From the "Unintended Irony" File

Gotta love the title of CBN's update on the so-called "Battle for Christmas." Consumers fighting for Christmas? Huh?

It used to be that Christians fought consumers over the true meaning of Christmas. It was thought that there was nothing more poisonous than the identification of Christmas with shopping. Now it seems as though consumers are fighting the forces of secularism to get Christmas back into the shopping mall. Is Christmas just not the same if it isn't endorsed by Target? Do we really need corporate sponsorship of the newborn Christ? Have we gone mad?

The Death Penalty: A Modern Day Slavery?

Christians today are often in favor of the death penalty because of biblical support. The institution is clearly just, as it was used by God in the Old Testament, therefore its use is appropriate today. 21st century Christians, however, are quick to condemn slavery. Not because of a lack of biblical support, but because we can see that the context of biblical slavery is vastly different from the the way in which it was practiced 160 years ago. American slavery, obviously, was a tool of racism and oppression. I therefore find it immensely satisfying that for every southern Christian who defended the instutution, there were one or more abolitionists who fought against slavery in the name of Christ.

My hope is that Christians will look past simple biblical support and into the heart of the American criminal justice system. The death penalty is just not working in large American communities. It, like slavery, has become a tool of racism and oppression. The death penalty, if it is ever to be just, must be impartial and without error. Sadly, in our country the death penalty is neither of these things. It is a punishment avoided by the rich and inflicted on the poor. And it is a punishment that can be manipulated by those in power. As long as that remains the case, it will remain an institution in need of repair.

Following up on some metaphysical struggles

Bill made an excellent comment on this post, that I finally replied to. Although I still don't have a satisfactory answer hammered out, I think the issues are starting to surface.

My real problem is I don't want to be a Platonist, but the possible nominalistic consequences of nominalism are a greater evil.

I have done a bit of reading on this in contemporary analytic works and now I have been reading some of Peter Abelard (Medieval) on this, but I still don't have a clear enough picture to be happy yet :).

Teasing this out a bit more here. I would be appreciate some good resources or suggestions about Aristotelian Metaphysics and the solution of the problem of universals. I am planning another read through of JP Moreland's book later in the semester.

How About Some Medieval Fun?

I stumbled across the Shaft theme song translated into Middle English today. I laughed so hard I just had to share it. "Homo est animal rationale, mortale, risus capax"
Translation: Man is a rational, moral animal, capable of laughter.
(HT: Got Medieval)

Spin Doctors on Iraq?

While it has been stated that the American media is generally anti-Iraq war biased, I have held out hope that the media would at least recognize the good if (as) progress is made. The brave citizens of Iraq are in the middle of something which should be moving toward progress, and right or wrong the U.S. is involved. Historically, freedom is often bought with blood, and many Iraqi citizens seem to concur with Patrick Henry that the price is worth paying. How ironic, in light of our colonial heritage that the BBC titles their article on Iraq "Iraq voters back new constitution" when CNN titles their article "U.S. military death toll in Iraq reaches 2,000". I thought the British are the conservative and objective voice of the news, while the Americans are supposed to be optimists. What is going on?

Follow-Up: Hours later the BBC has put up the same AP article as CNN under the same title. I don't think I am back to square one though. I believe that the steps toward real freedom for the Iraq people should be more celebrated EVEN IF one disagrees about the beginnings of the war or the multi-national (or what is left of it) presence there.

Meditations on a Marathon

"On this system one could fight all the forces of existence without deserting the flag of existence. One could be at peace with the universe and yet be at war with the world."

G.K. Chesterton

A dear friend of mine ran a marathon this past weekend. It was my first opportunity to watch any part of a marathon in person, and I was unsure as to what I should expect. I'm glad to say that I loved it. The freedom to support and cheer everyone on, both strangers and friends, was exhilarating.

It struck me that the reason why people are so quick to cheer the runners on is because we are, for the most part, simply impressed with the daring to attempt such a daunting task. We recognize that the marathon represents the peak of training, and that all of the runners have paid a price for entering the race. By the time they cross the starting line, they have already committed time, energy, and finances to the task ahead. And we respect them for that.

But, at the same time, the unwavering support received by the runners is combined with a stark knowledge of how they stack up against their competitors. For the vast majority of the runners, in fact, the race is not competitive in any meaningful way. But, because the runners have earned our respect just by crossing the starting line, we are free to cheer for the runners without disappointment. We want them to run better, faster, and stronger than they think is possible, all the while content with the desire to run such a grueling race.

As I was watching the race, I both marveled at the community surrounding the runners and sensed that there was something quietly familiar with the picture. It struck me that cheering for the runners reminded me of some of the finest sentiments that people can exhibit. There is tremendous freedom in loving something without constraints, even to the point of irrationality. With a boundless love, nothing is sacred. We can mold, shape, and influence the object of our love so that, in the end, it may look nothing like the thing we started with. That love wishes that the object be better, faster, and stronger than others might think is possible, all the while content with whatever the outcome might be. Such a love is rare because it is simply too easy to err in either direction. Love without change is pointless. Change without love is destructive. But the freedom to love something to the point of redemption is the finest of all virtues.

Having a Nature and Metaphysical Struggles: The Emotional Hangover

What does it mean to have a nature, an essence? Am I a bundle or a concrete particular with a certain set of properties? Well, I don’t fancy myself a bundle, and Nominalism in general seems false to me. I have written papers where I defend a substance view of humans, Substance Dualism (in a Thomistic sense, not Cartesian). However, I must confess that I would rather not believe in various bits of metaphysical realism such as abstract objects. Also, I am especially bothered by the fact that the property of Red, may not itself be Red. That just seems strange.

On the other hand, it seems right to me that the essential nature of a fish is to be in water. The problem of being a “fish out of water” is obvious and persuasive to me. No matter what anyone else might say, fish are supposed to be in water. That seems objectively clear, and NOT a matter of convention to me. Even those fish (if there are more than one KIND) that can survive outside of what for short periods of time are still generally supposed to be in the water. If this were not the case, we should be tempted to think of classifying the air loving fish as an amphibian or something all together different.

Furthermore, it seems right to me that I have a nature. I might even do things that go against my nature. For example, those childhood times where I have tried to fly have contributed to my overall sense of bodily discomfort presently. I think most people would agree to this generally.

However, the problems come quickly because the argument from nature is often used to defend various moral claims. An interesting spilt on this issue is homosexuality. Some want to appeal to nature (in a “thin sense”) and claim that homosexuality is simply determined by our genes. (I will not comment on the merit of this scientific evidence at this time). One’s nature (thinly) determines our sexual preference, it is argued, so they cannot be morally blame worthy for homosexuality. Now, what I, as a proponent of libertarian freedom, don’t like things that suggest that I did not choose. I occasionally entertain the thought I may have had influence on who my parents were to be. Granted, there are some things that in the end I must admit I cannot control about myself (e.g. what beliefs I directly choose, my parents, feelings, etc.). But I don’t have to like it.

On the other hand, others will claim that the human essence is by nature (thick, metaphysical sense) not supposed to be homosexual. Those who make this claim in a think sense are speaking much more deeply than referring to “plumbing.” The problem here is possibly my lack of information or possibly epistemic support. My question is “what is exactly are you ‘looking’ at to make such a judgment about natures?”
I am planning on finding out, about natures and who is looking at what. I want to know who is right, why she is right, and how does she know. What do you think? And what bothers you about your view?

The Balance of engagement

Side one: My instincts lead me away from television (I don't really watch much anyway) and many of the things in culture. I don't want to be like everyone else. I don't want my kids to be like everyone else. I want to be like Aquinas or Aristotle or someone Great. I want to make a difference in the world and not merely accept the current medium's of culture today. I want to be literate - that is read the Great books (plus books that are great)

Side two: While Novels are still important, it SEEMS that movies are the biggest push in culture. And who can really influence someone else if we are not engaging in the culture? It seems that one can best shape culture from within it. "In but not of" seems to be a good rule here.

