quotation of mine:

‘From the womb of evolution sprang religion. From that womb also came morality.’

Because, let’s face facts, folks: any individual of a species that behaves in a manner contrary to the well being of the herd, is cast out. I won’t trot out any scholarship in this regard: I leave it to my readers to investigate for themselves.

So morals evolve, but how would one know whether action X is more evolved than action Y? This is just another lonely assertion in search of a warm-bodied supporting argument. Here, the author is pontificating morality. He says that morals evolve, but if rape is a result of evolving genes of survival how can it be immoral? How many ways can ‘evolving morality’ be reduced to absurdity before one stops using the excuse? I am still waiting to see the secular foundation for morality…

If humans are merely complex material, molecules without purpose, if no one piece of matter is any more valuable than any other piece of matter, if we are self-governing (without God), if the circumstances warrants it, and if we can advance our own selfish interests by doing so, could we not lie, steal, maim, or murder at will? If not, why not?

Preconditions of Engagement

2006-06-14T20:12:00.000-07:00

We often get side tracked when discussing issues with someone that holds a view contrary to our own. At the center of confusion is the lack of understanding toward the other person’s position and the failure to define our terms. More frustrating; however, is when the opposing viewpoint completely refuses to acknowledge ANY validly of your position because they either disagree or are “not convinced” by the case. In fact, they may even equate your position to believing in santa clause or fairies (a definite intellectual slap in the face).

In one of the more insulting factions of atheism, Brian Fleming, from Beyond Belief Media has come up with a ‘Statement of Belief’ that Christians must sign before they would even consider having a discussion with a believer. [Thanks to BK at Christian CADRE for bringing this to my attention.] Allegedly, Beyond Belief Media has provided the statement, in hopes that skeptics would require the signature of ‘Christians’ before a rational discussion can occur. Their “Statement of Belief” reduces the Christian worldview to mere irrationalism and blind, unsupported belief.

This statement is entirely insulting and idiotic. The Christian looses all ground before one can even start. Basically, one has to concede the falsity of Christianity, before discussing it. The ‘Statement of Belief’ is as follows:

STATEMENT OF BELIEF
By agreeing to the following statements, you are not agreeing that they settle any additional questions. You are only acknowledging that you understand the difference between evidence and faith. If you cannot sign this statement, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

I acknowledge that the Bible is not infallible. It was created entirely by humans and may contain significant flaws.

I acknowledge that a claim can be part of Christian tradition and also be false.

I acknowledge that there is no known evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ that dates to the period of his alleged life.

I acknowledge that the names of the Gospels were most likely added well after their composition, and there is insufficient evidence to believe that these names correspond to the original writers.

I acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence to believe that any of the Gospels were written by disciples of Jesus Christ.

I acknowledge that it is common for religious cults to make things up.

I acknowledge that it is common for religions to influence each other, and for young religions to be derived from older religions.

I acknowledge that no figures such as "God" or "The Holy Spirit" or "Satan" performed any supernatural actions that had any effect upon the formation of early Christianity.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

A Christian should never even consider signing this document (though I doubt any level headed Christian would). If a skeptic requires the statement to be signed—the “privilege” of there discussion is not worth it. However, I doubt that they really expect anyone sign it. Rather, it just a backhand and mockery toward believers.

Though, the idea of agreement on certain matters before engagement is not entirely absurd. In fact, on a more serious note, discussions could be much more fruitful if there were a common agreement bearing on the discussion. I know atheists can get frustrated with the fallacious methodology of some Christians and vise versa.

Accordingly, in light of Beyond Belief Media’s “Statement of Belief” contract, I have come up with ProTheism’s parody of the contract called “Preconditions of Engagement”(though some statements are tongue in cheek, this not the condescending material they have offered):

PRECONDITIONS OF ENGAGEMENT:

By agreeing to the following statements, you are not agreeing that they settle any additional questions. You are only acknowledging that you understand the difference between stating there is no evidence for God’s existence and not being convinced by the evidence for God’s existence. If you cannot sign this statement, you do not deserve to be taken seriously.

I acknowledge that Atheism isn’t a “lack of belief,” but the belief that God or gods do not exist. Moreover, I am not excluded from a burden of proof for “non-belief” since there is a basis for my position.

I acknowledge that science has not and cannot disprove the existence of God. Moreover, science has not proven atheism.

I acknowledge that theism is not the same as believing in fairies, santa clause, and pink unicorns.

I acknowledge that religion is not the major cause of war. I know that when it comes to the causes of war, religion comes after politics, economics, territory, natural resources and greed.

I acknowledge that because some alleged Christians committed heinous acts in the past that it doesn’t follow that it is what Christianity teaches, or that it invalidates Christianity.

I acknowledge that atheism itself can become fanatical and destructive. I know the Soviet Union was run by Brights. Stalin was an atheist, as were Mao Zedong and the Red Guards in China, and Pol Pot in Cambodia.

I acknowledge that atheistic regimes have killed more people in the past century than religion has killed in its entire history. So bringing up the crusades and witch hunts are counter productive to my case.

I acknowledge that the existence of evil is not proof that an all-good and all-powerful God does not exist.

I acknowledge that dogmatically asserting “there is no God” is a philosophically naïve statement that affirms a universal negative.

I acknowledge that micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution and that macro evolution is not a fact but a theory. Also, I know that the theory of evolution does not disprove the existence of God.

I acknowledge that God cannot create a rock that is too heavy for Him to move.

I acknowledge that I have no answer to the origin of life, or how the universe came into existence.

I acknowledge that saying “were just here”, or “it just is,” is not an argument.

I acknowledge that the statement that “it’s irrational to believe in things that can’t be tested scientifically with the five senses,” can’t be tested scientifically with the five senses and is a self refuting.

I acknowledge that Benny Hinn or other affiliates of the tele-evangelizing industry is not a representative of all Christianity.

I acknowledge that just because God has not appeared before my eyes, and justified His existence to my empirical satisfaction; it doesn’t mean He does not exist.

I acknowledge that if I can’t acquire God residue for my test tube, it doesn’t follow that God does not exist.

I acknowledge that skepticism does not equate to intellectualism. I know that it is not necessarily more rational to doubt something than it is to believe in something.

I acknowledge that geographic probability of a certain religion tells you nothing of the truth claims of the religion.

I acknowledge that just because most Christians I have spoke with cannot defend their faith and answer my questions, or that you cannot answer my questions, it doesn’t follow that my questions cannot be answered, or that my questions refute Christianity.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

I suppose the list could go on and I would be interested in anyone’s additions. However, these are the general rubs that encumber many dialogues that I have had. Though I am only half serious, there is an element of sincerity in the “Preconditions of Engagement.” Likewise, I am sure many atheists can list their own frustrations with Christian slogans and flawed reasoning. It’s more likely that their experience in exchanges with Christians have been predominately wearisome. One can only point out logical fallacies so many times before credence crumbles and tensions overflow. I suspect this is why mockery, ridicule and hostility thrive in atheist literature. For the most part, the ridicule and backhanded mockery like Flemings “Statement of Beliefs” have troubled me; however, in retrospect, the following passage gives me ease:

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake

Matthew 5:10-11

Some Humor

2006-06-12T18:10:00.000-07:00

Some things you just have to share…

The Designer Speaks!

Real Christian ™

Baby Got Book

Losing Everything but Reason

2006-06-05T10:06:00.000-07:00

I recently downloaded G.K. Chesterton’s, Orthodoxy. The second section (II) is amusingly called “The Maniac.” While I was freshly beginning to read it, this piece jumped out at me:

[I]f the great reasoners are often maniacal, it is equally true that maniacs are commonly great reasoners….Every one who has had the misfortune to talk with people in the heart or on the edge of mental disorder, knows that their most sinister quality is a horrible clarity of detail; a connecting of one thing with another in a map more elaborate than a maze. If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment. He is not hampered by a sense of humor or by charity, or by the dumb certainties of experience. He is the more logical for losing certain sane affections. Indeed, the common phrase for insanity in this respect is a misleading one. The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

I can’t help but be of the same opinion with Chesterton. It’s no wonder that some of the most brilliant people are reclusive and can’t tie their shoes. It seems today that reason is put on such a high pedestal (sometimes even to idolatry) that all else is secondary and diminished by it. What Chesterton sees quite clearly is that reason cannot be virtuous in it of itself and those who operate by it and no other become exasperating to communicate with.

As Chesterton stated, “if you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it”; because the madman does not take notice to the complementing features of humor, charity, experience etc…

I have just recently started to read this work, and I can already tell that it is going to be an excellent book. For those who are interested, you can actually download the book for free in pdf format here: G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and the Trilemma

2006-05-27T20:09:00.000-07:00

I was watching The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe with my kids last night. There is a scene early on where Lucy returns from her first time into Narnia ecstatic. She tells her brothers and sister about the magical place. However, they don’t believe her. Lucy becomes upset and storms off running into the professor. Later, the professor challenges their assumption that Lucy is fictitiously making up the story. Susan asks, “Are you saying that we should believe her?” He answers, “Why not?” Susan tells him, “Well, logically it’s impossible!” “Logic!” said the Professor, “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? There are only three possibilities. Either your sister is telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. You know she doesn’t tell lies and it’s obvious she is not mad. For the moment then, and unless any further evidence turns up, we must assume that she is telling the truth.”

Do you see the trilemma? I will let you decide. This has always been a fascinating subject for me. I remember hearing about it, but finally reading it in Mere Christianity—Lewis states the following:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon and you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

The Lord-Liar-Lunatic trilemma has been attacked viciously by skeptics. But what most people don’t know is that he discussed and expanded on this issue in God in the Dock. The Mere Christianity version is not quite as developed and in addressing the “legend” aspect (though it is an excellent primer). This is not overly surprising likely because much of it is from a radio show. More readily available though (after much digging), is a section of chapter 19 of the book called “What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?” Though there are still some problems to be worked out (as in it’s not air tight), here is a more complete version of it:

What are we to make of Jesus Christ? This is a question which has, in a sense, a frantically comic side. For the real question is not what are we to make of Christ, but what is He to make of us? The picture of a fly sitting deciding what it is going to make of an elephant has comic elements about it. But perhaps the questioner meant what are we to make of Him in the sense of 'How are we to solve the historical problem set us by the recorded sayings and acts of this Man?' This problem is to reconcile two things. On the one hand you have got the almost generally admitted depth and sanity of His moral teaching, which is not very seriously questioned, even by those who are opposed to Christianity. In fact, I find when I am arguing with very anti-God people that they rather make a point of saying, 'I am entirely in favour of the moral teaching of Christianity'——and there seems to be a general agreement that in the teaching of this Man and of his immediate followers, moral truth is exhibited at its purest and best. It is not sloppy idealism, it is full of wisdom and shrewdness. The whole thing is realistic, fresh to the highest degree, the product of a sane mind. That is one phenomenon.

The other phenomenon is quite the appalling nature of this Man's theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim which this Man seems to be making is not merely made at one moment of His career. There is, of course, the one moment which led to His execution. The moment at which the High Priest said to Him, 'Who are you?' 'I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see Me appearing at the end of all history as the judge of the Universe.' But that claim, in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into His conversation you will find this sort of claim running through the whole thing. For instance, He went about saying to people, 'I forgive your sins.' Now it is quite natural for a man to forgive something you do to him. Thus if somebody cheats me out of ££5 it is quite possible and reasonable for me to say, 'Well, I forgive him, we will say no more about it.' What on earth would you say if somebody had done you out of ££5 and I said, 'That is all right, I forgive him'? Then there is curious thing which seems to slip out almost by accident. On one occasion this Man is sitting looking down on Jerusalem from the hill above it and suddenly in comes an extraordinary remark——'I keep on sending you prophets and wise men.' Nobody comments on it. And yet, quite suddenly, almost incidentally, He is claiming to be the power that all through the centuries is sending wise men and leaders into the world. Here is another curious remark: in almost every religion there are unpleasant observances like fasting. This Man suddenly remarks one day, 'No one need fast while I am here.' Who is this Man who remarks that His mere presence suspends all normal rules? Who is the person who can suddenly tell the School they can have a half-holiday? Sometimes the statements put forward the assumption that He, the Speaker, is completely without sin or fault. This is always the attitude. 'You, to whom I am talking, are all sinners.' and He never remotely suggests that this same reproach can be brought against Him. He says again, 'I am begotten of the One God, before braham was, I am,' and remember what the words 'I am' were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.

Well, that is the other side. On the one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomaniac, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men. There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him 'Are you the son of Bramah?' he would have said, 'My son you are still in the vale of illusion.' If you had gone to Socrates and asked, 'Are you Zeus?' he would have laughed at you. If you would have gone to Mohammed and asked, 'Are you Allah?' he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, 'Are you Heaven?', I think he would have probably replied, 'Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.' The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that form of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing that He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met Him. He produced mainly three effects——Hatred ——Terror——Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.

What are we to do about reconciling the two contradictory phenomena? One attempt consists in saying that the Man did not really say these things, but that His followers exaggerated the story, and so the legend grew up that He had said them. This is difficult because His followers were all Jews; that is, they belonged to that Nation which of all others was most convinced that there was only one God——that there could not possibly be another. It is very odd that this horrible invention about a religious leader should grow up among the one people in the whole earth least likely to make such a mistake. On the contrary we get the impression that none of His immediate followers or even the New Testament writers embraced the doctrine at all easily.

Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don't work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it simply because he had seen it.

Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, 'The importance of the Resurrection is that it gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.' On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ's case we were privileged to see it happening. This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writers thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the very first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don't mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had to assure them that he was not a ghost. That point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new. The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has arisen in the Universe. Something new had appeared in the Universe: as new as the first coming of organic life. This Man, after death, does not get divided into 'ghost' and 'corpse'. A new mode of being has arisen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it?

The question is, I suppose, whether any hypothesis covers the facts so well as the Christian hypothesis. That hypothesis is that God has come down into the created universe, down to manhood——and come up again, pulling it up with Him. The alternative hypothesis is not legend, nor exaggeration, nor the apparitions of a ghost. It is either lunacy or lies. Unless one can take the second alternative (and I can't) one turns to the Christian theory.

'What are we to make of Christ?' There is no question of what we can make of Him, it is entirely a question of what He intends to make of us. You must accept or reject the story.

The things He says are very different from what any other teacher has said. Others say, 'This is the truth about the Universe. This is the way you ought to go,' but He says, 'I am the way the Truth, and the Way, and the Life.' He says, 'No man can reach absolute reality, except through Me. Try to retain your own life and you will be inevitably ruined. Give yourself away and you will be saved.' He says, 'If you are ashamed of Me, if, when you hear this call, you turn the other way, I also will look the other way when I come again as God without disguise. If anything whatever is keeping you from God and from Me, whatever it is, throw it away. If it is your eye, pull it out. If it is your hand, cut it off. If you put yourself first you will be last. Come to Me everyone who is carrying a heavy load, I will set that right. Your sins, all of them, are wiped out, I can do that. I am Re-birth, I am Life. Eat Me, drink Me, I am your Food. And finally, do not be afraid, I have overcome the whole Universe.' That is the issue.

I thoroughly enjoy Lewis writings; yet, I would treat them as basic instructions for starting to open the mind. The most problematic issue I see with the trilemma is that it is possible to come up with different options. So, the horns don’t seem to stick you if there are alternatives. The most common objection I see is that Jesus didn’t state any of those things regarding His divinity in the Bible and that early Christians added those things to the text and put them on his lips.

I don’t plan to make a case against the “legend” in this post; but as a primer, I would preliminarily field the objections with the following points: i) it’s odd that early church writings do not dispute regarding additions or changes to the text. ii) Secondly, no matter how many verses are striped from the text (take the Jesus seminar for example), you will not find a Jesus without supernatural or divine attributes. Essentially, Jesus’ divine nature is at the core of all His teachings. Hence, the entire thing would have to be fabrication (I can hear this tune already!) iii) Another widely accepted historical fact is the radical change in the disciples after Jesus’ death. They were willing to die and many did. This would seem highly unlikely for someone who had direct knowledge of a fabricate of “Jesus, the God Man”. It also seems irrational to suppose that they would make Jesus God after being humiliatingly beaten and crucified as a criminal. iv) Lastly, as I already demonstrated in my last post, Jesus’ high Christology was already established in the first century.

The trilemma is helpful to key in on the specific issues of the New Testament. I do think it can and has been development more by able Christian scholars; yet, I wouldn’t write it or C.S. Lewis off as easily as many skeptics and Christians do today.

In The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe, the professor offered three options: Lucy was either telling lies, or she is mad, or she is telling the truth. I don’t think the “legend” was an option entertained at the time. However, as it turns out, Lucy was telling the truth and in Jesus’ case—He was also telling the truth; which, makes Him Lord. The question of Jesus being either Lord, Liar, Lunatic or Legend is the most important question anyone could ever ask.

Constantine and early Christology

2006-05-23T15:34:00.000-07:00

There were many theological disagreements when Constantine became emperor. One of them was the Arian controversy. In 325, Constantine called for a resolution of the disagreements. However, his organization of the meeting bared little influence on the outcome. More accurately, Athanasius should be credited for proposing a formulation of the creed. At best, Constantine achieved an immense accomplishment by convening the council.

The men that were at the council suffered great persecution for their faith and would not readily hand over their deeply held beliefs at the whim of the emperor. These men were survivors of the pre-Constantine persecution and many even died for not handing over sacred texts. Simply rolling over for the emperor seems highly unlikely. Moreover, there is certainly no indication that they would “take the material and play throw it against the wall and see what sticks” as one commenter in my last post stated. More accurately, from Columbia University:

The Church was willing to accept the help of an emperor, to listen to what he had to say, but not to accept the rule of an emperor in matters of faith. However one describes the role of Constantine at the Council of Nicea, it must be remembered that the Creed of Nicea expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith, a faith in which they believed so firmly that they were willing to die for it. [emphasis added]

I wouldn’t go as far as saying that Constantine was irrelevant; however, is influence could merely go so far. In addition, the matter of Jesus’ Christology was quite one sided. Only Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais were the ones not agreeing and in the end voted against the creed. Moreover, there is no historical record that I know of that includes Constantine in the votes. This doesn’t sound like pulling ostentatious or contrived doctrine to me.

The high Christology of Jesus came long before Constantine. We have record not only in the New Testament, but early Church fathers attesting to Jesus’ high Cristology (i.e. calling Him God) as well. For example, Ignatius (30-107 A.D.), Polycarp (69-155 A.D.), Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.), Tatian (110-172 A.D.), Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), Tertullian (145-220 A.D.), Caius (180-217 A.D.), Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 A.D.), Novatian (210-280 A.D.), Athanasius (293-373 A.D.), and on and on. Jesus’ Divinity did not appear out of thin air centuries after His death.

In Ignatius’ (30-107 A.D.) letter to the Ephesians, and other letters we find:

"Jesus Christ our God"; "who is God and man"; "received knowledge of God, that is, Jesus Christ"; "for our God, Jesus the Christ"; "for God was manifest as man"; "Christ, who was from eternity with the Father"; "from God, from Jesus Christ"; "from Jesus Christ, our God"; "Our God, Jesus Christ"; "suffer me to follow the example of the passion of my God"; "Jesus Christ the God" and "Our God Jesus Christ."

More authoritatively, the New Testament itself established the Divinity of Christ throughout. Nevertheless, given human nature there, were plenty of apostates in the second century. Historian Will Durant in The Story of Civilization: Part III-Caesar and Christ explains:

The Church took over some religious customs and forms common in pre-Christian [pagan] Rome-the stole and other vestments of pagan priests, the use of incense and holy water in purifications, the burning of candles and an everlasting light before the altar, the worship of the saints, the architecture of the basilica, the law of Rome as a basis for canon law, the title of Pontifex Maximus for the Supreme Pontiff, and, in the fourth century, the Latin language . . . Soon the bishops, rather than the Roman prefects, would be the source of order and the seat of power in the cities; the metropolitans, or archbishops, would support, if not supplant, the provincial governors; and the synod of bishops would succeed the provincial assembly. The Roman Church followed in the footsteps of the Roman state.

In spite the clear admonition by the Apostle Paul, apostates of the second century fell pray to the pagan Roman religions of their day. The Biblical origins that were in place at the time were ignored or dismissed—just as they often are today. Power, especially governmental power, corrupts man. And in corruption faith always takes the back seat. Such as the infiltration of corruption entered the Christian faith, so stood those defended the Orthodox understanding of Christ often with their blood and their lives.

To fight against such apostasies and bring unity back to the Church; the Council of Nicea formulated the creed which was the recognition of the foundations of Christianity—not the establishment of Christianity. Unfortunately, Constantine’s establishment of Christianity in Rome brought much corruption. Constantine’s involvement with the Council of Nicea didn’t influence doctrine, but did influence the affairs of the Church and State in the Empire, which would change history forever.

However, the debate for Christ has never ended—it has continued for centuries. That’s why scripture is to be the final authority. Nonetheless, it has always been the central tenant of Christianity. In think Spurgeon said it best in “Holding Fast The Faith” when he wrote:

One of the main points of a Christian—without which the rest of his life will not be acceptable with God—is that Jesus shall be to him “the Way, the Truth and the Life.” The practical, the doctrinal, the experimental must all be found by us in Jesus Christ our Lord or else we have not placed Him in His right position. And we cannot be right anywhere unless the center is right and unless Jesus is that center. God grant that we may never turn aside from the faith once for all delivered to the saints. But may we resist all false philosophies—steadfast and immovable!

By demoting Christ and removing His deity and incarnation, one removes the central Truth of Christianity. It’s about His Person—who He is. Jesus is the center of our Faith; remove Him and it’s not Christianity, it just someone’s flavor or invention of “religion.”

The End of Fruitful Discussion

2006-05-15T13:53:00.000-07:00

The growing trend of castigating Christians and their views due to an alleged intellectual inferiority is deplorable in many ways. All too often many non-believers refuse to honestly and seriously consider the Christian viewpoint. How do I know this? When I see the complete misrepresentation, lack of understanding, complete failure to present the opposing view point, and in some cases utter hostility—I become suspect of any honest inquiry performed to reach ones conclusions. Moreover, when a non-believer continually demonstrates an unreserved lack of interest in their opponents view point in their own criticisms, it shows either their inability or complete refusal to test the merits of their own view point.

This is probably the most difficult aspect of the atheist/theist interaction. Often, Christianity is dismissed without sufficient consideration (or vise versa). Though this accusation is explicitly denied, it will usually pervade in the arguments of the one whom holds to the position (weather consciously or not). Atheist or theist, all one is doing is treating the other person/position with contempt. Forthrightly, I am growing tired of being categorized as inferior because I am Christian. The misconception is that one his somehow more rational to be a skeptic than a believer.

On the same note, Christians should not dogmatically aim to enforce their convictions on others in an effort to militantly convert, but aim to persuade them of Christianity’s vitality through love, reason, and compassion. The act of persuasion necessarily entails engagement; unfortunately, this is the very thing that aggravates non-believers. A large portion of this aggravation is due to an ineffective or inappropriate apologetic approach. Increasingly though, I have found the hesitancy for faith based discussion, even with various approaches to be futile with many non-believers. This is not because non-believers have found substantial objections that silence the Christian apology, but rather, the complete disinterest in any such engagement. For what ever reason, there is a sect of skepticism that has fashioned itself into cynicism. The cynicism now permeates through the blogsphere.

Part of the problem is that there has been a detrimental failure upon Christians to give thoughtful reasons why they believe, which is a possibility why many non-believers would rather not converse with Christians. It’s not as if we must have stock answers for every objection. I certainly have not been able to readily answer every objection that’s come across my path. But the general viewpoint of Christianity is irrationality. Atheist George Smith notes his distaste for interactions with Christians in the following paragraph:

The first thing I want to point out is rather depressing to some people. Since reasonableness is a habit to be learned, not everyone is capable of conducting a good argument. For that matter, not everyone is capable of arguing in an intelligible sense at all. Argument is also a skill that has to be learned and practiced. What this means is that, for the most part, you are probably wasting your time if you argue with many religionists, for the simple reason that many of these religionists are incapable of arguing well. It's almost like you have to educate some Christians before you can persuade them to atheism. You have to first convince them that they should be concerned with what's true and what's not. They should be able to distinguish between rational and irrational argument. And so on and so on. And then two months later, you might be able to say to this person that if they carry this out, it will lead them to atheism. But unless you have a lot of personal interest in this person, unless they are personally significant to you, you will probably not want to waste a lot of your time educating or re-educating this person to the principles of reason. What do you do? Some people just give up on the person. Some people, you have to.

George Smith’s observations paint with a wide brush; however, I think the same observation can be applied to many (not all) self proclaimed atheists today. All one needs to do is replace “Christians” or “religionists” with “Atheists.”

It is important for Christians, to maintain and communicate a distinct Christian worldview. Truth emerges as differing perspectives dialogue with one another in the kind of marketplace of ideas; privatization of these ideas only hinders the ability to reach an informed position.

However, it seems that those of secularism don’t want to or are unwilling to dialogue—the discussion is over. They would rather muzzle the mouths of religion. However, in rejecting religion, secularism has only become a religion itself. When skeptics close the door in the face of Christianity, they have only locked them self in a room where they can pat each other on the back and join in on their own parade of intellectual superiority. James E. Faust notes:

The civil religion I refer to is a secular religion. It has no moral absolutes. It is nondenominational. It is non-theistic. It is politically focused. It is antagonistic to religion. It rejects the historic religious traditions of America. It feels strange. If this trend continues, non-belief will be more honored than belief. While all beliefs must be protected, are atheism, agnosticism, cynicism, and moral relativism to be more safeguarded and valued than Christianity, Judaism, and the tenets of Islam, which hold that there is a Supreme Being and that mortals are accountable to him? If so, this would, in my opinion, place America in great moral jeopardy.

Skepticism is noting new and I don’t take much issue with it. However, I think sometimes it’s taken to a counterproductive extreme driven by alternative motives. All the Christian is really asking for is to treat us and our position with respect and give our arguments the honest consideration they deserve. Skeptics will have to realize that Christianity is something they will have to contend with on a serous level sometime or another. Sooner or later, the facade of intellectual superiority with mocking, ridicule, and jokes will grow old and fade away and they will have to deal with Christianity on a serious note. It’s time to be honest with oneself.

G.K. Chesterton said, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

In regards to the cynicism that now permeates through our culture, it seems that fruitful discussion has ended.

The Myths of the Jesus Myth

2006-05-06T10:48:00.000-07:00

There’s a lot of credence given to the Jesus Myth lately. However, the attack on the historicity of Jesus is no surprise. What better way to debunk Christianity that to take away Jesus? Christianity is built upon the person of Jesus. Christianity is not like any other religion in that it rests not on teachings, but rather, Christ Himself.

Though there is plenty of hype given to the Jesus myth; it’s mostly just conspiracy theory. One needs a lot of imagination to come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed. The Jesus myth seems more of hypercritical skepticism—skepticism about everything except skepticism. Nevertheless, since the Jesus myth has taken such a welcome acceptance, I thought I might address some of the issue (though not comprehensively).

From searching the net, an often sited or referenced article on the subject of the Jesus Myth (pro skeptic) was Marshall J. Gauvin’s article called, "Did Jesus Christ really live?." I read Gauvin’s article looking for a solid argument for his case. It was very interesting; however, flawed. Below, I will comment on some of the things of Gauvin’s article I disagree with. There are parts that I left out because they did not warrant response (see link for entire article):

In the beginning of Gauvin’s article he states:

Not only has the divinity of Christ been given up, but his existence as a man is being more and more seriously questioned. Some of the ablest scholars of the world deny that he ever lived at all. A commanding literature dealing with the inquiry, intense in its seriousness and profound and thorough in its research, is growing up in all countries, and spreading the conviction that Christ is a myth.

Gauvin is completely incorrect about historical scholarship. Though admittedly much of scholarship has given up the divinity of Christ; to the contrary, “scholars of the world” have reached the opposite of Gauvin’s conclusion. In fact, the issue seems quit dead. Perhaps, if the proponents of the myth theory consisted of competent scholarly historians, then the realm of historical scholarship might be more persuaded.

Christopher Price has already done the research for me and outlined all persuasions of scholarship with supporting quotes in “Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth.” In addition to the already devastating outline, Price also provides A “History of Scholarly Refutations of the Jesus Myth,” just incase one had some restrained doubts.

Gauvin’s motive becomes evident abruptly after his first statements. He obviously has no respect for any intellectual foundation for Christianity. He states:

[Christianity] has stayed the march of civilization, and made martyrs of some of the noblest men and women of the race: and it is to-day the greatest enemy of knowledge, of freedom, of social and industrial improvement, and of the genuine brotherhood of mankind. The progressive forces of the world are at war with this Asiatic superstition, and this war will continue until the triumph of truth and freedom is complete. The question, "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" goes to the very root of the conflict between reason and faith; and upon its determination depends, to some degree, the decision as to whether religion or humanity shall rule the world.

As can be seen, Gauvin has mad some degrading remarks toward Christianity. It appears that his motives go beyond some inquiry into history, and for whatever reason, into some personal agenda contra Christianity. I find his aforementioned statements a deciding factor in his conclusion regarding the Jesus Myth rather than any historical inquiry.

Gauvin’s first attack is on the gospels themselves:

What, then, is the evidence that Jesus Christ lived in this world as a man? The authorities relied upon to prove the reality of Christ are the four Gospels of the New Testament -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John… the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where.

The trick here is that Gauvin has automatically presupposed that there is no objective basis for determining if the Gospels are a reliable source of history. There are methods of dating and using textual analysis of contemporaneous vernacular, recorded events or omission of events, forensic analysis, corroborating patristic writings etc. Gauvin is overstating his case, which becomes a palpable motif of his. The fact that there is no signature or photograph attached to the Gospels doesn’t make them unreliable.

Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

The dating of Mark prior to the other Gospels is a theory based of similarity rather than an established fact as Gauvin asserts. Scholars infer that Mark is used as a reference or source since much of the material is contained in Mathew and Luke. In fact, many scholars infer a document called “Q” as a secondary source for material not in Mark, but found in both Mathew and Luke (however, that’s another trail). Though there are many similarities, there are numerous differences. I don’t particularly take the position that Mark is later than the other Gospels though.

The Gospel of John is admitted by Christian scholars to be an unhistorical document. They acknowledge that it is not a life of Christ, but an interpretation of him; that it gives us an idealized and spiritualized picture of what Christ is supposed to have been, and that it is largely composed of the speculations of Greek philosophy.

Scholars may have differing opinions about the specifics of the Gospel of John; however, Gauvin makes it sound like a complete consensus is contra historical. The Gospel of John is far from unhistorical. His criticism erroneously dismisses the entire corpus of the text based on alleged tampering by early Christians. The dispute within the majority of scholarly circles revolves around theological implications, rather than centering on complete fabrication of the entire text.

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died.

Though we don’t have any original manuscripts; we do have copies. Papyrus tends to decay after so long; nonetheless, we do have a papyrus fragment called P52 with portions of Johns Gospel. Since it’s is the general consensus that John is the latest Gospel; it can be inferred that there were earlier manuscript of the other Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke). This would date the earlier Gospels in time period contra Gauvin’s thesis.

We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible.

Gauvin’s dates are highly conjectural. He states that the dating is “as early as possible” for the Gospels. However, I believe he is being disingenuous to other scholarly dating here. Again, with the P52 papyrus fragment, this would push the dates of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John much earlier than he prescribes.

Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that [the Gospels] were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians

Gauvin assumes that contemporary Palestinians did not speak or write Greek at the time Jesus was alive, or shortly after. However, this alleged proof is given without any benefit of argument.

In the fifth chapter of J.P. Moreland’s book “Scaling the Secular City” he offers six arguments for the earlier dating of the Gospels. Below is the excerpt:

Six arguments, taken together, provide a powerful case for dating Acts at 62 to 64. First, Acts has no mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70, and this is quite odd since much of the activity recorded in Luke-Acts centers around Jerusalem. A large section unique to Luke focuses on Jesus' last movement to the Holy city the resurrection appearances occur around Jerusalem (see Luke 24:13), and Jerusalem plays a key role in the structure of Acts. The omission of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem makes sense if Luke-Acts was written prior to the event itself.
Second, no mention is made of Nero's persecutions in the mid-60s and the general tone of Acts toward the Roman government is irenic. This fits the pre-65 situation well. Neither the tone of Acts nor the omission of an account of Nero's persecutions can be adequately explained by saying it was an attempt to appease the Roman government. It was not the nature of the early church to appease anyone-witness conflicts with Judaism and the Pharisees which are recorded in Luke's writings.
Third, the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64), and Peter (65) are not mentioned in Acts. This is also surprising since Acts is quick to record the deaths of Stephen and James the brother of John, leaders in the early church. These omissions are even more surprising when one realizes that James, Peter, and Paul are the three key figures in Acts. The silence in Acts about these deaths makes most sense if, again, we assume that Acts was written before they occurred.
Fourth, the subject matter of Acts deals with issues of importance prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70. The falling of the Holy Spirit on different people groups (Jewish, Samaritan, Gentile), the divisions between Palestinian Jews and Hellenistic Jews, Jewish-Gentile relations centering on circumcision and the law of Moses, and other themes make sense prior to 70. At that time Jewish Christianity was wiped out and the importance of a record of how Gentile pagan converts are to relate to Jews in the church would be much lower than the importance of such a record prior to 70.
Fifth, several of the expressions in Acts are very early and primitive. More will be said about this later. But the phrases the Son of man, the Servant of God (applied to Jesus), the first day of the week (the resurrection), and the people (the Jews) are all phrases that readers would understand without explanation prior to 70. After 70, they would need to be explained. These phrases, therefore, indicate that Acts was intended for an audience which would remember these terms and their usage.
Sixth, the Jewish war against the Romans (from 66 onward) is not mentioned in Acts. As Hugo Staudinger argues, "The Jewish war is an important part of the history of the early Church. The original followers in Jerusalem lose their significance through the war. With the destruction of Jerusalem Jesus' prophecy is moreover fulfilled. If Luke had been writing after 70, it would be incomprehensible that he should break off his narrative shortly before the fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy, and not indicate the fate of the followers in Jerusalem."
So a strong case can be made for dating Acts at 62 to 64. But this means that Luke should be dated just prior to that. Further, Matthew and Mark should be dated even earlier, perhaps from the mid-40s to mid-50s. The picture of Jesus presented in the Synoptics is one that is only twelve to twenty-nine years removed from the events themselves. And they incorporate sources which are even earlier.

I find Moreland’s six points persuasive. For me, the omissions of certain historical facts give credibility to an earlier dates since many of them would have been profitable to add to the text had it been written later.

Gauvin actually makes some valid points about textual transmission. However, again, he ignores scholarship of textual critics on the transmission of biblical texts.

The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

Gauvin is piggybacking on the optimism that his late dating is accurate. However, the content of the Gospels clearly shows contemporaneous eye witness data, culture, geography and so forth that provide ample reasons why they are historically valid. It’s the way they are written that’s gives historical validity. In addition, the papyri fragments we have corroborate with later manuscripts available. Moreover, the amount of manuscript we have (over 5,000) helps to distinguish what was in the original manuscript. The fact is that manuscripts copied from different individuals or groups spread over diverse parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean regions actually concur remarkably with each other.

If there were significant allowances of autonomy to add to or take away considerable writings from previous manuscripts, there ought to be a vast amount of departure in later or geographically distant tests. However, what we find is the complete opposite.

If Gauvin or other Jesus Myth proponents applied their hypercritical skepticism to other historical texts, we would have to discard Homer (Iliad), Sophocles, Aristotle, Caesar’s (Gallic Wars) etc. The NT text fair far better (with flying colors) than much of what we would consider history.

If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

Again, Gauvin overstates his case. Gnostic writings were not written to “prove the existence of Jesus.” Rather, they were heretical spin offs of the original Gospels. These Gnostic gospels and writings were countered heavily. Why would such objection arise if Jesus never existed? For example Origen, in Contra Celsius (Chap. LXI) wrote the following :

And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus…and these are the twofold sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other human beings

Gauvin moves on to an alleged geographical error regarding Nazareth.

His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

This seems to be Gauvin’s most powerful argument—an obvious argument from silence and an overstatement. Nazareth was no New York, or Los Angeles city. In fact, it was a small and insignificant geographical location. Event in the NT it states, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:47). One should not expect compilations of references to Nazareth by early century historians. Historians tend not to write about rat holes, but significant places. Nevertheless, Metacrock, from Christian CADRE (A historian and Ph.D candidate) dismantles this theory in his article “The History of Nazareth.”

Moreover, Richard Carrier, who is a prominent skeptic and sympathetic to the Jesus Myth writes the following in thread on the infidel’s website begging here:

[A]rchaeology has confirmed a stone building in Nazareth of the size and type to be a synagogue, and it dates from the time of Christ. See the entry in the Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land...

The evidence is insurmountable that there were numerous permanent structures--most of Nazareth's buildings even before the 1st century were partially carved from the rock of the hill, in a manner similar to Pella...