So, what can we look at to know if "we" are in balance? Then, what ever it is we are looking at, how do we know we are interpreting the results correctly?

Here Jesus is a strange answer. Jesus was predictably unpredictable. However, He was always about His Father's will. This clears up the main stuff (torturing babies for fun is wrong, etc.), but it seems plausible that I could help the most by being truly counter-cultural; however, it could be argued that writing novels or movie scripts could have lots of impact too.

Maybe feeling the tension is what keeps us balancing His will and plan for our lives, but no matter how many times you walk the tight rope, you still get butter flies: It is still dangerous, and you can still fall.

Waiting for a phone call

So I'm sitting here, waiting for a phone call that will tell me where I live next year. It could be anywhere. New York? Maybe. San Francisco? Perhaps. Toledo, Ohio? Who knows. ;-)

It is, in all honesty, a bit unnerving. But at the same time, I get the sense that it's a wonderful opportunity to learn something about peace and patience. There is nothing I can do at this point to change my fate. The phone call will or will not come on its own terms. My choice is whether I will fill my time productively or if I will fill the hours with nervous energy. My hope is that I have the good virtue to wait with patience, filled with the peace of knowing that things like this always work for the best.

Now That's Experience!

What do you do with a man who runs a horse association so far into the ground that he's forced to resign?

Well, apparently you make him director of FEMA.

I'm hopeful that after the disaster that was hurricane Katrina, Congress has the foresight to legally require disaster management experience before receiving a high-level appointment in FEMA. While I'm really happy that Michael Brown had the good luck to be friends with President Bush, I'm saddened by the fact that the friendship actually cost people their lives.

We are a nation of almost three hundred million individuals. We deserve better.

Who Speaks for Evangelicalism?

Pat Robertson is at it again. Sparking worldwide controversy, Pat Robertson has recently called upon the United States to assassinate the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

This statement is worrisome for several reasons. First, from a political standpoint, it's absolutely absurd to think that the United States could benefit from the political assasination of an inflammatory South American leader. Robertson compared the United States' relationship with Chavez with our military action in Iraq, which not only is a poor argument, but also offers an interesting glimpse into the extreme right's conception of what justifies military action. The war in Iraq, of course, was justified primarily because of a perceived threat due to the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction. Bolstering these considerations were various references to Saddam's despicable human rights record, and the need for a fresh change in Iraq. This, of course, is simply not the situation in Venezuela. There are no allegations of weapons of mass destruction, and no allegations of mass graves. Instead, the United States' difficulties with Chavez center on complaints of region destabalization and illicit support of Castro's regime in Cuba. In sum, Robertson believes that political assasination, as a cheap and easy alternative to preemptive war, is justified simply as a means of batting away a gnat. This is not only politically absurd but also a frightful support for unbridled American hegemony.

From a spiritual standpoint, these kinds of comments are terrible because they cast a terrible shadow over evangelicalism. Does this man speak for Christians? What are intelligent people supposed to think when they hear a Christian make such awful comments? God help us.

My hope, though, is for a high-profile Christian to stand up and condemn the arguments. It doesn't have to be political, even. The response need only point out the obvious. Political assasination is, at this point at least, illegal. Encouraging the military to violate United States law is not only unethical, it's unchristian.

Morals and the Relationship to Religion: A Response to Paul

To read the comments that sparked this post click here. Paul, there are times I appreciate sarcasm, so I will make my comments assuming that you have a serious point (rather than being flippant or simply an ass). Although I admit my post was loose, I was trying to draw attention to the questions and issues more than taking sides. For the record, the last thing in my experience to help morals is “organized religion.” However, I think that a culture of true spirituality (for lack of better words) will create more religious people as a result. With respect to your comments this seems to be sufficient justification for my post and the article that inspired it.

On the other hand, with respect to religion, the very idea of a moral code seems to me religious. What I mean is that moral codes generally assert a set of values based on an ultimate principle. By ultimate principle I mean that is accepted without any other argument (read CS Lewis Abolition of Man). In short, moral codes generally take certain values by faith. This seems to be the nature of worldviews. So, I do not assume Christianity is necessary or the Old Testament literature for humanity be moral.

However, in defense of the Old Testament I must say that if its account is true, then nothing is excluded with respect to time. The Old Testament begins with the creation of the universe, so their would be no “prior to” the timeline of its account. What is not debatable is that moral people existed before Moses wrote down the initial books. In fact, there are many moral Old Testament figures that make moral choices and are held accountable for infractions before Moses and the big ten (Adam comes to mind).

It is obvious that not everyone in the past was murdered (hello!). But, need we have anything like a moral code or morality not to kill other people? Also when do we start counting people as everybody? Why not start with ants? Where should we draw lines? If you don’t think we should, why not draw the line around various obnoxious people and wipe them out? It seems like the wrongness of that just emerges. If it does not, then what grounds do we have to call it immoral or moral? I think there are a few possible explanations of moral people before Moses, and some of them seem probable or sufficient. When you speak of morals how do you avoid the problem of the criterion?

Along another train of thought, what is “statistical truth?” When using any sort of induction or abduction (argument from the best explanation) (including your comments) one does not (and cannot) guarantee the truth of what he or she is saying; thus, some sort of probability (with chances less than one and greater than zero) of the event must be mentioned. I am trying to make sense of “statistical” because it seems rational for me to think in terms of probabilities when speaking of the future based on the past (contra the impression from you comment). Further, my my post was mostly a set of questions designed to “prime the pump” for the link I provided. What exactly are you referring to, and do you mean in my post or Vitagliano's?

Moreover what do you mean by “truth?” I am assuming a correspondence theory (what are you assuming?). I don’t think that truth is a degreed property. Something is either truth, false or neither. I could be wrong about that, but the counter examples I know of can defeated. In this case either the statistics are true or false. Actaully, it is the inference from statistics at issue here. What counter-argument do you have against my thoughts?

Although your comments seem to be without charity, I appreciate how your comments have challenged me to reflect on my views. If I have time I will generate a more robust post on this topic in the fall. I the mean time, do good Paul.

Crosswalk.com - Christianity Vanquished in Britain? AP Wonders If Is the US Next?

After reading the article below I had the following reactions:
How long will the US mirror the moral and religious culture of England? What must be done to break the trend? How will "we" know that "we" are on the right track? Would changes from the pulpit really have done the job in England? It seems the Churches in England would be well served by some apologetics from the pulpit along with substantial arguments from the scriptures. I have heard NancyPearcey recomend the same course of action as a first step to a pastor in America. How much of what is effective for the Churches in England will be effective in the USA? Will American churches be able hold off the tide of secularism with passion and more "cool" or aesthetic things? Will contemporary services be sufficient? Can proper Bible teaching cure all ills?

When all is said and done I suspect what we need is balance. If the "spiritual doctors" of our churches have the insights to see cures to our behaviors and symptoms, that is great. However, what maybe a better role the church needs to play is that of paramedics who keep the wounded alive until they can be healed by the Great Physician.


Crosswalk.com - Christianity Vanquished in Britain?: "'I was shocked at how moral values had changed in such a short time and
how church attendance in mainstream denominations was in free fall,' he
said. 'Four out of five churches were either declining or simply
static.'"

Lessons from a Know-It-All

I assume conversations are supposed to be constructive, enjoyable, practical or at least roughly beneficial. After an unsuccessful conversation about a topic with which I was familiar, I wondered what went wrong. Although I was speaking to a know-it-all, I certainly did not expect the know-it-all (KIA) routine to kick in on a semi-technical comment about cosmology, but the KIA did. While this failure to communicate was not altogether unexpected, my total unpreparedness and general carelessness was. How quickly I forget the way of Philosophy Master Socrates!