I was able to track down on my own the most extensive report, that of Bagatti (Excavations in Nazareth, vol. 1, 1969), and I looked through all the subsequent reports on Nazareth from Excavations and Surveys in Israel, and this is what I found:

(a) Very little of Nazareth has been excavated, and therefore no argument can be advanced regarding what "wasn't" there in the 1st century.

(b) Archaeological reports confirm that stones and bricks used in earlier buildings in Nazareth were reused in later structures, thus erasing a lot of the evidence. Therefore, it is faulty reasoning to argue that there were no brick or stone structures simply because we have not recovered them from the relevant strata (i.e. one of Hoffman's sources assumed that the absence of this evidence entailed mud-and-thatch housing, but that is fallacious reasoning--especially since no clear evidence of mud-and-thatch housing has been found, either).

(c) One example of the above includes four calcite column bases, which were reused in a later structure, but are themselves dated before the War by their stylistic similarity to synagogues and Roman structures throughout 1st century Judaea, and by the fact that they contain Nabataean lettering (which suggests construction before Jewish priests migrated to Nazareth after the war). This is not iron clad proof of a 1st century synagogue (since the pieces had been moved and thus could not be dated by strata), but it does demonstrate a very high probability--especially since calcite bases are cheap material compared to the more expensive marble of structures archaeologists confirmed started appearing there around a century later, i.e. by the end of the 1st century AD (or early 2nd century at the latest, since marble fragments have been found inscribed in Aramaic that is paleographically dated to this period), and more extensively again in the 3rd century (when a very impressive Jewish synagogue was built there, this time using marble, which was later converted to Christian use).

(d) I confirmed beyond any doubt that Nazareth was built on a hill--more specifically, down the slope of a hill, with a convenient "brow" roughly one city block away from the edge of the ancient town as so-far determined archaeologically. Because the town was built down the slope of a hill, we have found numerous examples of houses, tombs, and storage rooms half cut into the rock of the hill, leaving a diagonal slope for structures to be built up around them to complete the chambers (as I described above). Since these structural elements were so completely removed and apparently reused by later builders, no evidence remains of what they were composed of (whether mud, brick, or stone).

The bottom line: there is absolutely no doubt that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus.

Following, Gauvin becomes overly generous regarding the nobility of the Roman government:

Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty… Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history.

Philo ((20 BC- 40 AD), has somewhat of a dissimilar opinion. In fact, he states Pontius Pilate was very hostile and unfair. Moreover, it appears that Pilate feared that the Jewish people would cause uproar resulting in his dismissal by Tiberius. Philo States [Source]:

"But when [Pilate] steadfastly refused this petition (for he was a man of a very inflexible disposition, and very merciless as well as very obstinate), they cried out: 'Do not cause a sedition; do not make war upon us; do not destroy the peace which exists. The honour of the emperor is not identical with dishonour to the ancient laws; let it not be to you a pretence for heaping insult on our nation…But this last sentence exasperated him in the greatest possible degree, as he feared least they might in reality go on an embassy to the emperor, and might impeach him with respect to other particulars of his government, in respect of his corruption, and his acts of insolence, and his rapine, and his habit of insulting people, and his cruelty, and his continual murders of people untried and uncondemned, and his never ending, and gratuitous, and most grievous inhumanity. (303)
Therefore, being exceedingly angry, and being at all times a man of most ferocious passions, he was in great perplexity, neither venturing to take down what he had once set up, nor wishing to do any thing which could be acceptable to his subjects, and at the same time being sufficiently acquainted with the firmness of Tiberius on these points.

So we get a different picture of the practice of Roman law and Pilate’s supposed civility. As I stated earlier, Gauvin likes to overstate his case and at times presents things in a manner that distort the historical record that we have available to us.

Gauvin not only stretches things, he is completely ignorant of Christian theology. He even goes so far as suggesting that Christian art of a lamb on a cross suggests the mythical figure of Jesus emerging out of that caricature. Moreover, he completely disregards the scriptural references on why Jesus is crucified when he states the following:

And let us ask, if Christ performed the miracles the New Testament describes, if he gave sight to blind men's eyes, if his magic touch brought youthful vigor to the palsied frame, if the putrefying dead at his command returned to life and love again -- why did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people -- for the Jews of that age were civilized -- were so filled with murderous hate towards a kind and loving man who went about doing good, who preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead -- that they could not be appeased until they had crucified the noblest benefactor of mankind? Again I ask -- is this history, or is it fiction?

Jews were civilized, but take their religion seriously. Has Gauvin never heard of a Pharisees? They were the religious cream of the crop and were outraged to think that Jesus who accused them of being “hypocritical”, “brood vipers” “blind leaders of the blind” and who threw them out of their own temple, would also claim to forgive sins, and say that God was His Father, and even go as far as saying He was one with God. The Pharisees tried to stone Jesus more than once and kill him saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God" (John 10:33). What does Gauvin think Paul (as formerly Saul) did before he became a Christian? Is the whole persecution of early Christians by the Jewish leadership fables? No, if there is any fiction, it’s in the mind of Gauvin to explain away history.

Some of the further exaggeration that Gauvin’s supposes, like Paul knowing nothing of Jesus sayings are too nauseating to address. He even goes so far as to suggest that the “very existence of Paul is questionable”. Though he only allows Paul as a historical figure to accommodate his argument. Moreover, he completely discredits the entire corpus of the Gospels because they contain miracles. Prima facie evidence is unnecessary to qualify as history. Every single statement need not be proved with corroborating evidence to support it. What’s even more interesting is that Gauvin relies heavily (again) on the argument of silence—mentioning things that Paul never stated about Jesus in his writings and assuming he never mentioned it in his travels.

If Christ lived, if he was a reformer, if he performed wonderful works that attracted the attention of the multitude, if he came in conflict with the authorities and was crucified -- how shall we explain the fact that history has not even recorded his name? The age in which he is said to have lived was an age of scholars and thinkers. In Greece, Rome and Palestine, there were philosophers, historians, poets, orators, jurists and statesmen. Every fact of importance was noted by interested and inquiring minds. Some of the greatest writers the Jewish race has produced lived in that age.

There are references to Jesus outside of the Gospels, such as Thallus and Josephus. But of course Gauvin is going to disregard any reference to Jesus by Josephus do to some later tampering insertions by some Christians. However, Christopher Price has done a review of Josephus’ reference to Jesus and irrefutably demonstrates that though there were some additions to the text, Josephus did make an original reference to the historical person of Jesus. For anyone who doubts this, they must read “A Thorough Review of the Testimonium Flavianum.” Regardless of Gauvin’s assertions, scholarship is in the majority that there was an original reference to the person of Jesus of Nazareth by Josephus (apparently reverse when the article was written). Also see “Extra Biblical Witness to Jesus before 200 AD” and “The Reliability of the Secular References to Jesus” For further extra biblical references to Jesus.

Gauvin leaves his article in arrogant confidence over his alleged case against the historicity of Jesus. In his closing statement he says:

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of to-day, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.

Gauvin hasn’t nearly made his case. He begs the question the entire course of his article. Unfortunately, he must ignore or come up with creative diversionary tactics to explain away history. There are too many issues to write off with the wand of hypercritical skepticism. Gauvin cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, Christians would invent Jesus Christ sometime after 100 and have no pagans and Jews who historically have opposed Christianity denied the existence of Jesus. In fact, it’s never even questioned.

Gauvin has artfully tried to claim the alleged theological development (which is an issue that has been disputed) qualifies the entire corpus of the NT as a wholesale invention. More perceptibly, Gauvin has quote mined critical sources and taken his conclusions beyond anything that the critics would have concluded.

Gauvin has misrepresented the apostle Paul claiming he preached a different Jesus than the Gospels. He late dated the Gospels to his convenience. Conveniently, the late dating of the Gospels is the crux of his entire position. He obviously over did it. With the wave of the skeptical wand, Gauvin completely dismissed non-Christian evidences of the historicity of Jesus. His conspiracy theory fails to give a better explanation than acknowledging that Jesus was a real person. I don’t know if any one can—it appears more to be an insurmountable obstacle.

Gauvin reminds me of Holocaust deniers, who deny despite the vast evidence to the contrary. One major problem to deal with is if the Church created Jesus, who created the Church? The fact is, Gauvin and other Jesus myth advocates have to have a lot more imagination than anyone who believes in his existence.

Moral Failures of Christendom

2006-04-29T15:39:00.000-07:00

It doesn’t take much to notice that Christianity leaves a bad taste in many non-believers mouths. In just about every discussion I have had with non-believers the same objection raises to the surface (crusades, inquisition etc…). Though there are often many other issues brought to the table, the historic atrocities carried out in the name of Christianity always arise as an assumed defeater of The Faith. The objection of historic atrocities of Christianity is often further employed to individual hypocrisies and moral failures. The objection itself is expressed in a multitude of ways; however, the essential element to any formulated presentation of the argument asserts that Christians and/or their actions show Christianity to be false.

The problem with the objection of historical or individual Christian hypocrisy is that is trivial. Not trivial in the sense that reprehensible actions are not a major concern; trivial in the sense that the issue is irrelevant to truth or falsity of Christianity. More often, this is used as a red herring and diverts the topic onto a frivolous trail. The criticism of moral failures of Christians, whether collectively or individually, does not undermine Christianity. The objection is the same if some one was to assume calculus was false if Isaac Newton was arrested for drug dealing.

Rather than diverge the topic onto a trail that logically does not invalidate Christianity, one ought to focus on the historical and factual claims at hand.

Christianity is not a systems based on ethics. It’s not a “Confucius says…….” belief system. Ethics are peripheral to the central message of Christianity. The central message of Christianity is about the personage of Jesus Christ. Being a Christian does not mean that one is “better” than anyone else. Christian ethics is a process; one does not instantaneously become a Mother Teresa or reach some form of moral perfection. Again, Christianity is not a list of rules, but a submission to the person of Christ who desires our obedience. The rules are important; however, they are only the values that surface as part of redemption provided by Jesus Christ.

Another issue at hand is that one does not have to simply accept that said persons who commit reprehensible acts are Christians. It’s not an attempt to deny that Christendom, throughout history has been egregious. However, it is a legitimate to question one who professes Christianity and then acts reprehensibly immoral. Such acts are the very antithesis to Jesus Christ’s will and should not be lumped together so effortlessly. Jesus warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt. 7:15). If wolves are culpable for immoral actions—the sheep should be spared the ridicule. Nevertheless, one should distinguish between what an individual or group of Christians do and what Jesus Christ expresses as His will.

One issue about the objection that I find rather ironic is that the Christian Worldview provides the basis for morality while secular ethics fails. 90 out of a 100 times, those who bring moral failures of individuals or Christendom to the table are moral relativists. Moral relativists will object to Christianity based on historical events like the crusades or “witch hunts.” However, according to their position, morality is abased on social context; thus, the social context permitted the crusades. Therefore, by their own system of morality—the actions are not immoral.

It would appear to me that when moral failures of Christendom are used as a secular apologetic; they are based on emotions as opposed to any modal rejection of Christianity. Nevertheless, Christians ought to be sensitive to their own behavior and live transparently. Living an exemplary life as a Christian will be the most effective apologetic. Though we still make mistakes and fall short, what a better place to be hypocritical than in Christ where God offers forgiveness and renewal?

Some Q&A on Moral Relativism—Part II

2006-04-21T11:58:00.000-07:00

The conversation is on the upswing. Karen has responded to my previous post on Moral Relativism.

By way of reply Karen says:

Well, depending on just HOW good or bad I am, and how big my sphere of influence is, there could still be some ripple effect 1000 years form now, I suppose. 100 years is more likely. Ultimately, when the world rips to shreds, it will not matter, and I have absolutely no problem with that. I have no control over what happened before I came to be, or what will happen after I cease to be. All I can really control is what kind of person I am while I am here. Ultimate is NOW.

For you the ultimate is now, however, “now” will be irrelevant in the distant future. Given the assurance of unavoidable destruction (in your world view), it implies that the burden of prove to demonstrate there is meaning. Saying that meaning is NOW doesn’t seem sufficient.

From your perspective, any person good or bad can achieve immortality by simply accepting christ as lord before dying. What kind of morality is that?

Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior is the recognition of total (including moral) depravity. It is true that on someone’s deathbed they can call on Christ and be saved. However, the moral principals of Christianity do not sanction immorality, but rather prohibits it. This question also fails to recognize that all immoral actions are paid for. There is always justice in Christianity, but not atheism. One can pay for their moral crimes them themselves, or Jesus can pay for them; it’s a choice, choose wisely.

Why should anyone be moral?To propel the idea that others too, should be moral. Instinct for survival.

This does not answer the question. You only push the question back one step. Why should others be moral? Give a prescriptive reason for morality.

Instincts within the context of evolution, doesn’t help us much here. Instincts can also be counter moral. For example, someone could claim that rape was instigated by their instinct. Therefore, instinct does not determine what is, or what is not moral. There must be some standard to judge instinct by in order to determine its moral veracity.

Coformity to general rules of society, instinct for survival.

This is far too ambiguous. We all belong to multiple social groups, and the within these groups there is always conflict. These groups are all contained in general society. If the rightness of any individual’s actions is relative to the standard of any particular culture, would that person not have to know which group constitutes their culture? Is a culture defined by geography, race, class, nationality, gender or what?

Secondly, how do we know what a culture thinks about anything? The laws? Do laws equal morality? Inevitably, there will always be moral disagreements within any group. Thus, who's to say which “opinions” are going to define the moral standards of any given culture? Id laws determine morality, there is nothing above law, or society to appeal to and change those laws/values. This is obviously false.

Rather than being prescriptive with morals, as a relativist morality is merely a descriptive statement of morality. You’ll see later how this is flawed.

If good and evil are subjective, then no one is really good or evil, because that changes as conventions change, whether socially, or individually. Good and evil change from one person to another from society to society; there is no standard to judge actions of other societies, cultures and timesExactly. If another society spends all of its time completely naked, can they say we are wrong to need to be clothed?

The problem with making the culture or society the deciding factor is that if slavery becomes acceptable again in the next 200, 300, or 25 years, who is to say if it is right or wrong? We would have a contradictory set of right and wrong regarding the same issue. Thus, it is incoherent.

To be a consistent relativist regarding things such as the treatment of women in Afghanistan, you should say, it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of Taliban culture. However, I have yet to see a moral relativist live up to the relative standard.

A "trapped" society may indeed have very little moral "progress". But then it may have all it needs. It is when societies interact that changes occur the most, IMO. You would evaluate, the same as if you were studying a tribe of chimps...objectively, without bringing any of your own moral constructs onto their society

Chimps? Anytime you make a conclusion about monkey or animal morality simply from external behavior, it reduces morality to mere conduct. This completely ignores non-behavioral element of morality.

You can see chimps sharing their food with each other and note that it helps them survive. However, you can’t conclude by the observation that they ought to share their food. Moreover, you couldn’t conclude that the chimp was immoral just because he wouldn’t share his banana. You have to distinguish between act and intent (prescriptive vs. descriptive). Behaviors can be identical, but intents with the same behavior can determine if it is moral/immoral.

If you want to say that morality is relative to culture, you have to specify when morality changes. When does slavery go from the moral standard to the immoral standard? Can someone just wake up one day and say: “Well, I better check the news paper to see what moral values I have today”?

Moreover, when you say that Slavery was the moral norm, you’re taking the opinion of slaveholders. What about the slave’s opinion? When they said it was horrendously wrong (read the book “Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl”) what does their moral position count for within the context of moral relativism?

You are correct, that this is an assertion. I realize this is an absolute statement for which I have no physical evidence. It just seems as plain as the nose on my face: No gods existed till man evolved to make them up. "Lower" animals had no need for gods, and as far as we know, no way to communicate the idea of gods. If you would like to show me proof of any gods being around before man came into existence, I'm all ears

This is a red herring and goes way off topic. Proving the existence of God right now is a completely different trail. However, I will be happy to give reasons for specifics on another occasion. I need not give a dissertation though so satisfy anyone standard of proof at demand.

Moreover, it doesn’t follow that if man does not exist, God does not exist, or if man/animal can not articulate/communicate Gods existence; He does not exist. You will have a difficult time coming up with a logical argument to support that (especially: as plain as the nose on your face).

There was nothing wrong with clubbing your neighbor, except that it lessened the gene pool.
My point was that if morality is imbued by god, then we wouldn't go about clubbing our neighbor naturally.
But of course you bring in the old free will argument for that later

If you want to show how free will is incoherent in reference to the objection. I will be happy to start another thread with your logical propositions against the “old free will argument.”

Secondly, if there are reasonable explanations for the compatibility of “evils” and the existence of God, then your rejection of God on such grounds fail. First, you have to believe that evil is absolute before you can valid a claim un-relative to your culture. Every time you make a claim that some incident in the Bible is “evil”, you contradict moral relativism. Hence, you act as if your cultural determination of morality has anything to do with an ancient culture. Moreover, you act as if your societal standard has any sway over other societal standards.

Internally, Christians can address these issues. However, it’s would be irrelevant to a moral relativist, because it was just their culture after all (no such things as evil for them).

still later, you say,God is not a crutch for morality, but rather a source. Some recognize the intuitive nature of morality, while others avoid it because it requires a source. The source is still there, but the recognition is not.So it's intuitive, but we can ignoore it. If it's intuitive, it could be evolutionarily so---instinctive---at least about killing each other.

Things can be intuitively right or wrong. What is ignored is the conclusion of absolutes. People will assert cultural morals as a standard to avoid the intuitive aspect of absolute morality. There are excuses like differences in culture, opinion, and changes. However, not of these meet that standard of coherence.

Because if we kill everyone, the species doesn't survive

Survival of the fittest mentality gives me permission to kill whom so ever I please. If I can do so without destroying the species, then performing this action within the confinement still tells me nothing of morality.

Saying that action X will detriment the survival of a given species, doesn’t tell anything about the morality of action X.

Everyday life is smoother, more organized, safer.You should care because society is determining what is right and wrong for you as an individual. And if you are uncomfomfortable with it, you should rail against it. Find people who agree with you and work to change what society holds as "right". That's how morals evolve

If society determines what is right and wrong for you, it is impossible to rail against it. Because there is not other standard that one can appeal to.

If I am not right with societies moral standards, that means that society does not determine moral standards. Hence, I have to appeal to something *other* than societal standards in order to change society. Reformers change public opinion by offering reasons and evidence to support their position. If the reasons are relevant to morality, they must appeal to some other source of morality than society, because in reform, society is the perpetrator.

Any rational person would reject an argument in support of torture on the basis that everyone does it. It is a fallacious argument and moral relativism uses it.

One can't really, say another society is wrong

Do you hold yourself to your moral relativist standard here? I doubt it. Moral relativist act as if morality is objective, but deny is with their words. It’s call talking through both sides of your mouth.