Being a graduate student in Philosophy I struggle with my new skills and insights in a variety of ways. Mostly, I am aware of my deep inadequacies while beginning to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. Ah, but the temptation to pretend (even if only privately) that I now am “all that” creeps up either as a self-medicating response or as a matter of bad habit. When my foolish heart is filled with vice of this sort, then I play directly into the hands of the know-it-all. The KIA will rarely acknowledge ignorance, but may do so occasionally to avoid appearing as a KIA (sometimes to justify his or her intra-personal denial). So, when the rejection of my comment came, rather than seeking an argument for the KIA’s denial of my claim, I just added more assertions to the mix with appeals to authority (primary sources and the ambiguous collection of experts “the majority of Dr. X agree that…”). I found myself in different kind of regress argument – I regressed to freshman antics for the undisciplined! However, rather than move from regression to depression, I will attempt to learn from my mistakes and go back to the basics!

1) Make clear my claims and support them with proper argumentation. Even casual discussions benefit from at least minimal support of one's points. If I don’t have support, then I should simply be open about making a claim as an inclination, impression or intuition. Also, in light of a tentative thesis, I need to remain humble and teachable – even KIA’s know things sometimes.

2) Avoid fallacies. When has name calling ever contributed anything? Why drive a discussion with mere rhetoric, unless my goal is to be mean or simply vain? Logic check! Make sure the premises support the conclusions.

3) Proceed with clarity by asking questions. This is the key lesson from Socrates for me in this situation. Had I not reacted to the denial of my claim with shock and assertions and instead sought grounds for the KIA’s denial, I am sure a misunderstanding would have surfaced or the lack of grounds would have allowed my claim to succeed. This could have been done with a simple Socratic search for definition and/or other productive questions.

4) Respect the person. What was most surprising to me is how I would not have had a discussion of this sort with another Philosophically trained person because I would have taken the initial comment more seriously. By respecting the other person, even a KIA, the probability of a successful conversation increases. Further, if a conversation fails, one saves the embarrassment of have reduced oneself to the level of a KIA.

Related Resources
Talking to difficult people.
General information on the nature, topics, and controversies of logic at a glace plus some starter references.
Logic Quiz
Good list of fallacies.
Another list of fallacies.

Books
Classic Logic Text

Basic Logic Text with Christian examples

Can a Nation Go Extinct from Selfishness?

As it turns out my post on the postmodern legislation (here) happening in some countries may be an example of a cure that kills the patient in a variety of ways. Possibly, not only might truth die, but love may have to go too. What made me think about love dying too was a recent post by Chuck Colson. He believes that Europe and possibly Japan maybe in serious decline because of population issues. (Hang in there, I'll come back to love).

What is interesting to me after reflecting on Chuck’s post is possibly selfishness is the root cause of both these different issues. Laws that “protect” religions from criticism may be motivated, in part, by a growing soft-shell world. A soft-shell world is fear and protection based such that people are assumed to be primarily vulnerable rather than durable. This view quickly degenerates into a population of victims where no one can say anything that might crush the other person’s soft-shell. When this is the case we accept the culture of one and allow each person to have infallible-like views of themselves. In doing so we free ourselves of any responsibility to help, correct, and maybe truly love another person (love entails RISK, and possible injury to self). Ultimately this culture of one must stay this way. As a result, families, where self-sacrifice is necessary for success, are avoided. This is possibly what is going on in Europe and Japan if Chuck is correct. Ironically, our individual greatest need is love which seems to entail more than one person in relationship; possibly, it requires three. In a solipsistic world, truth and love are just not in the picture.

Culture

Book Review: Thinking Toolbox Review

The Thinking Toolbox by Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn with illustrated by Richard LaPierre is a 35 lesson book on reasoning skills. Each short chapter concludes with exercises to help readers master the content and then can be self-checked against the answers at the end of the book. The chapters cover the big idea of each concept with a simple narrative that illustrates the principle or a context to which it applies. For example when a detective story scenario is developed and you use a skill to solve the mystery. With respect to what thinking/reasoning skills are developed, three areas are covered:

1) “Tools for Thinking” is the section where the elements of reasoning are explained. For example, the contexts for reasoning are illustrated with the distinctions that characterize the difference between a discussion and a disagreement as well as an argument from a fight. The subsequent chapter helps develop discernment with respect the appropriate times to use your reasoning skills (“When It IS Dumb to Argue”). Also the parts of an argument are explained so you can identify what is “doing the work” of an argument or how to construct one. Then tips for building and refining arguments are given.

2) “Tools for Opposing Viewpoints” helps one make decisions, realize that there is always another view, and evaluate the quality of the evidence and its source. Further, this section provides a good beginning to help you discern a motive and various types of evidence.
3) “Tools for Science” introduces basic scientific method. This section demonstrates the need for observation provides some tips and skills. Specifically, the formation of a hypothesis, conducting good experiments, and analyzing the data are each covered well.

Structurally the book is organized and easy to follow, the exercises are good, and the narrative delivery of the content make it an easy to read book.

Why read this book?
Naturally his book will greatly enhance ones abilities for any type of learning (reading, listening, and anything else that requires thought). Beyond this, in a postmodern, ambiguous, most-everything-is-gray-world we live in, we could all use a little clarity of thought. The thinking toolbox (TTB) is a wonderful start in this direction of clarity. The TTB is especially helpful for young people who are currently in school. Its self-directed learning and youth friendly illustrations and exercises bare the touches of the one who knows well the self-teaching format. It is a very accessible book even for adults who might be put off by a college level logic or critical thinking text.

Further, the “real world” applications of good thinking skills are very good. For example in the beginning of the book a man is featured in an illustration that looks suspicious and is trying to pick up a kid. The kid uses the logical thinking skills from the book to figure out that this guy is lying. Although the illustration then takes an unexpected twist, any parent can immediately appreciate this tools provided in TTB. Certainly most adults need to deal with many scams each day. The National Fraud Information Center has enough reported scams going on to merit plenty of critical thinking.

Why might you want to read something else?
If you are an adult or a high school student with natural reasoning skills seeking to move to the “next level,” then you might begin with a more advanced text. Some high school students (and adults) will be put off by the kid-styled illustrations and lack of textual sophistication.

What is my overall opinion of the book?
Great book for kids or if you are looking to build a foundation for good reasoning skills. I think it is a great resource for kids who want to get ahead, learn better or are “home-scholars.” However, if you have attained some sophistication to your reasoning abilities, then get into a logic text or a critical reasoning text.

FYI:
As a Mind & Media reviewer I received this book free from blog for books, and I have not been paid or pushed to rate any particular way. Publishers provide the books in exchange for publicity and reviews. Good Deal eh?



Books

London, Islam, Australia and the Need for Truth

In the wake of this mornings tragedy in London, I find this post from Right Reason to be provocative and important. Lydia McGrew wrote her post before the London bombing about deeply problematic situation of the two pastors in Australia. These Pastors will go to jail rather than apologizing (and pledging endless silence with respect to similar criticisms of Islam) for their alleged vilification of Islam in violation of a new law. McGrew nicely summarizes the condemning evidence against the pastors when she says “Two of the statements that resulted in this conviction were that Islam endorses mistreating women and that Muslims would like to make Australia a Muslim country.” The pastors claim they are telling the truth and that the particular law they are being jailed for needs to change. The law is apparently being used to silence non-adherents critical speech about religion.

Certainly free speech is in danger and religious freedom is questioned as well, but might there be more at stake? McGrew’s critical point is that truth is not an issue in the debate. Is this a fair expression of Islamic thinking? If so, then Islam should be on trial, and if that is not appropriate then the law should be reconsidered. Further, if truth is not important to the law, then the “law” has crossed the line and become cog in the great machine of totalitarianism. The question follows “how much more of the machine will be built?”. Ironically the UK may pass a similar bill adding another cog to the machine.