By blowing themselves and others up, the Afghan terrorists have said it's OK for other to blow them up. If they don't want to be treated that way, they should stop.

Is there some absolute standard that says if you do X to a person/society it’s okay for someone to do X back to that person or society? Or is this just more of your opinion?

As a moral relativist, you have no basis to require them to stop. How can one society act as if their morals are superior to the others society? There would have to be a standard above societal standards to do so. If a society attempts to interject in other societies functions, they are essentially making “Might” what is “Right.”

Treat others as you would like to be treated

I agree, but I have a basis for this principal. Go to another society who doesn’t follow this principal and your *opinion* is not morally correct. You act as if this is an absolute standard or something.

About the Aztecs, that was their way. I don't agree with it, but if I'm smart, I stay out of their neighborhood. I notice they're not active any more, btw

Thanks for the Aztec update.

The Aztecs are not active anymore; however, if country X decided to take up human sacrifice, the best you could say is: it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of X culture and if I am smart I will just stay out of there.

Again, treat others as you would like to be treated. Pretty simple

Is this simple as in: This is an absolute standard? Or is this simple in: this is just my subjective opinion; it has no bearing outside my social context?

Since society is your standard, what do you do when your society says treat others horribly even through you don’t want to be treated that way?

Life is short. Following some rules makes it less complicated and more pleasant. Plus, as you keep saying, if you follow the rules, you can reasonably expect others to follow the rules too. Ther's no need to bring the supernatural into it

Yes, life is short; eat drink and be merry. I think I have read that somewhere…

Who is talking about the supernatural? I’m just questioning moral relativism here. Can you justify moral relativism or not? Is moral relativism sound or not?

Are you saying you live in terror of facing your god in judgement, but at the same time you want nothing less/more? "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Do you think about this a lot?

The manner in which the question was phrased, was to be judged by your *own* actions. That is terrifying. Luckily (for me) I am not judged for how good I am, but my faith in Christ has taken this judgment away. It can for you also. Yes, I think about Gods grace a lot. Better his mercy than his wrath.

I’m not sure if you’re just completely oblivious to this Christian principal, or if you’re just shooting from the hip hoping to hit something.

I cannot define "good" any better than you can. That is why I am a relativist. You are the one making the claim for morality; that some things are "good" while others are not. It follows that you would have a definition for what "good" actually is

How does the circularity of the definition of “good” merit moral relativism?

We intuitively no what is good. Moral relativism denies the intuitive nature if the human. Because the relativist says empathy can be good in one culture and evil in another.

The act of using poison to harm or kill innocents could be called an act of evil, or malicious intent, wanton or reckless harm

Only within a society who deems it “evil.” According to moral relativism, this can be *good* in another society.

Rape infers an act against someone's will, or without permission, so it would be wrong

You’re making an absolute statement about morality at the same time you’re denying absolute morality. You are being incoherent.

An act against someone’s will is only wrong in our societal context (remember?). Unless you’re appealing to some absolute standard. Are you? Slavery is “an act against someone's will, or without permission” however, according to moral relativism this was morally correct at the time.

Is killing babies *sometimes* evil and *sometimes* good? Case-bycase basis.

Does case by case mean that torturing babies for fun is *absolutely* wrong? Or is there a circumstance or a society with an alternate standard that can do this and it be okay?

Smashing a newborn's head against a rock would be wrong. It is an innocent life being taken away.

Absolutely wrong? Or just according to our society? Your opinion?

Can you see how moral relativism starts to get ridiculous? If this just your opinion, someone with the opposite opinion is as equally valid.

Taking a vegetative child off life support is not evil, because there is no point in sustaining a brainless body. Aborting a fetus that is not yet a viable human being is also not evil.

We have been through the abortion issue already. You have failed to substantiate that the unborn are not individual human beings. Secondly, you are appealing to complex moral issues with life support. Start with the clear, or you’re more inclined to confuse the issue:

The Clear: Is there any context where torturing babies for fun is morally permissible? Be honest.

Taking life of any kind is not "good", but can make more sense than allowing life.

The first part of your statement that the taking any kind of life is not “good” is an absolute statement about morality. However, you qualify it with ambiguous exceptions. Lets loose the ambiguity and deal with clear cut cases. When can it make more sense to torture babies rather then not torture babies? I am not denying cases where there is an exception, however, those are determined by intent and motive, not behavior. I know of no motive/intent that justifies torturing babies.

No, animals can't distinguish poison as a TOOL for good or evil, but they can, through evolutionary instinct, recognize which plants, roots, insects, etc., are poisonous to them and avoid them. Comparitively, human children are incapable of intuiting poisons. They don't know about the good and evil aspects of the tools until they are taught.

Because children cannot intuitively grasp weather or not X is moral, doesn’t it follow that X is or is not moral.

It's not so much distinguishing good actions from bad actions, as promoting more healthy actions from unhealthy actions.

Healthy actions may or may not be moral. It can be healthy for someone to take somebody from the bus station and eat them (high protein). However, it is still immoral. Likewise, an unhealthy action can be moral too. It would be a moral action to push a child out of the way of a car, but unhealthy when you fall in the path and are struck.

Thus, healthy and unhealthy are unsupportive for your case.

Back when the cave man was clubbing his neighbor to get the good cave, at some point one of them realized if they worked things out, they could share the cave instead, and have better chances of propagating the species, safety in numbers, cooperation.

Nice hypothesis. What follows?

Evolution does not provide a foundation for morality. Why should anyone care about survival? After your dead who cares? If someone doesn’t care about such things, what does the evolutionary theory being promulgated here offer?

Then they learned that if instead of killing the guy from the next tribe to get his wooden bowl, they could invite him into their tribe, and he could teach them to make bowls.

You’re arguing from effect to cause (backwards). The effect does not identify the original intent. One problem with this is that you’re viewing morality as descriptive; just as a function of the environment utilizing the utility of behavior that promotes the survival of our species.

To say that a given action is natural (species preservation) is not to say that it is “good.”

Rape, having been around since the dawn of man, does not seem to have any evolutionary value. It has, IMO outlived it's evolutionary value, as we are certainly no longer short on human specimans.

You give a lot of opinions to support your position.

If an action is part of an evolutionary “programming” (so to speak) then the action cannot be deemed morally wrong. In order to deem action X wrong there would have to be a standard that transcends evolutionary action. This would seem to count against your position.

It is my subjective opinion that Hitler was wrong.

By subjective opinion, your conceding that it could be the case that your are wrong in your assessment. I suspect your going against the grain on your intuitive senses to hold to relativism. This is something moral relativists should reflect on more deeply (not that you haven’t, but I suspect your being dishonest).

My subjective opinion is the general society around Hitler was wrong, and weak, and scared.

What value does a subjective opinion have on such crucial matters? If there was a modern day madman with Hitler’s motif would you just say, well my opinion is that it is wrong, it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of X culture.

Rather, you (and I’m sure you will deny it here) would say such actions are absolutely wrong and should cease immediately or be forced to cease.

What about the Christians and all those they killed during the inquisition? What about the witch trials? Were they wrong?

Yes. They were WRONG to do so; absolutely wrong. However, all you can say is: it is after all just a "cultural" thing and we have no basis to judge the rightness or wrongness of the inquisition and witch trials.

What about God killing the first-born male of every household? Was he wrong?

No. He didn’t kill the first born male of “every” household. All the Egyptians had to do was obey, and put lambs blood on the door post. Bu they refused.

Step out of atheism and into theism. All are guilty according to original sin. God, can do what He please to the guilty. He has no obligation for mercy. Besides, if you take a logical approach, God could have saved all the first born that were lost. Either way, you have no grounds as a relativist to say its wrong; it’s just your opinion.

I told you previously. I'd rather people not generally feel they have a right to kill me, or steal from me, or lie to me, etc.

When someone says that they would “rather” feel some one should not do X, they are just asserting. There is no justification that they *ought* not do X.

Even if they are not going to hold by those principles, I still will, because life is just so much simpler if I do.

So, what your saying is I am going to do X because it’s simpler for me. Other people can Do X, Y, and Z because I have no grounds to prohibit it.

If I tell a lie, I have to keep track of it and possibly tell more lies to cover for it.

So you don’t tell lies because there hard to track and you might get confused. I see; it has nothing to do with whether telling a lie is right or wrong, but what is simpler. This must be that common sense you were talking about.

If I steal, I can't complain if soeone steals from me.

Then if you steel and you know it’s the case that no one will steel from you—it’s okay.

Also, we shouldn’t steel then because we lose our right to complain. What would we do if we lost that right? ;-)

In effect, you have stated that you don’t steel so you can reserve your right to complain if it happens to you. Excellent! When does morality come into play?

If I kill, same thing, and I also have to get rid of the body, and probably get caught and go to jail where I probably won't be able to escape the Bible-thumpers.

Let me takes notes. I can learn a lot about morality from a moral relativist.

Killing is wrong because:

1) I would have to get rid of the body
2) I would probably get caught (mental note: highlight # 2)
3) I could go to jail
4) There are bibles in jail

These have to be the best reasons I have ever heard on why it’s wrong to kill. Now I will never do it! I wish I had that moral relativist “common sense”

Why should I not kill?to not be killed

Therefore, if I can kill and know I wont be killed my self—DO IT! Good answer.

Why should I care about society?it makes the rules

Just because something is the case (X is against the law) doesn’t mean it ought to be the case. So this doesn’t help your position.

Why should I care about others? to in turn be cared about

If I know that a good deed will not be returned then I guess I should not to do it. You assume that something can be moral only of there is a return. This is a false presumption.

Why should I care about chaos? you don't have to; some people thrive on it. Sets of rules limit chaos. If you're going to live in a society, it's going to expect you to abide by it's rules. You can conform, or you can fight to change the rules. taht's your choice.

If society determines morality, and someone is going to change the standard moral rules of society, what standard can they appeal to? They would be immoral by default.

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE MORAL? To survive and thrive. You catch more flies with honey.

Survival acts do not make moral acts. This is why descriptive ethics is limited. Morality starts with intent and motives. Intent and motives can be moral or immoral. If you see a boy trip an old lady how can you tell from the observation whether the action is wrong? You would have to determine the intent of the boy before you can make a decision. The behavior is the same if it was accidental or intentional, but the intent is different.

Now, if you can't prove your god exists, why should I take you seriously?

Not everyone is reasonable. It is not a necessary failure on the part of a Christian if we cannot reach the unreachable.

Your failing to distinguish the reasons for accepting/rejecting moral relativism and the reasons for accepting/rejecting the existence of God. A person is expected to act out morals regardless of their position on divinity. When someone says X is or is not moral there needs to be justification. When someone says God exists or does not exist there are no immediate actions that need to be taken.

If we are talking about something like torturing innocent babies and someone cannot justify why it’s wrong without being arbitrary, then taking them seriously is being too generous.

The fact that you think God’s existence cannot be proven does not follow that God does not exist. It does not follow that there are no good reasons to believe in God’s existence. It follows that you have (for what ever reason) not been persuaded. Since I don’t know what has been presented to you, and you have provided no refutations of known evidences, I’ll just assume your emoting.

How do you justify your rules?
Common sense, mostly.

If common sense is the primary factory, then most people don’t have it. I said how do you *justify* not know. Most people sitting in jail cells (with some exceptions) have common sense to know what they did is wrong. While they were performing the act, they know it’s wrong. However, they did things for other reasons.

Common sense goes against moral relativism. You shoot yourself in the foot if morality is common sense.

The speed limit's faster on highways that have longer, less radical crves and are away from populated areas.

I am talking moral rules here, not whether or not parking meters should charge $3 hour, or $5 hour.

You shouldn't kill a person because s/he is of our species.

Who cares? There are too many of us anyway. What wrong with just killing one? Can moral relativism provide a sufficient reason?

An 18 year old can vote and die for country, but not drink liquor. OOPs, that last one's a bit off.

I find this odd too. Are saying that’s wrong? Gasp!

Whoever agres to the rules should follow the rules. If I move to a community that says I must mow my grass "X" number of times, then I must comply. But my neighbor in the back,outside the community property lines, is not held to the same standard.

My neighbor who lives in X society is required to kill 5 innocent children a week. He agreed to the rules of society X therefore he should follow the rules. My neighbor who is outside my community/society is not held to the same standard of “common sense” I am.

I believe RA only asks others to do as they say they are going to do, as he does what he says he will do. He behaves in a "morally correct" fashion, while observing others who supposedly have subscribed to both the unwritten rules he lives by and an entire subset, yet they frequently disregard their subset and look with disdain upon him. He finds this irksome. I don't blame him.

I don’t blame him either. However I listed the *you must* statements to show he takes it further—beyond moral relativism. The fact that you didn’t address my deductive propositions in the comment section shows that you cannot refute it.

With moral relativism, how can you justify any “you must” statements?It's difficult. Have to go with laws on record, in the society at hand. But that's why we have such thick law books and things like amendments. Society, morality, law, it's all fluid. Like glass. It's just moving so slowly you can't see it.

Laws do not equal morality. There are groups and subgroups in society that are not fluid. Society as a whole is divided and laws books are boring.

I can think of no absolute foul line standard at the moment. The lines have been moving throughout history whether you like it or not. Can't you see how they've moved?

Here is one: Torturing babies for fun is absolutely wrong for all people, all times and all places. this is as clear as 1+1=2.

Just because people/societies have done horrendous act in the past, it doesn’t follow that there are no absolute morals. It’s a Non sequitur.

Something can be wrong for all, but not to all.

If an entire society thought 2+2 was 5 would that mean it equaled 5? No, they had their sum wrong.

Here is what I put on an earlier post about disagreements:

**********
For example, if people disagree about whether or not the earth is round, it is not proof that the earth has no shape. Moral relativism fails to make the vital distinction between our opinions about morality and morality itself. To perform genuine moral thinking and deliver judgment between alternative points of view, one must make distinctions between our opinions about morality and morality itself, or there simply is no such thing as ethical deliberation.

To further examine the case for disagreement, it should be noted that in most cases, disagreements stem from factual discord, rather than having different morals. For example, in abortion, the pro-life position is that fetuses are full and valuable human beings. There is no doubt, that the pro-choice position holds that it is morally wrong to kill innocent persons. Therefore, we are in total agreement on this moral standard. However, where the disagreement stands, is whether or not the fetus is a person. The abortion debate is a debate about facts, not what is moral and what is not.

Another clear example of factual dispute, rather than moral dispute is cows in India. Frances Bewitch tells us that many people who live in India do not eat cows because they believe in reincarnation. In their belief, these cows may possess the souls of deceased human beings and ancestors. In the U.S., we do not hold that cows have human souls. For this reason, we eat cows (and their good) — but we do not eat Grandma. It appears on the surface, therefore, that there is a fundamental value difference between Indians and Americans. Beckwith says, “This is a hasty conclusion, however, for both cultures do believe it is wrong to eat Grandma; the Indians, however, believe the cow may be Grandma. Thus it is a factual and not a value difference that divides our culinary habits”

.
**********
I would say that disagreement shows that moral relativism is false. Moral relativism asserts that there is no absolute right and wrong; however, in order to have disagreement you actually have to have at least two opposition positions who actually think their right!. Disagreement requires someone to be right and someone to be wrong. 2+2=5 or 2+2=4. Just because we can argue over our sums, it doesn’t follow there is no correct answer.

I disagree that calling foul is useless. That is how laws get changed. That is how minds get changed. That is how a society ends up not being "trapped". Someone has the courage to say, "Hey,,,wait a minute...!"

You can’t have it both ways here. If society determines morality, then where do reformers get their morality? Society cannot be both the standard of morality and not the standard of morality. There can be no such thing as reform without appealing to a standard above society.

See

Some Q&A on Moral Relativism (Part I)

Some Q&A on Moral Relativism

2006-04-19T20:43:00.000-07:00

In the comment section of Radical Skepticism—and When Moral Rules Don’t Apply, Karen has made some observations and comments that warrant a response:

I couldn't open your toothpaste threads, will try again later. But I disagree on so many points with your Objective Morality thread, it isn't funny.

I see why you would disagree. The post starts at the position of moral objectivity, so I wouldn’t necessarily expect you to (as a moral relativist). However, at least you can get an idea of how I ground morality after discovering its objectivity. The links worked fine for me. Perhaps something is was wrong with blogger as usual. I discuss postmodern thought and moral subjectivity in Toothpaste Ethics Part One and Two. When ever I get the time, I may write more comprehensively on moral relativism specifically.

I guess the main point [of disagreement] would be this one: “If God does not exist, then morality is only a human convention and is ultimately meaningless”.

If you would, don’t just brush that off as rhetoric (no accusations that you were). Just think about this deeply. If morality is a mere convention what will it matter in 1000 years if you are a good person or bad one? Perhaps it matters to you now and those who surround you, but ultimately it will make no difference. If there is no God, then nothing will have ultimate meaning because the universe is on a course for disaster expanding faster and faster and set to ripped to shreds. The key word is *ultimate* here. I wouldn’t deny meaning per se, but rather some higher level of justice that seems consciously intuitive.

But you see, morality IS a human convention. What other species has it?

There are some serious difficulties with making morality a “human convention.” Moreover, several questions arise:

Why should anyone be moral? Why should someone be moral when it conflicts with their own self interest? Are we in someway held accountable for our moral actions? We have laws, but if a perpetrator is not caught, can there be justice?

If Morality is a mere convention, then it is subjective. What is good and evil from the point of subjectivity? Can there be such a thing, or are these concepts just some subjective late century idea? How does an opinion weigh in on factors of morality?

If good and evil are subjective, then no one is really good or evil, because that changes as conventions change, whether socially, or individually. Good and evil change from one person to another from society to society; there is no standard to judge actions of other societies, cultures and times.

If one is trapped in their own society or culture of morality, how can moral progress be distinguished? How can you evaluate social constructs of morality from within that very construct?

God is also a human convention.

I am willing to hear your case on this. I think there are sufficient reasons to believe in the existence of God. However, there are cases where people can create their own deity, so in a sense you’re correct, but I don’t see how you can be conclusive in this. This is more of an assertion than an argument.

Where was god-and I assume you mean your Christian god-when Neanderthal Man was clubbing his neighbor for possession of the good cave?

If morality is mere convention, then there is nothing wrong with clubbing your neighbor. These were the social values of the time right? So, to say these are “wrong” to which is insinuated, is meaningless unless some sort of objective value exists.

The Neanderthal man is a scientific blunder, as many alleged cave men. There are many Piltdown man stories that are depressing.

Violence between two people, cultures, and groups does not mean there is no God. You’re making a statement under the presupposition that if god exists, the earth should be a paradise.