FYI: The pastors’ website is http://www.catchthefire.com.au/, but at the very least read McGrew’s insightful post.

News
Current Affairs
Religion

Tom Cruise vs. Brooke Shields or Scientology vs. Psychiatry

Tom is likable (I even like him) but I think his remarks about Brooke Shields and psychiatry are evidence that the Church of Scientology is a bit off. I agree that the history of psychiatry and even some common practices today might be problematic. I do not think that even a perfect understanding of the brain (apart from the mind) and the right chemical balances will make life great. However, if you want to throw the “history as a measure” card, do you honestly think that the history of scientology is really better? Maybe so, but I think this is unwarranted. At the very least the prescription of vitamins and exercise for post-partum depression is ignorance.

I do not support any particular anti-scientology site, and I even agree on a surface level with some of what they say that one has access to free on the scientology site. I can clearly see some of the appeal to scientology. I agree that the mental life, and the soul are far more powerful than given credit, and that people are spiritual beings that are capable of deeper awareness than most people can imagine. In fact, the scientology handbook online with its very limited information seems to be generally sound (even with the awkward pseudo-technical vocabulary). If it did not seem this way would anyone join the “Church” of scientology? Further, the “what can it do for me?” pragmatism is very American and certainly appeals to human nature. The most interesting thing to me was how various assertions were made, but very little was done in the way of supporting truth claims which are often assumed.

The nearest thing to support I found was in the “MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY” section of the site. But I found these claims to generally be obviously false or straw-man type arguments. For example, they claim that the people who are opposed are against self-betterment programs in general. This seems false. Compare the anti-betterment argument with this interesting story (if you don’t have time for the book just read the last 3-4 chapters) of a former member and “escapee” of the CoS here . OR compare this to the latest problems and fresh updates on scientology opponents here or here. OR compare it to the list of claims from a Christian watch dog. I have not heard any anti-betterment talk.

Although I need more information (and time to study scientology) my preliminary search has not given me any faith in Tom “church” even though I have some initial points of agreement. Further, as my family as been touched by post-partum depression I can say that the medical treatment that I have seen changed lives for the better.

Scientology
Current Affairs
Religion

Belief formation, Apologetics, Evangelism, and Discipleship

Philosophers, Religious Apologists, Politicians, and anyone with a soap box (bloggers?) want your to change your belief about something or reinforce or expand a shared belief or desire. What is required for one to change his or her beliefs? Can we simply choose or will to believe? What about religious beliefs?
I think that creating a new belief (forming a concept) is a fascinating process. To change beliefs or exchange beliefs from belief A to B is equally interesting to me. Consider the following example to illustrate the interesting issues in an exchange of beliefs. Imagine someone who is purposely not a Christian, say Al the Atheist, who becomes a Theist. Although I think many other beliefs would necessarily be changed, for the sake of simplicity let’s limit the discussion to as much as possible to this exchange. So, did Al decide to believe in God?

IF Al NOT DECIDE to believe in God (i.e. believed unwillfully):
If Al is simply “predestined” to believe in God, then there is nothing to really “argue” about (unless of course you are Al and could wish he were an Atheist again). Assuming that religious beliefs and ordinary beliefs are similar in there adoption or denial, God’s “righteousness” would seem to be called into question. How could God send people to hell (or at least Judas who seems to be there from the New Testament account)? How could God judge or even the judicial systems of human kind execute any type of punitive or retributive justice? BUT, If religious beliefs are different from all other kinds of belief, that only allows for human justice. Further, campaigning for office, evangelism, various forms of persuasion are all rehearsals and are pageantry. In fact the fabric of our lives seems to me to bear a striking similarity to the material used by the alleged tailors of an emperor who needed some new clothes.

IF AL DID DECIDE to believe in God:
It seems to me he either does so DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. If DIRECTLY, then the use of persuasion, justice, etc. has much meaning and value, but then various aspects of our lives seem inexplicably out of our control. Why is it then that so many Christians for example resonate with Paul that they do the very thing they do not wish to do (Ro7)? What explains habits and those times where we want to believe but cannot?

Maybe beliefs are accepted and acquired INDIRECTLY. If this is the case, one retains his or her responsibility, and our inability to “will to believe” maybe explained. I am advocating Indirect Doxastic Volunteerism. So, although Al cannot simply will to believe in God, he can study, evaluate arguments, talk to and spend time with “believers” and if God’s existence is more likely than not, Al may find him-self believing that God exists. It may be the case that God reveals Himself in this process and the belief is simply formed. This is not to say that it could not be latter denied or be disbelieved from lack of cultivation. For example, my wife remembers many people from periodically thinking about them, that I may forget because I don’t think about them. This is to point our that we do have control about what we focus our awareness on. The things in my awareness I recognize and believe. My accuracy my be determined on the accuracy of my recognition or possibly my interpretation of an experience. However, instead of cashing out a full defense for that at this time (I will eventually) I will cash out some consequences. For the sake of space and the profile of my typical reader I will focus on Apologetics, Evangelism and maybe a touch of discipleship.

Apologetics & Evangelism:
Certainly good arguments are important and the evidence for God can be a key to creating a belief in God. At the very least, Al needs sufficient defeaters for the arguments against God that he has believed for years. However, good arguments are not magic. Many Christians often wins battles and lose wars arguing for the existence of God. There is no simple list of reasons for this event. Maybe Al was simply mad at God when his close friend died of cancer. He needed time and compassion to free his acceptance of belief. For various reasons, arguments and evidence are not enough to bring about a belief in God for Al (unless the other conditions are already met). If the argument is enough (all other conditions met) then acceptance of the belief may not occur immediately. An alignment of ones belief system may take time. So, one must not be a hasty arguer or have unrealistic expectations of arguments, and certainly there is no place for self-righteous tones because one does not simply and directly choose to believe.

A Touch of Discipleship:
Given the above, we need to be patient as a believer changes beliefs and forms new ones. A tacit assumption in this post is that we can have knowledge by direct acquaintance. I think direct acquaintance is the most direct (and perhaps foundational) ways to form a belief. One knows the most and becomes the most like Jesus is one meets Jesus. The way of discipleship is incarnational.

Christianity
Apologetics
Worldview

The Hedonism of Piper Questioned

John Piper’s Book Desiring God was very helpful to me at a point in my Christian Life. I have since been bothered by questions about of his “Christian Hedonism.” First, it just did not seem like proper hedonism to me. Although I did not have a detailed argument against his “hedonism,” I did have a few arguments. Recently I found a good post on this at Prosblogion.
Second, although newer additions contain a much needed chapter on the role of suffering, dying to self and repentance are two closely related themes that the book does not cover. These themes I think are critical to growth in the Christian life and need explaining in light of the prima facie contradiction of hedonism.
However, overall I find the book Desiring God to be a much needed message for the Church today. If you have not read it or have not read it in awhile, then this summer might be a great time to read Piper and put on the mind of Christ who for the joy set before him endured the cross.



Books
Religion

Do You Suffer From Subconscious Scientism?

Scientism is roughly the belief that the only knowledge that can be had is scientific. So, when a periodical wants to claim that something is true, they (if those at the magazine are acting like believers in scientism) find a scientist to say that the “fact” in question has been empirically verified by some study.

I have been exposed in the course of my Graduate training in Philosophy as a subconscious believer in scientism (henceforth known as BS). I admit that when Newsweek quotes a scientist I am more apt to believe it is true than when they ask someone else. I “know” that scientism is self-refuting. Specifically that the claim that only scientific knowledge can be know is not itself scientific. However, there has been something of the fabric of our culture woven into by belief system that has kept me from fully rejecting BS.

However, in rejecting BS one need not reject the proper authority of science with respect to scientific things. To ask “what are scientific things?” is to ask a philosophical question by nature. Philosophical inquiry has helped balance me and at least given me an stronger internal “comfort” inclining me to be more objective.

So, my encouragement is to do a bit of self reflection this weekend and ask yourself if someone quotes a scientist are you MORE likely to believe it? If you, why? Is the question the scientist answering properly scientific?

Philosophy
Education

Update on Darwin from Dangerous Idea

Dangerous Idea has a fresh post on this that is worth the read. And I fixed the links in my last post.

The “Darwinian inquisition,” Intelligent Design, and Higher Education

Dangerous Idea has a series of posts about the “Darwinian inquisition” and some interesting and relevant posts about the ID movement. When I read about what is happening to Mr. Leonard and his PhD process I was very interested in knowing exactly what is going on there. I first read about it at Inside Higher Ed, where quickly said the following things, but here I have added some things I kept out of my post there:
First, it seems to me that this scandal is created by various heated issues that have less to do with the actual dissertation than is appropriate. Isn’t this an issue of education and not science? IF the question is about learning scientific theory, then there seems to be little need for experts in science unless the students were not taught science. No theory of origins is strictly science, not even evolution. However, I don’t really care if the controversial dissertation was examining the possibility of students learning evolution better if ID was taught or Sesame Street was recently viewed, the point is about the kids learning evolution anyway right? Isn’t this an educational issue? If the kids/people in the study actually learned more science, then why are the scientists so bent out of shape? Smells like fear and irrationality to me (which science might tell an interesting story about.)
Second, I don’t understand the heat generated by this issue (especially from people who are supposed be a part of the free market of ideas). Why not teach the controversy? When I took biology spontaneous generation was considered as the strongest competitor to evolution. I guess I agree with the ID people on this one. So, far this issue seems to be more heat than light.
Third, many of the comments label ID folks in the creationist camp (of the sort who actually look for rabbits in the Precambrian layer). However, I think this is a bit misleading because most of the ID adherents seem to be “old earth creationists” that do not fully reject evolution. Also, just because God is at the end of their theory doesn’t mean that the theory is unscientific. If this were the case we would be forced to throw out much of the science from history which has only been recently secularized — even Einstein appealed to God.
In the comments section following my post “Mike” characterizes the debate as is Christians are the ignorant, but politically powerful people trying to force their way into science. He says “There is no scientific concept of “equal time".” Is that what the ID people do? I think that they are actually making some claims that need to be addressed.
Religion
Intelligent Design
Education

Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton Brad Pitt and Peeping Toms

I have recently come out of my cave (the windowless office that I work and study from) to watch the news. Generally my news sources are from various web sites, blogs, and radio; however, I was unprepared for barrage of Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and the mounting case against the Paparazzi. Ironically, the Paparazzi problems put the issues together best in the blame game. Is it the fault of the publishers who offer the big money, reckless and greedy photographers or the public who is willing to pay for it all? To some degree the bottom line must be the voyeuristic public that hungers for this stuff. The buyers are the real money source.

Why do we care who Brad Pitt goes for a walk with on the Beach? What do we hope to gain from such information? Paris Hilton is famous for being famous (allegedly). What in the world does that mean to be famous for being famous? Certainly there is some legitimate need of a human being that must be met, and maybe more than one from such a strange appetite. Are we longing for connection with other people? Maybe we chose famous people because we do not think that we will meet them, so we feel safe because we know that our own wounds will not be hurt. Maybe we chose famous people because their exposure makes us feel like we know them. Brad seems like a nice enough guy, sure we could be friends. Further, Brad is a great guy and as HIS friend people would see that I am really important.

The problem of voyeuristic relationships is not merely that they are one sided, but that they enhance one's disconnection from reality. Possibly these disconnections contribute to a form a de-humanization. In our "curiosity" we treat the object of our star chasing as less than a person. But the real danger is training our souls to be nourished in mere virtual relationship. This habit will also eventually impair oneÂ’s ability to receive love, which to some degree is what we all want when we start such a practice. So, go bowling with your neighbor tonight and give Brad some space. You might be surprised how much fun you can have with the people in your neighborhood. Take your "curiosity" and use it to form real relationships and you will become a better lover and be more beloved.

Current Affairs

I'm back

School is over and I'm in the midst of returning to the workforce....if only for a few months. And let me just say that it's quite an adjustment. Gone are my hours of free time, only to be spent surfing the web and publishing my thoughts to the great big internet. Now I'm working 9 to 5, or 6, or 7, or you get the idea.

But that doesn't mean I'll stop sharing my thoughts. More to come.

Jesus reveals the heart of the media

Certainly the media, like any group is a mixed population filled with a diversity of opinions. But a recent MSNBC article on Jesus very subtly suggests that we distrust the Christianity. The irony is that even accepting all the evidence presented in the article, there is no need to question Christianity at all. The lead in and title of the story give the impression that common beliefs about Jesus (or at least one belief) are over turned by science. The lead in goes as follows: “Jesus died of blood clot, Israeli researcher says…Expert: Crucifixion caused pulmonary embolism, not fatal blood loss.” The article begins with

“An Israeli researcher has challenged the popular belief that Jesus died of blood loss on the cross, saying he probably succumbed to a sometimes fatal disorder now associated with long-haul air travel.”

Who really thinks Jesus died of blood loss? There are two difficulties about the accusation that it is a “common” belief that Jesus died of blood loss. First, although the MSNBC article sites a Journal of American Medical Association’s 1986 article, there are too few households with JAMA under the coffee tables to consider what they say to be the “common” view. The common view on the cause of death by crucifixion in general seems to be suffocation, at least among Christians. The evidence of this is the practice of breaking the legs of the person so he (or she?) could not push up on his legs to breath. Jesus being dead on examination was pierced by a spear to verify his passing. So, if anything, what we have here is a case of science overturning science (unless you consider medicine something else) not the "common" view.

Second, the death of Jesus in particular is frequently taught in Christian churches as the result of a heart attack or a similar condition. The evidence of this claim is often inferred from the flow of blood and “water” from the spear wound. In a church setting Pastors and Priest’s connect the parallels of purpose and the physical facts of Jesus’ death. Namely, Jesus lovingly died to reconcile all the alienated people of the world to God and His great love; thus, Jesus dies of a broken heart in more than one way. This seems to be reasonably closer to “common” belief, whatever it might be.

Does this really matter? What if it turns out that the scourging gave Jesus some kind of bacterial infection that builds in his system and then caused sudden death? Whether Jesus died of a condition that is now associated with cramped seats on air planes, a heart attack that makes for nice illustrations in sermons, or some unknown condition, he still died on the cross. The biblical account is not threatened by these details.

It would seem that this article is motivated by one of the following reasons: 1) Jesus did not die from the cause that is commonly believed. To have a certified scientific fact disproving a common belief important to an event undermines the credibility of the event. Therefore, we should question the account of Jesus’ death (and the Resurrection even more). 2) Jesus did not die from the cause that is commonly believed, but died of the same condition that threatens the economy class passengers flying on the wickedly designed seats evil empire of aircraft industry. Such conditions are so bad that only the picture of the most holy man to walk the earth dies from this same horrible condition. 3) Although possibly wrong with respect to “common” beliefs, here is an insight into the actual death of Jesus. This is simply a fact, and this evidence is neutral toward all other claims about Jesus, Christianity and the aircraft industry. 4) Some combination of the above motivations.

Since, motives of any sort are rarely pure; some combination of motives is most likely. But the chief motivation would seem to be option 1. Option 2 is simply too weird of a connection, even if one tones down my exaggerated account. Option 3 seems to be not really newsworthy, unless one considers any news about Jesus newsworthy (if this is the case I would agree). So, my vote leans toward one, such that any news that is against Jesus is newsworthy. IF, I am right about this, we should all grieve the loss of reporting based on objectivity and the pursuit of the FACTS and TRUTH. Our cultural preference for entertainment over reality is revealed in our acceptance of this kind of reporting. IF I am wrong, how can we explain the general impression of selective intolerance against aspects of Christianity or at least Theism? Further, I regularly see news reports I know for a fact are wrong. Will America rise up and demand more from the media or will WE simply roll over and enjoy the siren song until it is too late?