According to Christian theology, people are not robots. Thus, they have free will. Anytime there is a possibility of free will, there is a possibility of wrong doing. Moreover, the Christian world view provides answers to why people are immoral (i.e. the fall).

Morality is hardly meaningless. Some sense of right and wrong provides order amid the chaos.

Morality is not meaningless, but essential. However, if there is no justification for morality where does the meaning come from? Remember, your position is that morality is a convention. Hence, meaning is a mere convention as well.

If morality is a conventional, then why is chaos wrong? If one culture finds itself in chaos, what standard do you appeal to when determining if another culture is wrong for doing so?

(That's probably THE one benefit of religion-that it bends some people to the law who would otherwise would not be bent.)

God is not a crutch for morality, but rather a source. Some recognize the intuitive nature of morality, while others avoid it because it requires a source. The source is still there, but the recognition is not.

What makes it *good* if someone is moral? If *good* is determined by society, then why should I care about what society says?

If society determines what is right and wrong and that society is *correct.* How can one condemn any other society for anything? On what basis should Afghanistan terrorists listen to an appeal to stop blowing themselves and other people up? What standard cana moral relativist appeal to?

If society sets the standard of moral values, then there was nothing wrong with the Aztecs sacrificing humans by cutting there heart out and the sacrifice of hundreds (or even thousands) of children.

Maybe you need some final reckoning, some ultimate accountability, to behave fairly and with goodness in this world, but I and lots of others do not.

From your moral relativist positions, what is your standard of “fair” and “goodness”?

It is not my position that non-believes cannot be moral. Rather, they cannot justify why they *ought* to be moral.

There’s nothing less that I desire than to be held “ultimately accountable” for my actions. A final reckoning is something to be terrified of. There is no one good enough to stand in front of a righteous God and be shameless.

Your assertion that "good" needs no definition, btw, is nonsense,

What I mean is that any descriptive definition of good is circular (insofar as the English language). The synonymous terms and definitions used to define are essentially the same as “good” and hence, tend to be circular.

Since you think that is nonsense, I am open to your definition of good. I am also interested how you ground that definition.

as is your example of poison being evil. Poison is not evil, but dangerous. Used properly, it can be helpful. What's good for /to one person is not to the next. That's why it's RELATIVE.

Poison is relative as a tool. However, if someone maliciously poisons to kill an innocent person, village, or city etc. is it relative? Is it only *sometimes* evil? If someone poisons your food next time you eat out for dinner is only evil in some cases?

Is rape *sometimes* evil and *sometimes* good?

Is killing babies *sometimes* evil and *sometimes* good?

Here is the statement in context:
****
I've never realized that something is evil by staring at it under a microscope, nor have I ever used my sense of taste to determine what is evil. (Though I might use my intellect to realize that poison is evil, and use my taste to discover the something is poisoned).

****

The utilization of intellect can distinguish between poison as a tool of good or evil. However, my point in context was that animals don’t have the faculties to distinguish the two. Moreover, looking at chemical properties doesn’t establish good and evil, but rather the intellectual and intuitive faculties humans have do. Otherwise you’re just looking at “stuff.”

I may have been noting that things were bad in the past and morals-or laws- have since evolved, changed, grown, adapted to better suit current society as a whole. For instance, abolition of slavery; women's suffrage; child labor laws.

If morals evolve, how can you distinguish good actins from bad ones? In other words, if someone does some horrendous act, how do you know that they are not more evolved and such acts are the product of evolution?

Who’s to say that rape is not the evolving moral standard for our species?

I'm also dumbfounded that Christians teach their young to believe in a god and do not teach them to question it. Am I really distressed by that because it's morally wrong?

You’re failing to distinguish moral language. In your previous statement, it’s clear that you’re using loaded terms like “distressed” to conceal terms like *right* and *wrong.* Otherwise, what do you mean by distressed? Your counter examples show your use of the term in equivocation.

Hitler, I hope, was an aberration. He was not an entire isolated society that had been practicing a set behavior for generations upon generations. Hitler decided to carry out his plan of genocide within a general society which did not agree that it was morally correct to do so, even tough he was able to sway many to agree with him.

So was Hitler *absolutely* wrong? Or is it your subjective opinion he was wrong?

The general society of Hitler allowed the killing of 11 million people. As a society, were they wrong to allow it? Even if this was not a generation by generation carry over (there would be no one left) the Aztecs did human sacrifice that long. Were they wrong?

The Mongols made huge piles of people after they conquered adverse nations to generate fear and compliance from neighboring nations. Were they wrong?

But you are focusing on transcendent rules. I go by what I, and I believe RA des too, call "rules of thumb. Like Don't kill people, in general. Don't steal. Don't lie. Don't set fire to the bed while someone's in it, etc.

The problem that keeps happening over and over here is that you assert to not kill people, don’t steal, don’t lie, don’t start fires etc… However, you never tell why?

If morality is mere convention:

Why should I not kill?
Why should I care about society?
Why should I care about others?
Why should I care about chaos?

WHY SHOULD ANYONE BE MORAL?

If these questions can’t be answered, then why should I take you or any other moral relativist seriously?

We have rules. We just don't answer to a higher power about them.

How do you justify your rules? This is more arbitrary than anything.

Now if you go around saying you DO answer to a higher power and you're therefore "chosen" and will be rewarded at some point and we should be like you and we should allow you to incorporate YOUR subset of rules and your higher power into our everyday lives, we say, "Why should we? You don't even follow your own rules."

1. Distinguish between the rules and who is *supposed* to follow the rules

2. If some says they follow certain rules and don’t follow them, they lose credibility

3. You shouldn’t listen to people who are hypocrites. I keep saying this over and over. The problem is justified the *requirement* that people *ought* to follow the rules from the position of moral relativism.

4. I agree with observations of hypocrisy, and from my worldview I can justify compliance. However, I have yet to see a justification from the position of moral relativism. I’m al ears.

It's like my example of being vegetarian, even though you think I missed the point. Why do you call yourself a vegetarian if you aren't going to EAT like a vegetarian? If you want to be one, fine. Just do it at your own house, and don't eat my steak at mine.

I agree. This is a position I never argued against.

I'm not saying "You must" do anything.

This is the position that I argued against. From my world view, I can justify *ought* statements and *must* statements. In my discussion with RA, he was refereeing to the “you must” and I listed them in the comment section here.

With moral relativism, how can you justify any “you must” statements?

I am saying it's hypocritical to claim one thing and do another.

I have no beef with that.

I am curious though, is there something inherently wrong with being hypocritical (from the relativist perspective)?

You're saying I can't call "foul" because as you see moral relativism, there are no fouls for me. You are mistaken. I just don't need an invisible being shaking its finger at me to get me to toe the line.

Call foul. That’s not an issue with me.

Think about this from your own position for a while:

As a moral relativist, there is no absolute “foul” line. So you can call foul as much as you like, but all one needs to do is move the line and their in bounds. Unless of course, there some absolute foul line standard you can appeal to; otherwise calling foul is useless (in the world of relative morality).

See

Some Q&A on Moral Relativism (Part II)

Radical Skepticism—and When Moral Rules Don’t Apply

2006-04-08T22:45:00.000-07:00

As a Christian, I ought to act in a certain way, as I am to strive for a Christ like temperament. Everything I do and say represents the Christian faith, and as a good ambassador, I am to represent the values and love by expounded by Jesus Christ. As Christians are to maneuver wisely when interacting with opposing viewpoints, we also challenge bad thinking in accordance to how the bible teaches us to do so.

Atheists are fully aware of our commitment to gentleness and charity and are not afraid to call us out on our own terms of character. When a Christian illustrates hate toward others, the atheist who accurately points it out is correct in his observation. However, does the atheist have any ground to stand on to expect compliance? No.

The “Reluctant Atheist” (RA) has made this observation in his post “Where is the Love, the Love they expound upon?” However, rather than expound the love that Christians ought to in return, he has excluded himself from the principal, because he has not committed himself to any principal as Christians have. What the atheist wants is for the Christians to turn the other Cheek, while they take as many shots and low blows as they want. The only problem is that when an atheist denies the existence of objective moral standards, atheist cannot point out hypocrisy without refuting himself. When he huffs and puffs about Christians not following their moral code, he presuppose a moral code of following your moral code. But this is denied as we will see.

Below, is the dialogue I had with RA that reveals the self refutation of requiring compliance: To better differentiate, RA’s words will be in Orange. You will also note the atheist “harlessmonkey” and his radical skepticism. His words will be in Yellow.

In my first response to his post, I said the following:

RA,While I generally agree with your post, let me make a few comments. 1) Don’t expect Christians to roll over with their tail between their legs every time their challenged 2) Christians are human too, we may have our occasional slips, but so do you and everyone else. 3) There are occasions where calling reprehensible arguments what they are (insert whatever ‘belittling’ comment here) is necessary insofar as they are justified 4) both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin. Also note that as you said “Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes” and provided a supporting quote. Well, theists are constantly reduces to stereo types too:Quote: It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum. So you’re making a stereotype ascription to theists as well.I respect the fact that you want to eliminate the ad homs, but let’s not act as if you (or more often other atheistic blogs) have set the standard of the harmonious exchange of ideas when you bash, belittle, disparage, mock, and ridicule what Christians believe and the Bible ad nauseum (note this especially in comment sections, where dialogue occurs). Don’t get me wrong RA, I’m all for intellectual freedom, and I support your liberty to disagree, reject, and criticize any belief system including Christianity. But if I go through your atheist blog roll and read the posts what will I find? From a Christian perspective, I see Christianity, for lack of better words, shit on. Equally, there are dumb atheists, and there are dumb theists, and there are smart atheists, and there are smart theists, sometimes which ever boat you’re in, you have to call it the way you see it.

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’ I was wondering if you have posted on your system of morality, or are planning on doing so

In response to my comment, RA replies with the following:

BF:While I generally agree with your post, let me make a few comments. 1) Don’t expect Christians to roll over with their tail between their legs every time their challenged

I’d not expect any such thing from anyone. Sounds like a pre-judgment to me. When does ‘turn the other cheek’ ever apply?

2) Christians are human too, we may have our occasional slips, but so do you and everyone else.

Hey, no argument there.

3) There are occasions where calling reprehensible arguments what they are (insert whatever ‘belittling’ comment here) is necessary insofar as they are justified

Fine, then call the argument that, not the person. What qualifies as ‘reprehensible’, then? Genocide and pedophilia are reprehensible: abortion is not. Hatred is reprehensible. Murder is reprehensible.

4) both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.

Agreed. However: if you walk past a crazy person once, they make threatening, belittling comments, you never see that derelict again, well, easy enough to shrug it off. But you meet that person every day in some way, and this person does it again, and again, and again, until you dread the next day? This is an illustrative example.

Also note that as you said “Atheists say they constantly are reduced to stereotypes” and provided a supporting quote. Well, theists are constantly reduces to stereo types too:Quote: It's difficult to have a conversation with a theist, when the automatic assumption is that we're all 'tools of Satan', 'losers', the auto-assumption of 'self-worship', the 'lost soul', 'there are no atheists in foxholes', etc, etc, ad nauseum. So you’re making a stereotype ascription to theists as well.

In some ways: it’s also a matter of observation. It’s one of the many items that turned me away from the belief systems of religion altogether. Note that I avoided the blanket statement here: there IS an automatic assumption tacked on, for most. Note that I have two xtian friends, so no, not every xtian does this: but enough to make it a pattern.

I respect the fact that you want to eliminate the ad homs, but let’s not act as if you (or more often other atheistic blogs) have set the standard of the harmonious exchange of ideas when you bash, belittle, disparage, mock, and ridicule what Christians believe and the Bible ad nauseum (note this especially in comment sections, where dialogue occurs).

I’m not acting that way at all. I’m pointing out, that most (no, not all) of your side of the debate behaves quite poorly. YOU folks are the ones claiming higher moral ground: act accordingly.Now why do you think that is? Could it be a knee-jerk response, much like the one white folks encounter, when they seem to look at a black person cross-eyed, and the black person wants to beat the snot out of them? Whenever a minority comes of age, whenever a historically silenced group of folks finally find their voice, there’s going to be acrimony, there will always be anger. Let’s face facts: not until the 20th century, has an atheist even had the ability to speak out, or up. Note the L.A riots (blacks): or the Harvey Milk debacle (gays). Face it: your side has had power for far too long, and has abused it. This is the backlash. This is the aftermath of many decades of bottled resentment. I’m not saying it’s right: but when you fling feces and call foul, you spit on a person and not expect the same treatment in kind, well then, good luck changing human nature.

Don’t get me wrong RA, I’m all for intellectual freedom, and I support your liberty to disagree, reject, and criticize any belief system including Christianity. But if I go through your atheist blog roll and read the posts what will I find? From a Christian perspective, I see Christianity, for lack of better words, shit on. Equally, there are dumb atheists, and there are dumb theists, and there are smart atheists, and there are smart theists, sometimes whichever boat you’re in, you have to call it the way you see it.

See commentary above. Y’all made your bed: don’t complain to me if it’s a tad on the lumpy side.

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’ I was wondering if you have posted on your system of morality, or are planning on doing so.

No, you have it all wrong. Again, your side likes to take the ‘moral high ground’. It’s a stumping point, which irritates me to no end, when few enough actually walk the talk. I’m more than willing to forgive the occasional slip, as we are all human, and prone to error. But your side always seems to do it w/a certain amount of glee. Perhaps as mine does. But we don’t have a book of rules to tell us otherwise: YOU DO. Look up the concept of ‘agape’. No referral to tektonics, please: I find Holding’s ‘extenuating circumstances’ a little on the convenient side. As to morality? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Note that that was espoused by JC, Hillel, and Confucius alike, so no accusations of ‘borrowing’, please. The Golden Rule suits me just fine. Read the post ‘Ahimsa’: I believe that fits it all very well. I don’t need a novel-length explanation of what I do, and why I do it. "Whoever imagines himself a favorite with God, holds otherpeople in contempt."Whenever a man believes that he has the exact truth from God,there is in that man no spirit of compromise. He has not themodesty born of the imperfections of human nature; he has thearrogance of theological certainty and the tyranny born of ignorantassurance. Believing himself to be the slave of God, he imitateshis master, and of all tyrants, the worst is a slave in power."-Ingersoll, Some Reasons Why
11:58 PM, April 05, 2006

By way of reply, I said:

RA,I said I agreed with your post in general. I think that ad homs are an impediment to fruitful discussion. Now, regarding the “Christian Moral Code”: Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. It does teach, however, that Christians ought to advance moral ethical behavior (this is where we agree). However, the Bible also (since you brought it up) advances the periodic mocking to the opposing view point (1 Kings 18:27), and calls non-Christians foolish (1 Cor. 1:20) and fools (Rom 1:22) and corrupt (Psalm 14:1). The Bible also calls unbelievers wicked. And the passages you posted are misused. It seems that you want the Christians to be the wishy washy doormat that any atheist gets to walk all over because they don’t have a “book of rules” and theists do. While acrimony is justified for the atheist due to centuries of oppression (even when they have never personally experiences this historical oppression-if there was such), and the theist gets to respond with a cheesy smile while everything they believe to be sacred, holy, and personal gets shit on. This is more like the fallacy of self exclusion. How would you like it if someone slandered and spat in your mothers face (or someone close to you)? Well, imagine that feeling. I think that many Christians have done well—some not. I’m not arguing that you are completely unjustified; your frustrations are certainly warranted. You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:

"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"

Your “Ahimsa” post blurs some distinctions (well, take into consideration I’m on my first cup of coffee). So maybe you can answer this question so I can better understand where your coming from: The golden rule is catchy, but, according to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong? Contrary to what you may (or may not) think, the golden one liner doesn’t answer the question (or “Ahimsa”).

8:29 AM, April 06, 2006

Another atheist who fittingly goes by hairlessmonkey likes to give his two cents.

bf said:"Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians."Huh?What?Come again?Did I hear your lunacy right?Then why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?Yeah, riddle me this...
10:34 AM, April 06, 2006

RA Follows up:

Now, regarding the “Christian Moral Code”: Christianity doesn’t teach that Christians are morally superior to non-Christians. It does teach, however, that Christians ought to advance moral ethical behavior (this is where we agree). However, the Bible also (since you brought it up) advances the periodic mocking to the opposing view point (1 Kings 18:27), and calls non-Christians foolish (1 Cor. 1:20) and fools (Rom 1:22) and corrupt (Psalm 14:1). The Bible also calls unbelievers wicked. And the passages you posted are misused.

Okay, so Kings, Elijah's mocking the prophets of Baal. Psalm 14:1 (don't even need to look that up) says that only a fool says there's no god.1 Corinthians 1:20 (King James Version)King James Version (KJV)20 - Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?&22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,Sorry, but nowhere in any of those do I see a license for xtians to resort to mockery. I believe the phrase here, is 'cherry-picking'. & if you'd be so kind, show me how the passages I quoted were misused.

It seems that you want the Christians to be the wishy washy doormat that any atheist gets to walk all over because they don’t have a “book of rules” and theists do. While acrimony is justified for the atheist due to centuries of oppression (even when they have never personally experiences this historical oppression-if there was such), and the theist gets to respond with a cheesy smile while everything they believe to be sacred, holy, and personal gets shit on. This is more like the fallacy of self exclusion. How would you like it if someone slandered and spat in your mothers face (or someone close to you)? Well, imagine that feeling. I think that many Christians have done well—some not. I’m not arguing that you are completely unjustified; your frustrations are certainly warranted.

I would not expect any human being to subject themselves to having a welcome mat on their backs, thank you very much. As to being passionate about something sacred - I take your point. Freedom is my sacred cow, and the bill of rights, so understood.

You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:"I find the vast (no hyperbole) majority of apologists to be egocentric, sophistic, spiteful malcontents, w/far too much time on their hands and convinced of their moral superiority"

You realize, of course, that this can also be an honest assessment of the matter? If you read more of my posts, you'll probably find that I'm something of a hard ass. Atheist or theist. I am on record as having gone rounds w/more than 1 atheist. So if I see something wrong, I'm gonna say so. I don't care who you are, what you believe, if I think an opinion's a crock, or I find a commentary that I personally think is reprehensible, you (or the person who said it) is going to hear it. If the Shrub was an atheist, I'd STILL say he's an incompetent boob. Read my post, 'When Atheists attack!'. I'm big on rules. You agree to the rules, you play by them. I agree to them, so do I. If this makes me unpopular w/my fellow atheists, well, I could give a rat's fart in a whirlwind. If no 1 says anything, silence is taken as assent. To paraphrase John Adams, "Facts are those pesky critters that don't go away."

Your “Ahimsa” post blurs some distinctions (well, take into consideration I’m on my first cup of coffee). So maybe you can answer this question so I can better understand where your coming from:
The golden rule is catchy, but, according to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?Contrary to what you may (or may not) think, the golden one liner doesn’t answer the question (or “Ahimsa”).

Don't harm others: what else is there to say? Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others. It IS that simple. Empathy. The 'golden 1 liner'? Is that...perchance mockery I hear? ;) Go ahead & re-read it (after the 3rd or 4th cup). I'm curious as to how I blurred the distinctions.
11:17 AM, April 06, 2006

My reply

Monkey,I am just as much as a loser as anyone else (believer or non-believer). I make mistakes, sometimes dumb and immoral ones. There are many non-Christians (read: Gandhi) who have exemplified superior moral conduct than many Christians. So, when I said that Christianity does not teach that Christens are morally superior, it was a correct statement. As I stated before, Christianity does teach that Christians *ought* to be moral, because it’s what God wants and we now have the assistance of the Holy Spirit.I suppose if I accused you of “lunacy” I would be charge with the immoral tendencies to “harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.” But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

“Why is the god of the bible so adamant that none may be worshipped but he?”

Because according to the Bible, he is the only true God and a jealous one at that.

“And why does he, by the proxy of his followers, wage war upon those who feel/think/live differenlty?”

He doesn’t

RA, I never said that the passages were a license for mockery. I pointed out that in contrast, the Bible says that unbelievers are fools, wicked etc… and if the Bible teaches it, we are justified articulate biblical expressions and teachings insofar as it’s used in context of how it was used in the Bible. I’m a little more gracious theist, but read this article and it will give the root of what I’m talking about. In regards to Ahimsa, I think you failed to address the following: you did not define evil. Is it your opinion? What is the standard to which you measure it? Where does the standard come from? If it’s your own personal convention why should anyone accept your definition? Does your subjective opinion apply to anyone else? Can you force your morality on anyone? Why? Why not? The golden 1 liner is not mockery, it just doesn’t answer the essential questions, and it’s a cop out. I like how you dodged my question:According to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?
1:04 PM, April 06, 2006

RA comes back with another retort:

BF:I never said that the passages were a license for mockery. I pointed out that in contrast, the Bible says that unbelievers are fools, wicked etc… and if the Bible teaches it, we are justified articulate biblical expressions and teachings insofar as it’s used in context of how it was used in the Bible. I’m a little more gracious theist, but read this article and it will give the root of what I’m talking about.

Thanks for the article. It was most amusing. I consider that complete sophistry, BTW. Cherry-picking. That's EXACTLY what that article claimed: license for mockery.

In regards to Ahimsa, I think you failed to address the following: you did not define evil. Is it your opinion? What is the standard to which you measure it? Where does the standard come from? If it’s your own personal convention why should anyone accept your definition? Does your subjective opinion apply to anyone else? Can you force your morality on anyone? Why? Why not? The golden 1 liner is not mockery, it just doesn’t answer the essential questions, and it’s a cop out.

Evil=harm. In word or deed. No, I didn't fail to address it at all. No, the 'golden 1 liner' does answer the question, stop poisoning the well.

I like how you dodged my question:According to your moral system are you saying this is wrong because it IS wrong? Or, Is it wrong because you SAY it’s wrong?

Oh, this old dodge. I could see this coming a mile away. Standard talking point. If I say it's wrong because it is, then we have the same old discussion about 'objective morality'. If I say it's because I say so, then it's self-worship.It's wrong because it is. Causing pain is wrong.
10:13 PM, April 06, 2006

I suppose if I accused you of “lunacy” I would be charge with the immoral tendencies to “harangue, harass, belittle, and otherwise behave like children who have been poorly toilet trained.” But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

Listen:A. I didn't call them immoral, I called them hypocritical.B. "As you sow, so shall you reap."Oh, wait: I misused that quote (somehow).Never mind.
10:18 PM, April 06, 2006

Hairlessmonkey given his best:

And so we come back to this,as always:

"Because according to the Bible, he is the only true God and a jealous one at that. "

But since there's no reason to believe (other than -wanting to-)that the bible is the infallible word of said god...well, we just tumble down into the abyss of circular logic.

Monkey, You asked me the question, so I answered. I see that no matter what response I would have given would be insufficient. So why did you ask? Interacting with you, since you auto-reject everything that I say without benefit of argument, is waste of time. Anyone can make assertions, atheist, theist, whatever…, but if you want to claim the intellectual high ground at least back it up.
10:22 AM, April 07, 2006

[This is where the radical skepticism becomes obvious—the Monkey could care less if there is evidence for God/Christianity; he doesn’t want to believe and he doesn’t have to]

So he shows his true colors, again, and again…

Bf.All I asked... hell, all I EVER WILL ask, is that you prove the infallibility of the book you get your morals from.Sorry.. I know that's a tall order.But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument.
11:06 AM, April 07, 2006

It really is very easy.It is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims to prove such proclamations.In other words,prove not only that god exists,but that he/she/it conforms to your interpretation of the "rules".If you can manage THAT,THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.
11:11 AM, April 07, 2006

The monkey says:

“But don't give me your bitchy little, "Well, so are you!",- argument. If you can manage THAT, THEN I might consider your outpourings as more than mouthiness.”This must be the empathy RA was talking about.
11:55 AM, April 07, 2006

What kind of evidence would count as proof?

bf.Evidence of the bible's veracity for one.And don't dump a few linksfrom Dembski, Tectonics or, worse,Fall-Down-The-Well.We're not children here.We've been through this before.We'll need actual facts...you know, the kind that allowed man to walk on the moon...not the kind that condemned people for saying the earth had a roundish shape.Another thing would be proving the existence of god...pick a god, any god.In essence, my antagonistic toneaside, why believe when there's absolutely nothing to support it?
2:34 PM, April 07, 2006

Out of your entire rant, you still didn’t answer my question.What kind of evidence would count as proof? In other words, what would you consider as proof?
2:38 PM, April 07, 2006

And again he gives it his best shot:

Plus:"This must be the empathy RA was talking about."Wow. There's that bitchiness again.You want my empathy?Then don't act like a jilted lover,when all I do is ask obviously needed questions, okay?And remove the stick while you're at it, and have a seat.There's a chair here for youand we do value your input.So quit with the petulant facade,sit down and expound.
2:39 PM, April 07, 2006

Is it possible that your criterion for evidence is not reasonable? Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Skeptics like yourself will always succeed at being a skeptic. Your request is predicated on the assumption that a theistic argument is unsound unless it can meet some apodictic standard of proof. Thus, I’ll pass on your request, because it would never meet your satisfaction.
4:03 PM, April 07, 2006

[As you will see, at least I make good comedy for the atheist]

You do make comedy easy:

"Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? "

Uh... I suppose that ifhe's all-powerful and omnipotentI'd not have a choice.I'd be convinced by the veryfact that I couldn't choose NOT to.

"Thus, I’ll pass on your request, because it would never meet your satisfaction. "

Translated to human-language:"I have no real argument,so I must run".Bye, buddy.Do drop in again.
4:34 PM, April 07, 2006

[For an atheist who flaunts their high moral code, we start to see the double standard—the fallacy of self exclusion. It’s a maneuver called Christians are hippocrates but I’m not]

Here is where RA give's me the you have to be good, but I don’t argument:

BF:This must be the empathy RA was talking about.

Well, at the risk of 'siding' w/HMDK, you HAVE been making the effort to turn the tables on the skeptics in that regard. I've been making the effort to remain civil, but I keep hearing, "What about you?" every time a criticism is voiced.Such as:

But I guess “Fair & equal treatment, what you expect for yourself, you should give to others” doesn’t apply if it comes from an atheist.

Or:

You do however make some pretty strong moral claims:

or:

On a side note, I see that you like to take the ‘moral high ground.’

While normally I consider turnabout fair play, I find the 'Jerry Springer' apologist (no, not you, though you're starting to lean towards it) particularly obnoxious.What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard). I am all for spirited debate. But unless a set of rules is agreed upon in advance, it's pretty much free-style, isn't it?I feel obliged to point these things out. If I saw a Buddhist who claimed to be a pacifist starting fights all the time, well, you get my drift. I do strive for some kind of standard, though I fumble, as any human does. I find this statement telling:

I am just as much as a loser as anyone else (believer or non-believer).

Perhaps I'm taking this out of context, but this says so much to me.I feel:A. Loser isn't a person, it's a mindsetB. This reeks of original sin& there we have another divide. OS (original sin) is perhaps 1 of the more unbelievable doctrines of xtianity. I find that reprehensible. It stunts the mental potential of every human being that believes it. I find it loathsome: that humanity is some thalidomide baby, purposely stunted by its maker upon existed. What kind, loving being would wish that upon its offspring? & for the sin of the father? I call it cruel: I call it inhumane, I call it many things. & washing 1's sins away in the blood of another, no matter the name? I'm sorry, but that smacks of savagery. In this, I DO take the higher ground. Moral, intellectual, whatever you choose to call it.
As to this:

both atheist and theist would do better if they lighten up and develop thicker skin.

Well, there is a way to do this.Turn the other cheek.Live by your own rules, is my advice. Set an example. & I give you this:"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails." (First Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 13, verses 4-8a)"I do not need to abide by these rules, as I've not agreed to them. It is you & yours that lay claim to the higher ground. Justify & represent: that's all I ask. That, & honesty. Make of that what you will.
5:54 PM, April 07, 2006

RA,Let’s take this to its logic conclusion: If “there really IS no set standard,” then there is no standard to which others must follow their own standard. In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.
6:43 PM, April 07, 2006

BF:If “there really IS no set standard,” then there is no standard to which others must follow their own standard. In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.

I did say this (in its entirety):What I see is an effort to make the other side bend to your rules (a bootless effort: each atheist plays by their own rules, there really IS no set standard).Yes, let's do this. The rules are set by 2 items: the individual's upbringing, and the environment set around the individual. I was talking about debate, failed to qualify, & so we'll talk in circles a bit. My standard is...well, I've given it to you. This was formed by a # of negative experiences as a child, which makes 1 either A. Totally numb, orB. Empathic, or C. SociopathicI went w/B.
Now this:

In other words, there are no rules that one *ought* to follow their own rules.

You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow. Set at the core of these, is empathy. If an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed. In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow. Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration. So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly. I still have YET to hear about my misuse of scripture quotation. Oh, & this:

Even if God appeared before you, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know?

Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?
11:36 PM, April 07, 2006

RA,
You said:

You have consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, in accordance w/the agreement of your specific clique/herd/choose noun of your choice.

Agreed, but my specific set of parameters qualifies me to its adherence. Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them. It’s not as if just because one has consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, one *ought* to follow those parameters. What if there was a group who’s specific set of parameters was to murder atheists? Would you require them to follow those parameters? I think not (neither would, but actually oppose it). It’s not just about having parameters (or rules), we must be able to appeal to a standard to judge whether or not those rules *ought* to be followed. Hence, if you deny objective standards, you disqualify your own standard of requiring others to hold to their own standard. It’s self refuting.

In order for any individual in a pack environment to exist w/said pack, there is obviously select patterns to maintain. This is observable in humanity, in nature, w/any living organism (sans the loner animal).

According to this, only that “pack” that holds to these values can enforce them. If you have two different “packs,” with two different sets of “pack” values, one “pack” cannot force it’s own values on another “pack.” If it can, then were talking about might makes right and whomsoever can overpower, will be in the right.

There are indeed set social mores, that we're obliged to follow.

And if the standard of society is racism are we obligated to follow? Was Martin Luther King going against his obligation to follow the ‘social mores’? According to this standard, there can never be moral reform in a society, and people in social mores like Nazi Germany were “obligated to follow.”

Set at the core of these, is empathy.

First you say that there is no standard, and then you say that empathy is the standard. Which is it? If empathy is something that everyone *ought* to follow then it is and objective moral standard. If it is an objective moral standard, where does it come from? If empathy objective moral standard, then there no necessary requirement for anyone to follow it.

an animal sets itself against the pack, more often than not, that animal is outcast, or destroyed.

Yes, but if your not in the pack, you don’t get to kick out pack members.

In your pack, the parameters were set 2000 years ago, by an alpha wolf. Apparently, said parameters were almost impossible to follow. Whereas, in my pack, we have set ourselves outside the majority, ergo, in a manner of speaking, there's a certain amount of isolation. Hence the anger, the frustration. So if you're trying to set up some strawman attack (& if I'm off on this, apologies), that's not going to fly.

I am really not tying to set up a straw man. What I am doing is showing where your position logically follows. If you want to show that it’s not where your position logically follows, I’m all ears.

Perhaps the better question, would be: how would you know yourself? What is your criterion? I'm genuinely curious. Have you had such a thing occur?

I don’t know that this is a better question per se; noting that I asked this question in response to monkeys request to “Show me god.” But since it seems that you genuinely asked the question I will do my best to answer. I have not had such things occur. While we don’t have infallible cognition, in my Christian worldview, I would use my faculties as I do any other. Most importantly, I would test the experience with it’s consistence with what God has already revealed in his Word. This is not to say that I could prove God came before me to any one; I can only know that I had an experience. This is why when monkey said to show him God, I knew even that would not suffice. I was not using experience as an argument (not that you were insinuating), rather as an example that no matter what is presented (it seems) — he would not believe—even with an experience. Though, experience is a positive form of evidence; inexperience is neutral on the existence of the object in question. There is a difference between artificial, make-believe skepticism and genuine doubt. I have no problems when people challenging certain claims—they ought to, but skeptics can always be successful at being a skeptic no matter what is presented before them.
1:12 PM, April 08, 2006

The Wall goes up and never comes down:

BF:

Agreed, but my specific set of parameters qualifies me to its adherence. Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.

So this is your roundabout way of saying, "You can't criticize me?" Nu-UH. Obviously, I have a set of parameters to follow: otherwise, you'd be reading about me in the newspapers, or seeing me on an episode of 'Cops'.

Hence, if you deny objective standards, you disqualify your own standard of requiring others to hold to their own standard. It’s self refuting.

No way, no dice. Nice try. No such thing as 'objective standards'.

It’s not as if just because one has consciously chosen to follow a specific set of parameters, one *ought* to follow those parameters. What if there was a group who’s specific set of parameters was to murder atheists? Would you require them to follow those parameters? I think not (neither would I, but actually oppose it). It’s not just about having parameters (or rules), we must be able to appeal to a standard to judge whether or not those rules *ought* to be followed.

'Do unto others...', see, it still applies. I'm really making an effort here not to resort to 'appeal to ridicule', or the ad hominem: your 'murdering atheist' analogy almost opens up a whole can of worms.

According to this, only that “pack” that holds to these values can enforce them. If you have two different “packs,” with two different sets of “pack” values, one “pack” cannot force it’s own values on another “pack.” If it can, then were talking about might makes right and whomsoever can overpower, will be in the right.

Which is historically verifiable.

And if the standard of society is racism are we obligated to follow? Was Martin Luther King going against his obligation to follow the ‘social mores’? According to this standard, there can never be moral reform in a society, and people in social mores like Nazi Germany were “obligated to follow.”

Again, sadly, historically verifiable. File under 'moral relativism'. However, social mores change, and they DO evolve. There will always be problems, ironed out in time, but evolution gives us the ability to move forward. It takes one mutation, whether that's in the social meme, or in the act of speciation, to change the flow of life.

Yes, but if your not in the pack, you don’t get to kick out pack members.

I'm not in a position to kick anyone out. Honesty impels me to point it out.

I have no problems when people challenging certain claims—they ought to, but skeptics can always be successful at being a skeptic no matter what is presented before them.

Not a cheap shot, but the same claim can be made for religious folk.

Thus far, your successful adoption of my simile sways me not in the slightest. It's simplistic reductionism. As a pack animal, we as a species have evolved a far more intricate, complex set of interactions that (dare I say it? YES!) transcend the simpler format that you've presented. If we were talking about dogs, all of your examples would be correct. But we are talking about a creature w/approx. a billion (guesstimate) separate mechanisms used to interact w/other creatures of the same species. To pare those down to just 1 core ingredient? I'm going to have to go w/empathy. There may be a couple of more.Ingersoll moment - "'Thou shalt not kill' is as old as time itself, as most men object to being killed."& so, regardless of whatever Gordian knots of logic you use, I will, to borrow a metaphor, cut them w/my blade. I haven't named the bloody thing yet. How goes fatherhood, BTW?
2:41 PM, April 08, 2006

RA, Fatherhood is tiring, but magnificent; thanks for asking. I see you’re taking Alexander’s sword to cut through “Gordian Knots.” Well that’s fine, if you refuse take your view to its logical conclusion, then you only proved my point about skepticism. Otherwise, feel free to show how my argument is logically false. I am going to be posting our dialogue on my blog. Don’t be flattered, it’s not that you’re so “fascinating”, but I did spend more than 2 ½ minutes on it so…you can pull your rational card out there if you like.

____

Update:

BF:

Well that’s fine, if you refuse take your view to its logical conclusion, then you only proved my point about skepticism.

I'm sorry, how is that? Likewise:

Someone without any specific set of parameters (Read: rules) has no specific set of parameters (rules) to require those who have chosen to adhere to a certain specific set of parameters to actually adhere to them.

You know, I was actually looking for some honesty. You've shown some. Then you hide behind an article that echoes an old essay of Holding's (see, if they're really AWFUL people, we get to say whatever we want about them!), then you want to quibble on the concepts of standards (another old dodge), & my only error isn't handing you a 500 word essay which you won't agree w/anyways. So in short, you've achieved very little, outside a post on your blog. Except validating your methodology for yourself in a vast labyrinth of sophistry.To quote Merv Pumpkinhead, "I ain't afraid to call a spade a goddam shovel."No offense: I gotta call 'em the way I see 'em.

I think you missed my point. I am not justifying inappropriate personal attacks for myself or anyone else. I told you I agreed with you on that point. I don’t want to push the issue. You can make an observation that someone is not following their code. However, you CANT tell them to follow their own code while rejecting an objective standard without refuting yourself. In effect, you’re saying there are no “codes.” Then you say, you must follow your code. If you *must* follow your code then there is an objective standard; you refute yourself. I think the distinction is between identifying hypocrisy vs. requiring adherence. You can do the former, but you run into problems with your own philosophy when you do the later. That’s all. Anyway, I don’t want to think of our exchange as just another post for me, rather for something we should both think about. Thanks for the dialogue

BF:

I think the distinction is between identifying hypocrisy vs. requiring adherence. You can do the former, but you run into problems with your own philosophy when you do the later.