The media is not the Devil. Everyone has a bias. I can accept this, but what I cannot accept is the media increasingly distant from the world they are reporting on. What was most striking about this article was not that it was totally slanted or wrong, but that it was simply so thin.

(How much are people talking about Religion?)

Caught in the Act of subverting Christian Confession to Sin

Sarah Boxer has written a very perceptive article that contains excellent spiritual exhortations for anyone with ears to hear. Her first main insight reveals perverted appearance of on-line confession sites. She compares a flasher to this poster of sins. I think she is right about that. Confession can become a sanctified way of revealing in our sin. The “flasher” metaphor captures the mode of this error well. The point of confession is to become Christ-like by bringing a weakness before God so to acknowledge an area of need of God. We trust Christ and allow His Body to enter into our wound and bring the freedom and love of Christ into our wounds in order to heal the root of sin. The root is the real cause of sin, not just changing behavior. So, anonymous web-confessionals are ill suited for any healthy use. There is no owning of one’s sin if one will not own up to who they are. If one did, there is still insufficient community to aid in healing. Further even if sufficient “virtual” community existed, it is unlikely that this venue is capable of manifesting the love and freedom of Christ necessary to heal the actual wounds of the “sinner.”

A second insight fills in details about the dramatic disconnect between that people who think of the sight as a “healing” and prayer-filled environment and the performance of another sin. Boxer quotes a reader who expresses that he believes in the genuineness of the people who contribute. Boxer’s response is worth quoting at length:

“Oh, but there is [fakeness]. And it is the fakeness, the artifice and the performance that make this confessional worth peeking at. The secret sharers here aren't mindless flashers but practiced strippers. They don't want to get rid of their secrets. They love them. They arrange them. They tend them. They turn them into fetishes. And that's the secret of PostSecret. It isn't really a true confessional after all. It is a piece of collaborative art.”

How often are Christian accountability groups simply guilt groups or some other version of performative art? How often do we treasure our sin or make it an object of “beauty”?

Making Sense of Bush, Stem Cell Research, Ethics and Misinformation

Granted, sometimes even Bush may not understand Bush, so I am not going to claim that I have any answers in my crystal ball on why he is threatening to veto the stem cell research bill. However, I do think that is what I would do in his shoes. My reasons have to do with the misinformation (a nice way to say that the public and maybe capital hill have been deceived) and the ethical issues that follow.

Let’s start with the deception of the public. First, the general public seems to think that the only stem cells are embryonic stem cells and that is not true. One clue is found in the name “embryonic.” If there is only one kind, this label would not be meaningful unless it was some sort of rhetorical device created by pro-life groups. It turns out that there are Adult stem cells too (and maybe more kinds). Although adult stem cells are now being talked about, they are slanderously discussed with the tone of “limited” and “narrow” words that make them sound like 3 day old leftovers.

Second, embryonic stem cells are getting lots of attention and lots of promises are made about their potential. This potential is real. However, to my knowledge there are no known treatments that work, while there are over 80 successful treatments developed from adult stem cells. The crazy part is that the very potential of the embryonic cells is what seems to make them difficult to use. If you are a gambler, they seem to be a long-shot that will not likely pay off. But if it did, it would be a big pay-off. These cells are fully totipotential. This means that this cell has the ability to become any cell in the body. The hard part is that the scientific community has no idea who the foreman of the work crew is. Thus, if you don’t know who is running the show, you can’t take his seat. Genes function like the steering wheel, and steering wheels play a legitimate causal role in the direction of the vehicle. Although there is high potential, the probabilities are not in favor of a pay-off.

In response, someone might claim that the only reason this is true is that so little research has been done. Although there is some merit to this reply, it makes other problematic assumptions about the nature of persons and has an unfalsifiable perspective. For example, this perspective is of the same sort as the statement “I could have beat Michael Jordan one-on-one if I could score more points.” Also it is smart investing to work on adult stem cells which will likely suffer less complications like there will probably not be rejection issues because they come from your own body. Of course that leads into the question of cloning oneself and parting your other self out. The point here is that there has been enough evidence that to show that embryonic stem cell research is a difficult path and probabilities and actual successful treatments make adult stem cells a better candidate for research.

Another key issue is the very nature of personhood is in the balance. Bush and I agree (I think) that an embryo is a person. Have you seen the Matrix? Imagine thousands of people in pods hooked up to machines, only instead of being utilized for energy by an army of crazy machines; there are doctors who cut them up for their parts. The issue of personhood is central to the debate, and certainly it is not settled. Even if you are inclined to think that an embryo is not a person, consider the ramifications if you are wrong for one minute. The stakes are too high to call it science and simply proceed without serious thought. I’ll save this one for another post, and finish with a “just suppose.” Suppose that I told you that one month babies are people yet and that by taking their organs we could save thousands of lives. This is obviously wrong because we know these are little people. So, when does life begin? – Conception. When personhood begins makes a big difference– I think it begins at conception. When you draw the line and why? If embryos are people, then it is a “no-brainer.” If they are not, then alternative constructions of what it means to be human may seriously undermine more than we might ever gain.

Pat Robertson Said What?

Good post over at Mark Byron analyzing a recent discussion Pat Robertson had about the 2008 election. Apparently, Pat likes the idea of a pro-choice Gulianni replacing the entire Supreme Court in 2009 (I have this weird feeling Bush is going 8 years with nuthin) as opposed to electing a pro-life John McCain.

With all due respect to Reverend Robertson (we share a common school after all) I absolutely cannot fathom why he'd think this. Mark has a nice theory, though. This comment was particularly insightful.

"Is McCain more liberal than Giuliani? Not last I checked. If anything, he's more conservative on the moral issues that Robertson supposedly champions. However, McCain's less of a loyal Republican, willing to buck the party leadership. You can be a libertine, but as long as you're a loyal Republican, Rev-run Pat's got your back."

*UPDATE* Apparently Pat Robertson and I share the same initials. It looks like Pat Robertson's real name is M.G. Robertson. Weird.

Celebrity Blogging

Ariana Huffington has recently relaunched her blog ,this time featuring guest bloggers from a diverse set of backgrounds. These bloggers include politicians, public intellectuals, and even a few celebrities. When I first heard that I now have the opportunity to read John Cusack's thoughts on the world, the following question came to mind. Why, exactly, would I be interested in hearing John Cusack's thoughts on the world?

Our society's obsession with celebrity mystifies me. There seems to be no part of our daily lives immune from celebrity interest. Blogging strikes me as a rather egalitarian arena. (Assuming you have access to the internet, which is obviously not the case for everyone.) Create your own small space in the great big internet, publish your thoughts, and reap the rewards. (Or, in some cases, reap the whirlwind ) It's not who you are, it's what you write. Or that's the thought at least.

But there seems to be some sort of demand for hearing the thoughts of celebrities. This obviously doesn't have anything to do with their eloquence or their wisdom. Rather, it's driven by the fact that the public at large has an almost intimate knowledge of the day-to-day lives of celebrities, in which case being interested in a blog featuring celebrities is just a natural development. If you know what kind of cereal Will Smith buys at the grocery store, why wouldn't you want his insight on North Korea?

I suppose that kind of interest is fine for the millions of people who subscribe to People magazine. But I find it truly worrisome when our celebrity fixation gets in the way of important matters. A few years ago, Ohio Senator George Voinovich made national headlines when he refused to attend a congressional hearing featuring testimony delivered by a Backstreet Boy. This, I think, was the right statement to make. George would have been justified in skipping the appearance if the guy was merely singing (and dancing, which goes together when you're a Backstreet Boy), much less giving testimony relating to the environmental impact of strip-mining in Kentucky.