I'm sorry, I did understand your point...but it does indeed sound very much like, "Well, you're not 1 of us, so therefore, you don't get to criticize."I don't require adherence from anyone: I require adherence from myself, in re: my own code.Sadly, I hope that others look in a mirror, & are honest. I try to be self-aware (agonizingly so), but perhaps it's just naivete, that I expect others to do the same. But I don't need to be an Emperor to say: "The Emperor has no clothes."

It’s not a your not a Christian; therefore, you can’t criticize Christians (or anyone for that matter) type of argument. It’s a: you’re a moral relativist; therefore, you forfeited your right to say that others *ought* to do ANYTHING argument. Simple.

You don’t need to be an Emperor to see that he has no clothes, but you can’t tell the Emperor to get his clothes on because you have no authority; you gave it up when you declared moral relativism.

Which goes to show: The Atheist has no clothes on

I think I can sum our conversation in one sentence: All the truth in the world will not persuade a closed mind.

------------------

Even though we didn’t get much head way, I want to thank RA for continuing the dialogue with me.

The Cult of Fetus Murderers

2006-03-27T13:57:00.000-08:00

Every once and a while, an atheist makes more than an incorrect statement; they make a complete distortion of an issue. I came across on of these incidences recently on this post on abortion. I want to make a couple comments, and then link to some recent posts on abortion that will cover the topic more in depth.

From the Post:

“There is a dangerous cult in this country and around the world. This cult attracts not just the naive religious types, but also those who consider themselves to be critical thinkers. The cult is that of the "Fetus Worshipers".”

Notice the terminology of “dangerous” here. Who is it exactly that supports killing a living being and tearing it out of the womb in pieces? Also notice that if you attempt to preserve the unborn child you are now a cult “fetus worshipper”—more below.

“This cult lives under the delusion that early stages of embryonic human life are full grown human beings - living and breathing and due rights that no one else in our society hold.”

This statement is another distortion; in fact it’s a straw man. Nobody is claiming that the unborn are “full grown human beings.” They are human beings in the early stages of development, but still human beings. Apparently, according to this atheist, “nobody” in society holds that the unborn are human beings that deserve right (like not to be murdered), I guess all the debate that’s been going around has just been my imagination! Also notice that this assertion is made without the benefit of a supporting argument.

“Most of the members of this cult are religious, with some exceptions, and most are conservatives.”

What does this have to do with anything? Most arguments used by pro-life advocates are not ‘religious’ arguments. Just because someone may be “religious” does it automatically follow that they do not have the right to speak out on an issue?

“Most of the members of this cult are religious, with some exceptions, and most are conservatives.”

Again, there is no supporting argument for either the pro-choice position or any form of “worship” here; the author is just trying to poison the well against anyone who is pro-life. Secondly, we don’t “disdain” women’s rights. This another diversion tactic often used by the pro-choice advocate. If the child is a human being; then the mother does not have the “right” to murder the child—just as she doesn’t have the right to molest, or abuse the child. The “woman’s rights” argument only works if the child is not a human being—that’s the issue—nothing else.

“In the view of many fetus worshipers, the fetus has the right to take the life of a woman if it is inside her body. Rapists are encouraged by the fetus worshipers to impregnate women and form more glorious fetuses which a woman must carry within her body for nine months. It is a bizarre cult indeed.”

This is a bizarre argument indeed. Before I address this, all these statements are not the primary reason that abortion is legal; the author is bringing in severe cases that put a spin on the issue. Primarily (with some exceptions), abortions are performed due to the inconvenience of having a child—an absolute selfish ideal.

It’s my view that during the pregnancy of the woman, if a medical issue arises (even during birth) that threatens the life of the mother and a decision has to be made to either save the mother or the child; I say save the mother.

The author states that pro-life advocates encouraged rapists to impregnate women—this is the most idiotic statement I have ever heard; only a true unethical and immoral person would state that about the opposing position. Dealing with the rape issue can get lengthy because of the ordeal the woman has to go through—but, the bottom line is, we must ask ourselves if we would abort a two year old for the same reason. If a pro-choice argument doesn’t work fro aborting a two year old child, then it doesn’t work for the unborn child.

“The cult has the idea that premature human forms have desires and thoughts. They do not. They do not desire to be born. They do not desire to destroy their mother or endanger her life. They are not rational, thinking, fully formed humans. They are fetuses. Get it?”

It’s unlikely that the unborn have thoughts as we do; however, none of these listed attributes are possessed by new born children either—so according to the same logic, we can kill newborn children and legalize infanticide—eight month olds are not “rational, thinking, fully formed humans,”. Why don’t pro-choicers’ check their own logic?

“This cult is personal to me because most of my fundaMentalist family belongs to this cult. My sister, who is just over 40 years old, recently remarried and decided to try to have a second child. She knew the risks and made the decision to try anyway realizing that the odds were substantial that the pregnancy would not mature. She became pregnant, but after about 2 months began having complications. She prayed. She went to the doctor and was told that the fetus was dead. It was not alive. She was devastated. She was told that she would need to have the dead tissue which was this fetus removed in order to avoid serious health risks. But being a fetus worshiper, she could not bring herself to have it removed. She bled for over a week before the majority of the tissue exited her body. She could have died because she worshiped this fetus so much and believed, I suppose, that 'God' could somehow bring it back to life. Having the procedure was too much like having an abortion in her view. She would have rather died than have this dead tissue taken from her body. It makes me so angry and so sick. This fetus could have robbed me of my little sister.”

What does this have to do with abortion? If the child is dead then it’s not abortion to have is removed—her choice to let the child naturally exit her body is a personal choice she made. Nothing follows form this. I will say, though, that I’m sorry this happened to her.

“Here is my view on 'Fetus Worship'. If the fetus is so grand that it actually the right to prosecute an assault (look it up here) , then I say let it appear in court as a witness. Let it walk right out of that uterus and state it's views. Ridiculous you say? Isn't this what fetus worshipers believe?”

Ehhh, NO! Here is another attempt to distract from the issue. Can a (born) baby “appear in court as a witness” or “State it’s views” No? Oh, okay—then it’s okay to kill the baby right? This pro-choice case is, well, it’s stupid.

“That the fetus is a consciousness – a thinking human with as many rights as an actual living breathing person? If you want to save a fetus, then we will have aborted fetuses sent to you and you can have them put into YOUR body. Women who are denied to right to end a pregnancy and control their body will send you their unwanted children and YOU can raise them. Or the state can just send all of you fetus worshipers the bill for all the unwanted and uncared for children.”

This is another attempt to distraction from the issue. This is all the pro-choice people can do, because they have no argument; so they try to distract from the issue. Whether or not one could, or did take all the fetuses and put it in their body, foot the bills, or care for the children; it says nothing of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of abortion.

“So what does this have to do with atheism as atheism has no one view on the subject and obviously some atheists are as rabid anti-abortionists as the most idiotic believer? In my view, if you don't believe in the idea of a 'soul' and you understand basic biology, then you would have to understand that a fetus is not a fully formed human.”

Who’s the idiot here? Pro-life does not claim the fetuses are “fully formed”, but we do claim they are human. There is no such thing as partially human or fully human—just ‘HUMAN.’ And if you understand basic biology, then you would understand this.

“It is at it's essence a parasite of the host - its mother. It is what it is. It is not what it might become. It has no potential outside of its mother’s body.”

A parasite? Notice the missing supporting argument? That’s because this author just likes to make irrational assertions. It’s not a “potential” human being—it is a human being. Show me some biology that shows otherwise.

“ If you believe that 'God' is the only one who decides what life should live or die (unless of course he directs his followers to murder), then you would be inclined to have a child you might not want or to coerce or force a woman to bear an unwanted child.”

If you believe in rational coherent thought, and are a moral person, then you should not support the massacre of innocent unborn children and support infanticide with your pro-choice arguments.

“Also, if you are religious, you are taught that sex is bad.”

Wrong again. God created sex for married men and women; not for pass time fun from anyone that comes around—then use abortion as birth control.

“Pregnancy, for many, is the unintended result of sex. So to make sex less of a risk with birth control or even abortion is wrong. While I would not condone abortion as a first line means of birth control, it is odd that the anti-abortionists almost all oppose trying to prevent the pregnancies in the first place.”

What? I don’t know where this person gets his info, but he’s talking the wrong people.

“Growing up as little Baptist conservative, I was naturally a rabid anti-abortionist. I understand the naive views of those who worship the fetus because I have been one of them. I am glad that as an adult I have managed to care more for my fellow living and breathing human beings, my family and my wife, and worry less about all of the fetuses.”

I think it’s more accurate that the people who support the massacre of millions of unborn children every year are the dangerous cult members—The Cult of Fetus Murderers. It gets old hearing the same old week arguments by pro-choice advocates. Why don’t we stop the petty talk and discuss the real issue—Are the unborn human beings? The answer to this question will be the deciding factor in the issue.

Recommended reading:

The Illogic of "Pro-Choice"
The magnificent Wedge

Prioritizing Negative Commands

Book Review: Loving Monday

2006-03-19T15:56:00.000-08:00

I just recently finished Loving Monday: Succeeding in business without selling your Soul, by John Beckett; so I thought I would give it a quick review. There are some good points made in the book that everyone could take advantage of:

John Beckett is what you might call an “average guy” that lives a fulfilled and spiritual life. His book, Loving Mondays, brings fourth the humility and dependence that every Christian should embrace. Beckett has been fortunate enough to be able to operate his business and incorporate his spiritual values into the very essence of the work environment. As we will explore further in this review, Beckett has managed to harmonize Christian values, practices and teachings with the work atmosphere; making the Bible, the compass of all his decisions.

Early on, Beckett was not a Christian; in fact he was an exceptionally reluctant convert. There were certain intellectual difficulties that Beckett dealt with. However, as time moved on, he realized how much he relied on God for the things he didn’t know or couldn’t see (49). This seems to be the most contemporary factor for the unbeliever. There are so many misconceptions, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings about Christianity itself, that it becomes a barrier to honest inquiry. This is where Beckett didn’t take it far enough. He gives credit to “faith” for making his heart and mind subservient to Gods ultimate supremacy, but leaves it there. Though faith (through grace) is the ultimate salvation for our souls, there are an abundance of intellectual reasons why the God of Christianity is true. The area of intellectual progression is an act of worship and the defense of the faith is not only condoned, but commanded (1 peter 3:15).

It became clear early on that Beckett was living in two different worlds for the beginning parts of his career as a business owner (53). Christians know this dichotomy all to well. In fact, it may seem that Christianity is the antithesis to life on the job. However, this is a false dichotomy; one that Christians have imposed on themselves. Faith does not start when you walk in the Church door on Sunday and stop when you walk out the door; faith is lived 24 hours a day 7 days a week and evidenced throughout all that you do. One must ask themselves if Christianity were illegal, would there be enough evidence to convict them? Faith is just not prayer, Bible reading, and fellowship; its how one expresses it in their everyday lives—their walk.

As a Christian, Beckett wanted to make a difference not only to his family and employees, but to the community around him (20). This desire of Beckett’s is virtuous by nature, but difficult to achieve. God has put him in the position to achieve this objective. As a business owner, he had the authority to set hiring practices, policies, implement values and oversee and influence all aspects in the business. For many people, the liberty to make decisions is confined by rigid protocol and horrendous red tape. In other words, most people work with what leverage they have to express Biblical principals in decision-making, but sometimes the leverage is not enough to control the environment, let alone affect the community.

Beckett, on the other hand, has gracefully implemented true Biblical business and even if the average employee cannot make the critical decisions that influence the environment, one can still excel in the excellence and glory of Christ. To do so, is by your humble walk in Christ; to set an example for those around you and to be blameless. For most people, Christians are the walking gospel of Christ, their interaction with Christians will be the only reading from the Scripture they get. Consequently, there are instances where Christians unconsciously blemished the true picture of the gospel by abiding in the false dichotomy of everyday life and the walk of their faith.

Throughout Beckett’s book emerged a model of convergence between faith and occupation. There are 10 noted prominent themes in the book that leads to Beckett’s success. These themes are the kind of principals that jump of the page and bite you; they are the very essence of what must be done to bridge the gap of the world of faith and the world of work. Perhaps unknowing, Beckett left nuggets of truth to be discovered by the reader that can be immediately implemented into everyone’s life.

The following chestnuts from Beckett are in no essential order or modal formula; their just unadorned necessities:

1.) The first thing one need to do is submit to God, find out his will and do it (23).

2.) Finding mentors like Max is an essential way to glean from the indispensable principals of integrity, humility, and justice to emergent business men like Beckett (28).

3.) One must realize the things of this world are temporary and not to become too comfortable with them, for we are never fully secure without God (40).

4.) Give your work to God and take the role of a steward (51).

5.) Harmonize your faith with your daily walk and your work (73).

6.) Make the Bible applicable to your life by utilizing it as a compass in your decision making (78).

7.) Treat people as valuable, important and worthy; one who is in the Image of God (92).

8.) Reconcile situations immediately, rather than prolonging an issue (103).

9.) Become a servant of others, rather than being served by others (116).

10.) Order your priorities: “First, our relationship with God; then commitment to family; and only then commitment to our work and vocations” (130). The aforementioned 10 principals are ones that not only can help one to be successful, but glorify God; our ultimate purpose in life.

A Tasty Morsel for Screwtape

2006-03-05T09:10:00.000-08:00

It’s been about two years since I have heard the name “Screwtape.” I remember first reading The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast by C.S. Lewis and being completely taken by Lewis’ amazing ability to captivate spiritual warfare in fiction. And of course, who can forget Screwtape’s nephew Wormwood; with a name like that—the book must be good, right? Though the book is fiction, there is a backdrop of eternal significance to the letters; that being, the perpetual disposition of the soul. With the guidance of Screwtape, Wormwood will devour you. However, the consumption of your soul is not sudden, but leisurely. It’s intriguing the way Screwtape takes a person piece by piece like a game of chess. Slowly the pawns of each day’s decisions are persuaded for the taking; until the higher ranks of your fortification are left overpowered—not by brute force, but by the tickling misguidance of Wormwood and his uncle Screwtape.

Now I must confess, as much as I loved how Lewis brilliantly developed the correspondences, when I read Walter Martin’s Screwtape Writes Again, I found my self far more indulged by Martin’s book. Martin’s display of the correspondences between Screwtape and Wormwood seemed more provocative (and personal). I remember hardly being able to set the book down. Most likely, this was because Walter Martin was not only brilliant, but had the ability to bring passion and vibrancy into any discussion.

I’m reminded of Screwtape because of Steve Hays over at Triablogue. He has skillfully succeeded in appropriating Screwtape’s agenda into contemporary apologetics. Taking the fashionable notions of today’s most common delusions of Christianity, Hays pens (so to speak) a small post of Screw Tape Strikes Again! In a little more satirical approach, Screwtape guides Wormwood into the entire family of misconceptions, delusions, tactical divergences and blunt lies. If anyone is familiar with Screwtape, it’s a must read.

Refuting the Straw God

2006-03-01T19:35:00.000-08:00

The ‘Reluctant Atheist’ (RA) over at biblioblography has claimed to defeat the Watchmaker teleological argument. His approach; however, is somewhat dissimilar than the usual rebuttals offered by opponents. Also, he seems exceptionally confident that his argument points out a “huge” deficiency—which vanquishes the teleological argument.

In His confidence, he says:

I’m going to attempt to hamstring the damn thing (it’s only a concept, so I can be as brutal as I like), by pointing out a huge deficiency in the theory.

Okay, this should be interesting. RA has made a confident assertion here—Lets take a look at what RA has presented:

Creators are bound by the same laws as their creations.

This somewhat of a general statement; if were talking about a God (since “it’s only a concept”), we must make the distinction between natural creation, and supernatural creation. In natural creation we have man creating things such as houses, buildings etc (even animals such as birds can create nests). These creations start with preexistent materials and laws. Supernatural creation does not necessarily start with these confinements.

Following:

Bear with me here: I can keep this simple.
An architect needs design a building according to specifications. Read: laws of physics. More often than not, the building itself will go upwards. The shape of said building can vary widely, but it would be a foolish builder indeed, to hoist a skyscraper into the sky in the shape of a sail (especially in, say, Chicago, the windy city). It could be done, theoretically, but the cost would be enormous. There are of course other factors brought into consideration: cost, materials, foundation (location, location, location is apparently not restricted to retailers), earthquake safety regulations (in any area prone to such variables), etc.
But of course, the law of gravity comes first.

Everything about this example is certainly true; but RA, seems to fail to make the distinctions I made above and is equivocating natural and supernatural creation, the crux of the teleological argument

Now the core of RA’s argument:

The point here is simple enough: every watch made by a human is restricted by the same laws the creator of said device is prone to. Heat, leverage, gravity (have I mentioned gravity yet? Sorry), pressure, in short, long laundry lists of physical law. Oh, and of course, time.

There are a couple ways to approach this. First, we can point out the Christian attributes of God (can’t speak for other religions). We know that physical laws affect physical things. Given that God is not a physical ‘thing’ (so to speak)—there would not be a necessary affect on God. It can be formulated this way:

P1: The Laws of Physics affect Physical Things
P2: God is not a Physical Thing
C: Therefore, God is not affected by The Laws of Physics

Secondly, as I pointed out to RA, in his post, the laws of physics are contingent on the existence of the universe. For the sake of argument, if God created the universe, he is not contingent upon it—he would have existed prior to it (in order to create it); hence, before the laws of physics. Thus, if God existed prior to the beginning of the universe, He is not bound the laws of physics, which are contained only within the universe.

Continuing with RA’s argument:

If you throw the watchmaker and the watch off the Empire State building, not only will they fall at approximately the same rate, the end result will be remarkably similar on impact: the insides will go everywhere. One will be more liquid, but both will come apart at the seams.
Likewise, the creator will eventually wear out. As will the watch (though the latter may last somewhat longer, contingent on its design, how often it needs to be wound, when the battery wears out, etc).

I couldn’t help but express amusement at the above analogy. Really, go ahead and throw God off the Empire State building!. If you throw a bird off the roof it will fly away, how much more could God do? Anyway, my above refutations address this.

RA continues his argument against God with the “Where, then, is this mysterious stranger…” rant, but I’ll spare the digression since it’s an entirely different issue.

Of course, I pointed out the deficiency of RA’s argument, but he had some objections to what I had to say. Lets see:

Ah, I see: you thoroughly ignore the way things are, as opposed to your romantic notions. How...very typical. There had to be some structure, for this non-existent deity to build from: materials, a greater creator, a creator before that...infinite regression

…if we look at the example of the architect, the architect existed before the building, ergo, the builder isn't bound by the same laws as the building is? Sorry, sophistry doesn't get the kewpie doll.Who's next?

Who’s next? RA is over confident. Obviously RA does not understand what I was saying (I thought it was simple). To further explain, God can create 'ex nihilo', this is neither a philosophical or theological problem. Moreover, since God is “outside” the universe, ‘ergo’, He is eternal, hence there’s no problem of gods after god’s ad infinitum (categorical fallacy).

I also pointed out that the ‘universe had a beginning’ so, if God designed it, He’s not confined by it (He’s outside of it).

Following, RA tries to squirm out of his dilemma and makes a foolish mistake and says: “Most amusing. However, as far as anyone knows, matter has always existed.” In addition he adds his sardonic slogans to try to deflate my argument (never addressing it) throughout our exchange:

“Your argument is fairly non-existent, as far as I can tell. Subtract a deity, & you have nothing”

“Sorry, sophistry doesn't get the kewpie doll. Who's next”

“I'm reminded of all those Frankenstein movies & their clones: "You can't kill/harm your creator! I gave you life!" Dunno why it reminds me of that. It just does. & I apologize if you take issues w/my calling things the way I see them.”

“There's no real issue - there's no real god - we're just here. Get used to it”

“stop wasting people's time w/your claptrap”

“It’s here [the universe]. Stop trying to reverse the argument. Prove there's a god - conclusively , I might add. I'm not the 1 making ridiculous claims here.”

“Approach this argument by subtracting your deity, and the house of cards comes tumbling down. Please try to do better.”

“All my arguments are pared down to this: everything just is. You're the 1 doing the special pleading here.”

“You missed. God NEVER EXISTED”

“Hey, I'm not swimming in that ole river in Egypt. Need a towel?”

“I'm not answering your questions because very simply, I don't believe in a deity”

“Hey, I go by the Lockian dictum: reality is measured by the 5 senses. All else is guesswork.”

“I'm not sure I really care about your questions.”

“Hey, the post speaks for itself. Res ipsa loquitor” [Latin gives the full affect]

“I'm pretty much guessing now, but I'd put you in high school. Am I close?”

These are some great treasures for the “Atheist Tool Box” as my friend Jim Jordan documents. Of course, it’s difficult not to exchange smut for smut; so I may have slipped out a couple good ones.

Now, back to the universe (pun intended) RA says in response:

“Neither did I say the universe had no beginning - my EXACT words were matter. Until you can give me proof that matter DIDN'T exist prior (what did your sky daddy create it all out of, anyways), stop wasting people's time w/your claptrap.”

My response was that if matter is contained within the universe and the universe had a beginning then matter had a beginning; elementary logic. If your going to claim that matter was “always there” then your claiming the universe is “always there”.

RA doesn’t really want to fess up to his flawed argument; he retorts with:

"Unless you can give me CLEAR proof of an example where a creator stands OUTSIDE the laws of physics, w/o positing an unprovable deity. You've proven nothing."

So RA, wants me to prove God stands outside the universe (where I guess he completely ignored everything I have present thus far); however I cannot posit God. So RA wants me to do the following:

Prove A is outside of B
However, you cannot posit A

So I guess RA is asking for me do X and simultaneously refusing to let me do X.

At this point, RA makes the same mistakes over and over, he says: “If matter has always existed (until this can be proved otherwise, then perhaps the universe has always existed?” I have a niece in 8th grade that can tutor anyone who thinks the universe is stagnate.

The discussion ended fruitlessly; I suspected it would. RA, refused to support his claims and offered to surrender if, and only if A. I could provide empirical proof that there is indeed an entity that exists outside of the boundaries of natural (physical) law.B. Provide an example, real-world, where a creator exists independently from the same natural laws as the (designed) creation.

So, I guess I’m back to square 1—never mind!

Little Theologians

2006-02-27T11:26:00.000-08:00

My son (almost five years old), seems to be the most successful at stumping me. Answering his questions about God, the Trinity et al, in a manner in which he can understand, is one of the most intricate and sensitive things to come across. This is more difficult than going toe to toe with a staunch atheist. He, and other children his age, are most inquisitive; this is some what of a virtue lost in people as they grow older—or marinate too long in front of the television. I can use all the help I can get, that’s why I purchased these books:

Big thoughts for little thinkers:

1. The Trinity
2. The Mission
3. The Scripture
4. The gospel

The thought did cross my mind that some adults (including atheist) may even benefit from this reading. Nonetheless, if these books can get by Fred Sanders, they must be good. He says:

I had nothing to do with this book, and found it by chance. But it is a book after my own heart. Not only does it present the Trinity without ever using any of those analogies that I find so distracting and off-the-subject, but it presents the gospel along the way, as a natural outgrowth of discussing the Trinity. Is that perfect? I actually recommend it for reading with very young children.

While I’m at it…

2006-02-24T08:59:00.000-08:00

…I might as well dig the hole deeper. In my previous post, I commented on the structure God has set up for marriage. Specifically, women are to submit to their husbands. Of course, this is qualified with how men are men are to love their wife as Christ loved the Church.

Following this lead, I want to comment a little on women in ministry; particularly, women preaching. As a side note, I am open to any objections to my position, so long as they are supported by scripture.

We find in the NT 1 Timothy 2:13-14 states "Let a woman learn in quietness with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; but to be in quietness."

At first glance, the passage comes off as somewhat blunt (at least it did to me); but let’s look at this in context. The second chapter of Timothy begins with the encouragement of sound doctrine and the proper behavior of followers of Christ. Appropriate behavior for both men and women are being addressed. Moreover, in verses 3-5 women are told to be:

“teachers of good things; that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, [To be] discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

As can be seen by setting the context, it’s not necessarily that women cannot teach per se, it’s more that they cannot teach in the capacity of making men submissive to them; this perceptibly would include teaching in the Church. Supporting this interpretation, John Piper says the following:

"Paul's argumentation in 1 Timothy 2:11-14 is that men ought to bear primary responsibility for leadership and teaching in the church (that is, be the elders): 1) because in creating man first God taught that men should take responsibility for leadership in relation to woman and 2) because the fall of Adam and Eve shows that the neglect of this divine pattern puts men and women in a more vulnerable position and leads to transgression.

This; however, does not imply that there are no specific and important roles for women. There are many areas where women are needed and are gifted in. God created us differently, for different purposes, both of which are of equal importance—but different roles (importance and roles should not be confused).

In effect, my position on women preaching is that there ought not to be any. However, if anyone wants to make a biblical case otherwise—I am still open.

Challies Ten Proofs

2006-02-16T10:10:00.000-08:00

It’s always a sensitive issue when dealing with the role of women in a marriage relationship. Today’s cultural influence, past experiences, and emotions all cloud our thought—I am even guilty of this myself. This is why the issue is often diverted onto trails never meant to be, and why I have never actually taking on the issue. However, Tim Challies has more chutzpa than I; well actually, he has just dedicated some serious study into what the Bible has to say about the wife’s submission to the husband and is reporting his findings.

Challies offers ten “proofs” to support the claim that a woman is to submit to her husband:

The order of creation: Adam was created before Eve. This may seem to be weak grounds for an argument yet it was strong enough for Paul to mention in 1 Timothy 2:12-13 where he does not "permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man...For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Inherent in the order of creation is the foundation for the order of human relationships.

The representation of the human race: It was Adam who had a special role in representing the human race. Though Eve was the first to sin, it was Adam who was considered most culpable for their combined disobedience. In Corinthians we read that, "as in Adam all men die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:22). Christ is the second Adam, not the second Eve as we might expect if the Bible held Adam and Eve as being equal in representation and leadership.

The naming of woman: Adam was given the honor and responsibility of naming his wife. "She shall be called woman," he said, "because she was taken out of man" (Genesis 2:23). Within the Scriptures we see that the person who names something is always the one who has authority over it. This parallels the account of creation where God named the night and the day, the expanse, the earth and the waters. By naming them He showed His authority.

The naming of the human race: The human race is named after Adam, not Eve. Neither is it named after both Adam and Eve. God named the human race "man." "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created" (Genesis 5:1-2). While this does not provide a cut and dry case, it points again to the headship and leadership of the man in the created order.

The primary accountability: God held Adam primarily accountable for the Fall. While Adam and Eve hid from God, God called "to the man and said to him, 'Where are you?'" (Genesis 3:9). God did not call to both Adam and Eve, but called to Adam alone. Dr. Grudem draws an analogy of a parent who, upon entering a room where several children have been misbehaving, will summon the oldest and demand answers. It is the oldest who bears greatest responsibility. In the same way God summoned Adam and demanded an account of both his sin and that of his wife. Notice that Satan reversed this order, approaching Eve before Adam in an obvious (and successful) attempt to disrupt the God-given pattern

The purpose of women: Eve was created as a helper for Adam, not Adam as a helper for Eve. While feminists have made much of the term "helper," the fact remains that in any given situation, the person doing the helping necessarily places himself in a subordinate role to the person needing help. Yet helping does not remove accountability. While I may help my son with a paper route, the ultimate responsibility is still his. Eve's role, from the beginning of creation, was to be a helper for Adam. This does not by any means indicate inferiority, but a helper who was Adam's equal. She differed in ways that would complement Adam.

The conflict: A dire consequence of the Fall is the conflict it has introduced into the relationships of husbands and wives. In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve, "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." This desire is to interfere with or distort the role of her husband. The roles God gave to the husband and wife have been distorted through the Fall. Eve would now rebel against the God-given authority of her husband and he would abuse the authority to rule poorly, forcefully and even harshly.

The restoration: When creation is restored through the work of Christ we do not find an undoing of the marriage order. Were submission a consequence of the Fall we would expect Christ to "make all things new" in this manner. Instead we find that Christ provides power to overcome the sinful impulses of a wife against her husband and the husband's response of ruling harshly over her. But Christ does not remove the order of a husband being in authority over his wife.

The mystery: When the Apostle Paul wrote of a "mystery" he was describing something that was understood only faintly in the Old Testament but became clear in the New. In Ephesians 5:31-32 Paul shows that the ultimate purpose in marriage is to mirror the relationship between Christ and the church. "This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church." Dr. Grudem says, "Although Adam and Eve did not know it, their relationship represented the relationship between Christ and the church. They were created to represent that relationship, and that is what all marriages are supposed to do. In that relationship, Adam represents Christ and Eve represents the church..."

The parallel with the Trinity: The triune nature of God provides the perfect example of submission. "The equality, differences, and unity between men and women reflects the equality, differences and unity of the Trinity." We are blessed and honored to be able to represent that relationship in our marriages.

Challies makes some fine Biblical points here. The two cents I would add would be the role of a man, and how, to a certain extent, it’s our fault this is a controversy. I think this subject at hand has only become controversial because men have abused the principal of submission. There is no need for an explanation on this—we all know this is true in various ways and degrees. Men are to love their wives as Jesus loved the Church. I truly think that in a Christian home, if this is done correctly, the woman is confident, willing, and pleased to submit to her husband. In fact, if a woman is unwilling to submit to the husband, I would say it’s the general principal that the man has failed to show his love and leadership effectively (were all guilty to some extent).

If men would act like Men (in the Biblical sense), then women would not feel inferior, unloved, insignificant, and invisible; and discussions of this nature would not be “controversial.” A man needs his wife—Adam could not be happy without Eve as God stated, "It is not good for the man to be alone…”. In a Biblical realm, there is no lopsided relationship; and just as there are different roles in the Trinity, there is oneness; and for the two individuals in marriage there is oneness.

A Moral Dilemma for Observers of Evil

2006-02-11T10:39:00.000-08:00

In order to maintain a fruitful discussion when handling the problem of evil, several preliminary issues must be dealt with before one can effectively and honestly proceed. In this brief post, I will attempt to present these required clarifications. First, this is in no way and exhaustive attempt to address, or down play evil—if anything, this is for my own edification.

It’s pretty much a guarantee that some time during a conversation with a non-believer the “Evil exists; therefore, [the Christian] God cannot exist” objection will come up (or be thrown in your face). The objection can be genuine, but most of the time it’s used to dismiss whatever the current topic(s) that might be at hand.

In a slightly more formal formulation of this argument see below:

P1. If God exists, He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.

P2. If God is omniscient, He knows when any evil is occurring (or about to occur).
P3. If God is omnibenevolent, he would want to prevent all evil.P
4. If God is omnipotent, he could prevent all evil.

P5. So, if God existed, there would be no evil. (P1-P4)
P6. There is evil in the world.

C. Therefore, God cannot exist. (P5,P6)

There are several different ways to formulate this objection, but this is generally (in my experience) how it is presented, although in presentation—not as formalized.

Logical Possibilities

The non-believers objection seems to demand the logical impossibility of the existence of both an omnibenevolent God and evil. However, I don’t know that there is a good reason to think this is logically impossible. In fact, there is a logical possibility that it is the case that both exist. So, unless it can be explicitly shown that it is logically impossible, the very plausibly of evil and a benevolent God existing defeats the logical inconsistency.

Logical Probabilities

Though it’s not necessarily logically impossible for both God and evil to exist, one could argue that it’s not probable. Consider all the gratuitous pain and suffering that occurs in the world; millions of books could be filled with horrid accounts of disgusting torture and unnecessary suffering. As one accumulates the examples of these hideous things, it is easy to see why they measure the evils they see as an overshadowing to the possible existence of an omnibenevolent God.

I can not explain exactly why God does what he does, or allows what he allows, for I am not in the mind of God. Moreover, it’s difficult to give an all encompassing answer to the objector, because I don’t know exactly what is being put in play. I can say, however, that if the factors of evil are being relatively compared to the flavor of a good tasty bagel; surely the probability of God’s omnibenevolent existence will plummet. I am not saying that this is what is being done, I am just showing that depending of the variables that are in play; it will have a significant effect of the results of ones analysis.

Insofar as all the factors for the probability for Gods existence are appropriately applied, and compared to evil, one can confidently see that Gods existence is more probable than not—even when evil is taken into account (perhaps in the future, I can dedicate a complete blog post to this effect). When it is claimed that evil perils the probability of Gods existence, it can be asked, “What is evil relatively measure up to?”

Riddle Me This:

Without actually distinguishing between moral and natural evil, notice that P2 presumes that evil exists: “He knows when any evil is occurring.” This premise (along with P6) will only work if some objective form of “evil” actually exists. Bringing out this point can help isolate the issue. The best way to do this, it seems to me, is to ask a simple question:

(A) Is something evil because you say it’s evil? Or (B) Do you say something is evil because it IS evil?

The question is actually familiar to Christians, and often used (in one formulation or another) as a rejoinder to Gods moral nature (Euthyphro Dilemma). Nevertheless, the question helps get to the central point I want to discuss.

Evil is what I say it is:

Consider question (A) If something is evil because on says it’s evil; then it’s a matter of mere opinion. Question (A) makes evil a human convention that does not transcend the individual; thus, under question (A), evil does not exist. Therefore, P6 is effectively defeated if (A) is the standpoint. There’s really no way out of it; the argument against God due to evil only works if there is such thing as real objective “evil.”

It’s Evil for all people, all times, and all places:

This now leaves us with the latter, proposition (B): Do you say something is evil because it IS evil?

If (B) is true then evil is objective—or external to the individual; otherwise your stuck with proposition (A). Now, if evil can be identified as objective, a problem arises for the objector. Specifically, if evil is objective, then we must to give an account of its source. Insofar as we believe that real objective evil exists, we therefore have good grounds for believing that God exists. In fact, the very objection presupposes Gods existence.

Consider the following syllogism:

1. P presupposes Q

2. P

3. Therefore, Q

Or, we can also present this as logically equivalent to the following:

1. If P, then Q.

2. P

3. Therefore, Q.

Some will deviate from the propositions, or attempt to evade the question I pose by pointing out that the problem of evil is an internal inconsistency with Christianity itself, rather than a problem of their own (the objector). This is fine; however, the objector will have to effectively concede that the objection raised has nothing to do with their own dismissal of Gods existence, or has anything to do with their personal experience of evil in their own lives; because evil does not exist. However, even the charge of internal inconsistency fails to discredit Christianity, let alone the existence of God.

While one raises a problem of logical incoherence, or internal inconsistency they inadvertently argue for what they are arguing against. There is nothing internally inconsistent theologically with the “problem” of evil. However, it is not my intent in this post to argue for the theological consistency of Christianity and the way we observe the world today—including observations of evil.

Conclusion

I have attempted to point out that (1) The existence of both evil and an omnibenevolent God is logically plausible (2) The existence of evil does not necessarily surmount the probability of an omnibenevolent God (3) If evil is subjective the argument is immaterial (4) If evil is objective the objector has to give an account of it (5) There is no internal inconsistency with Christianity and the existence of evil.

In closure, the argument from evil can only be relevant if is meaningful, and it can only be meaningful if there is such thing as evil. What does this do for objector? It creates a dilemma—one that must be honestly examined. Though this could be much more developed, going through these key points is absolutely necessary to having a meaningful discussion about evil. There is really only one way to solve the problem of evil; we must stop trying to have God justify himself to us; but try to have ourselves justified before God. There is only one way to do this—through the Cross.

Revealing the Trinity

2006-02-08T17:21:00.000-08:00

I recall a discussion that I had with some Jehovah’s Witness that frequent my door. One of the heated subjects that always seem to arise is the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, the J_Dubs have some stock slogans up their sleeve; such as “The word Trinity doesn’t even show up in the Bible” and many others. In heated, I mean they become fierce; they have even rolled their eyes and snickered at me before. Of course, I am always apt to point out their obvious degrading gestures to which they quickly apply their red herring tactics.

Nevertheless, I was pleased to read Fred Sanders short remarks on The Trinity between OT and NT. While reading it, it brought to mind my fond memories of doorbells ah ringing.

In the fullness of time, the one God revealed that he eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the doctrine of the Trinity is a biblical doctrine. But if you ask where the Trinity is clearly declared in scripture, you should take care to avoid certain common errors. One error is to dive immediately into prooftexting the doctrine by trying to locate verses which explicitly teach it.

[…]

Where in the Bible is the Trinity revealed? Not in the Old Testament, which looks forward to the revealing of the Son; and not in the New Testament, which looks backward to the revealing of the Son. It is revealed in the historical events that take place between the testaments, the events which fulfill the expectation of the Old Testament and provoke the writing of the New Testament. The Trinity is revealed when the Trinity appears in history, when the Father sends the Son and pours out the Spirit on all flesh
This explains why the New Testament almost offhandedly refers to the Trinity, presupposing it and never bothering to present it as a new idea. The fact that the Son has appeared for our salvation is behind every line of the New Testament, is the main point, is what’s New and what’s Testament about the New Testament.

[…]
The Trinity is in the Bible, not in the OT or the NT, but between them. “Between” does not mean in the intertestamental period of the Maccabees and such. “Between” does not mean the blank sheet of paper that divides the two testaments in your Bible. “Between” means in the central events on which all salvation history turns, the sending of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit

Link