Let's hope this celebrity blogging thing doesn't take off.

Abortion Discussion

Evangelical Outpost has a good post about the immorality of abortion. He talks about a widely-cited article by Kansas philosopher Don Marquis about what makes killing wrong and how that's related to abortion. One thing that fascinates and saddens me about the problem of abortion is the intersection of politics and philosophy. The philosophical arguments are interesting, challenging and can, at times, reach profundity. Politics, of course, just messes that all up. There are real discussions to be had, but the rhetoric puts some conversations beyond the realm of the possible. 'Tis a shame.

Top Down or Bottom Up?

I'm having a hard time understanding the desire by some Christians to engage in a fight over judicial nominations in the name of religious expression and freedom. What, exactly, is the point? Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council lists four reasons why this isn't just political but religious as well, and why it is incumbent upon all Christians to join this distinctly religous struggle.

1. The Legalization of Abortion

This is a tough one. For pro-lifers, abortion isn't just about curtailing the rights of women, it's about protecting the lives of unborn children. More than a religious issue, it's a question of justice. But it's also an issue that resonates with more than just the religiously minded. So the question is why Christians are drawing the wagons so close. If abortion is an issue of life and death that should alarm all Americans, the debate shouldn't be about people of faith. Wouldn't it make more sense to rally all Americans, both religious and non-religious, to fight for a more just society?

Even more troubling is that when you paint the problem of abortion in religious terms, you give liberals more fodder for the cannons. Nothing is more dangerous to healthy debate than empty rhetoric. It means the speaker isn't thinking and it gives the listener an excuse to be dismissive. The challenge is whether pro-lifers can argue against abortion on terms everyone can accept. Christians must never paint abortion as a religious issue if they intend to change the minds of the pro-choice community.

2. The Banning of School Prayer

This isn't as tough of an issue. What's traumatic about school prayer isn't that we don't have it, it's that it was taken away. School prayer isn't about saving the souls of children, it's about what how we conceive of our country. At root, are we a Christian nation, where we separate the state from the church for the good of the church? Or are we a pluralistic nation, where we separate the church from the state for the good of the state? And does this even matter?

I'm inclined to think it doesn't matter. For Christians, and more particularly Evangelicals, the big point in life is telling people about the love of God. So the thought surely must be that by preserving our Christian heritage, we are allowing the gospel to fluorish, thereby opening up the gates of heaven. But that can't be right. Revival, and its evil twin spiritual decay, can never work from the top down. The changes in our nation's laws hasn't pushed this nation away from Christianity but rather has merely been the reflection of a changing nation. And if modifying our laws was never the problem, then it can't be the solution. Spiritual change must come from the bottom up.

3. The Expulsion of the 10 Commandments from Public Spaces

This really mystifies me. Again, I'm forced to ask, so what? What benefit is there to a public display of the 10 commandments? When people shuffle in and out of courtrooms that display the 10 commandments, they don't stop to ponder the wonderful Judeo-Christian heritage this nation enjoys. And if a courtroom doesn't have the 10 commandments on display, people don't fret over whether our laws are built on a firm foundation.

The fight, of course, is once again over the way we conceive of our nation. But at what price do we pay for such a debate? The more Christians fight over religious expression in the public sphere, the more tempting it is to water down such expression. And there is no point for more exposure to this nation's Christian heritage when all you eventually get is a civic religion that doesn't really represent anyone.

4. The Starvation of Terri Schiavo

Finally, we see that the Family Research Council has launched this campaign, in part, over the cause of a single woman. Here, I am left to wonder if our priorities are woefully mixed up. There is much wrong with our country and our world, and it strikes we as unfortunate that some Christians have put so much emphasis on a single tragic choice. Figuring out the right thing to do in end-of-life scenarios is not a simple task and what the courts did may or may not have been the wise choice. But at the least, the charitable interpretation of what happened with Terri Schiavo is to say that it was a murky debate over a difficult issue, and not another example of a nation gone awry. I am fearful, however, that Terri Schiavo has instead been enlisted in a fight against what some people perceive is religious bigotry.

These four issues strike me as a mix of legitimate topics for public debate, and senseless hand-wringing over the place of Christianity in public life. What is common to all of these issues is that they are dangerous when mixed with the rhetoric of religious persecution. First, if Christians try to monopolize the abortion debate, then the cause is lost. If Christians expect to make progress in how this nation conceives of abortion, then it must enlist the non-religious. Second, if Christians remain convinced that this nation should change its laws to save its soul, then we are in deep trouble. What is the point of the 10 commandments on display if you had to alienate a nation of non-Christians to get it there?

And so I'm left wondering about the fight against religious bigotry. There has got to be a better way. I just don't know what that is.

UPDATE: Here here and here are some links to other organizations who stand opposed to abortion but yet have no part in a Republican struggle against the judiciary. I'm curious as to what they think of all this.

Careless Words Still Count in the Culture War

Certainly it is bad strategy to throw bombs carelessly, so why think we can speak so loosely? Ideas matter. One fallacy to be careful of is the Genetic Fallacy, where one dismisses an argument based on its origin. If some crazy uneducated tribal witchdoctor discovers a natural cure to cancer, although one might have good reason to think his findings are probably not sound given the track record of most witch doctors, there is no reason without more evidence to claim that he is wrong. The question is does that potion cure cancer or not.

In a similar fashion both Left and Right in the war on culture brandish inflammatory talk against one another often without addressing the issues. The last round Presidential “debates” were good examples of inflammatory accusations without real rebuttal of arguments, if any were actually given. When asked who won the debate a viewer would assess the winner through a set of weighted values often reading through what was actually said, and frequently the candidate that had a particular agreement on an issue was the winner. The deciding issue in this case may not have been mentioned!

While I will be the first to admit that the Christians in America have it “pretty good,” there is definitely a growing assault against traditional Christians. Stanley Kurtz has a nice piece on this from the National Review. I will cite part of his conclusion to tempt you to read the whole article. Kurtz says:

“The real danger is that a growing campaign of hatred against traditional Christians by secular liberals will deepen an already dangerous conflict. The solution is to continue our debates, but to change their framing. Conservative Christians cannot stop complaining of exclusion and prejudice until cultural liberals pare back their own excesses. Let’s stop treating honest differences on same-sex marriage as simple bigotry. Let’s stop using the courts as a way around democratic decision-making. Let’s stop trying to criminalize religious expression.”

Irony Has a Name

and it's Tom Delay. Apparently he said the following in 1995:

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know...I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."

It would be funny if it his tirade didn't align perfectly with every single ethics complaint currently being lodged against him. Instead, I just find the quote disturbing.

(link via dispatches )

The Culture War Heats Up

"A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives." C.S. Lewis.

There was quite a bit of coverage of the Christian rally held on Friday about the fight over the President's judicial nominees. James Dobson, in his own understated way, claimed that nothing less than "the future of democracy and ordered liberty" was at stake in this fight over judicial nominees. And to think, I always thought that the future of our liberty was in the hands of Someone bigger than the federal judiciary. But what do I know?

The rally styled the debate over Bush's nominees as a fight between Bible believing Christians and those who stand in opposition to people of faith. The basic question is whether people may use the Bible to formulate their political beliefs and to what extent that is permissible. Ostensibly, James Dobson and Tony Perkins don't favor the literal use of the Bible for the purposes of Constitutional interpretation. But if they aren't advocating a theocracy, what do they mean when they talk of a war against people of faith?

They must mean that a "Christian" stance is more or less embodied in a conservative agenda, and to work against Bush's conservative nominees is to work actively against people of faith. What this does, then, is it transforms political debate into a religious one. Working against Republican ideals might have been an nuisance in the past, but now that the debate is about what a Christian's response to current events is, the debate takes on apocalyptic overtones. Does James Dobson think that a conservative agenda still needs to appeal to shared premises in order to work? I think so. But he would probably argue that no matter what a conservative might say to a liberal, no amount of reasoning will ever be sufficient. The reason is because the basic hostility liberals have to conservatives is no longer political. The hostility, instead, is religious.

The question, though, is what right do James Dobson and Tony Perkins have with styling this debate in religious terms? The reason why some conservatives think the debate about the judiciary really is about religion is based on that initial premise about the relationship between conservativism and faith. But political conservativism is not a necessary consequence of an orthodox Christian faith. (I welcome comments if you disagree with this statement.) And when Republicans claim that this debate is really about faith only exacerbates the problem. It's no surprise that liberals are anti-faith if they think that the faith you happen to be selling means they have to commit themselves to a political framework they find repulsive. In this sense, we seem to be in a vicious circle. Liberals are leery of Evangelicals because we seem to be selling a strange hybrid of faith and politics. Evangelicals look at the rejection of our faith and our politics in tandem, and instead of looking inward, simply chalk it up to an irrational prejudice against faith. And in this debate, there are no solutions, just a widening gulf.

Shifting Sands

In another sign that this country is shifting, albeit slowly, in its views of gay marriage, the Connecticut (my fair state) state assembly has approved civil unions for gay couples. This story is notable for two reasons. First, it's interesting that the judiciary was not involved at all with the bill's passage. Second, it's remarkable how quickly the story receded into the depths of the internet, without much fanfare.

Civil unions are sometimes embraced by individuals who are staunchly opposed to gay marriage. While marriage, so the argument goes, shouldn't be redefined, perhaps civil unions can act as a way to give gay couples the kinds of rights enjoyed by straight couples. If you're actively opposed to gay marriage, however, that strikes me as a risky compromise. Look at how quickly this nation has come to accept, for all intents and purposes, civil unions. And if you cede the existence of civil unions, therefore accepting at a basic level the state's recognition of gay couples, you cede any argument against gay marriage based on a perceived threat to societal values. What are you left with? Most likely you're left with the most familiar argument: namely, that gay marriage is wrong because it constitutes a change in our definition of marriage. I have a strong suspicion, however, that as time marches on and civil unions become a part of our culture, that argument will go the way of the dinosaur.

Check out the comments for an Update on the details on Naturalism

The Devil is in the details I tell you. Check out these great comments from the post on Naturalism and my brief argument from the existence of mind. I think an interesting addition to this is that there is growing evidence that mental causation is possible and that the mind can change the brain. See the work of Jeffery M. Schwartz M.D. I will try to track down a link to his latest research on another post.

Stepping out into spring

When I took this image a few years ago, I just liked the look of it. Now I feel more and more like I look like it. Not that I think I am merely a broken down old shack. Instead I am aware of the fact that I often want to retreat into the inadequate shelters of my own creation instead of living out loud in the beautiful world that God has created. Within my shack it always becomes winter, but stepping out and living as I truly am strangely changes the weather. Maybe it is only I who changes, but it seems to be the only way to hasten Spring.

Dembski, Design and Evolution

Last night I went to hear William Dembski at Biola where he lectured on intelligent design(id). It was a popular level lecture filled with careful illustrations and a big picture assessment of the id movement. Dembski also made it clear that the problem with Naturalistic Evolution is that it can not and does not account for the specified complexity of the world. Evolution, does (on one level) adequately describe how organisms change over time, but he claims that Naturalistic evolution is too blind to account for the design in the world.

The momentum of skepticism about the adequacy of Naturalistic Evolution is increasing. Dembski cited Robert Laughlin’s book, among several others, to point out the “anti-theory” affect of many evolutionists today. Laughlin, who is clearly an evolutionist, says “it's wrong to use evolution, a theory of origins, to justify monkeying with nature without understanding what you're doing.” Although Laughlin is a supporter of evolution his position is sympathetic toward id when he states in an e-mail to Dembski “that much of modern science isn't objective at all but a belief system in disguise, one that often DOESN'T respect nature, even though it alleges to do so.”

Further, the design work being done has great benefits to other fields that I had not thought of until after hearing Dembski. For example, imagine you are an archeologist (Dr. Dirt) looking for some lost city. Dembski’s work could help you by giving you a design detector that would help you discern which mounds of dirt are built by intelligence (presumably human). In this way Dr. Dirt could save much time and money by digging only the mounds with the highest probability of being part of the lost city.

At the end of the night no one can claim a definitive victory in the intelligent design verses evolution debate. I think the debate should be aired in the world of ideas and may the strongest (assuming the truth is stronger than falsehood) win.

Naturalistic Presuppositions Test Part #1 and an Argument from the existence of Mind

My last post was a tad misunderstood or at least misrepresented by the Evangelical Outpost. I agreed that Naturalism is at the end of the day self refuting. However, the tone was uncharitable, and the mistakes of Naturalistic thinking are far too complex to, without serious argument, dismiss so lightly. To the credit of the Evangelical Outpost, he has recanted (mostly?) of this tone. On the other hand, the details of the problems are often so abundant that it is difficult to write a readable post that contains any robust argumentation without either writing a book or being overly condensed by technical philosophical terminology. What is more difficult is that at the very bottom, philosophical intuitions may be running around.

This post is an attempt to offer the first of a couple simpler posts that zero in on some grounding points of the debate which can easily fly away into problems. I am happy to support my arguments more robustly to any who post questions, and ground more deeply this or any other argument as I am able to do so.

The Discovery scenario: Imagine and discovery is made about x, y, and z…

a) Philosophers and religious leaders agree (which is tantamount to a miracle) that the human mind is essentially x, y, and z. Further, x, y and z have also been generally maintained for most of human history.
Do you believe it? How confident are you in your correctness (either for or against)?

b) Scientists have PROVEN that the nature of a mind is simply the brain, and further that x, y, and z are false.
Do you believe it? How confident are you in your correctness (either for or against)?

If you were leaning toward affirming b) and away from a), then you probably have a scientific naturalistic basis (which could be appropriately justified or falsified at this point). This is similar to thinking that “we” did not know anything, or very little, or had no justification for beliefs about the mind before modern science; SO, “now that science says something I can believe it!”

IF you would affirm the truth potential of a), and are skeptical of b) because it competes with the huge body of KNOWLEDGE roughly constant through human history, THEN you do not have a Naturalistic bias.

PROBLEMS: Consider the compatibility of Naturalism (the belief that all things exist in space and time (i.e. physical) and are empirically verifiable (at least in theory). How could someone PROVE that? What is proof? Is it evidence that adds up to a conclusion? What is “adds?” Where are the laws of logic? Can we stipulate them into the theory without their being physical and/or empirically verifiable? Let’s say this is possible (which seems false). How does one “use” these laws to “add” them? If it a linguistic function? (leads to) What is language? (leads to) What are words? (leads to) What are meanings? All this then leads to the possibility for mental things that exist outside space and time, and are to be understood by a rational enduring self.

This skeleton of an argument against naturalism because of the existence of minds has two forms. The Naturalist might say: 1) if Naturalism is true, minds don’t exist (see Naturalism site on self). 2) Naturalism is true. 3) Therefore, Minds don’t exist. GIVEN the soundness of the premises the conclusion follows.

However the non-Naturalist can frame the argument this way. 1) If Naturalism is true, minds don’t exist (note that this is the same). 2) It is NOT the case that mind’s DON’T exist (this is poor grammar, but good logical form). 3) Therefore Naturalism is NOT true.

Bottom line: Although it is not SELF-EVIDENT that naturalism is self-defeating, and one can certainly be rational to believe it; BUT, how could one believe it without having a mind? A similar argument is also made by Dr. Reppert with respect to the necessity of a mind for rational inference. The Dr. Seuss version: If Naturalism is true, then where is the who?