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?

The Center For Naturalism Asks us to Choose the Impossible

“Naturalism as a world view is based on the premise that knowledge about what exists and about how things work is BEST (my emphasis) achieved through the sciences, not personal revelation or religious tradition.” They are open and consistent, from what I have read of their view. However, if “best” is means that counts as knowledge is restricted to ONLY what science can say, then why is it not the center for scientism. Ultimately physics “runs the show” in this view, so if you look at the world through the sciences you will organize or study larger groups and different arrangements of molecules and atoms without adding new properties. This means that “love” is just a chemical in your brain, you don’t have free will, and God, angels, and souls (life after death) can not exist. Further, there is no “self” to make decisions or cause behavior. Again, the Center for Naturalism acknowledges all these things because they are consistent with their view. This is somewhat refreshing because Evolutionary Naturalists tend to simply assume Naturalism is true without explaining much of what their view entails. This runs against the stream of what is considered basic knowledge of human persons for much of human history. It is counter-intuitive (that I don’t really have freewill. Of course none of these reasons is sufficient to show Naturalism to be false. But it seems like a big bullet to bite, and I wonder how many people can really hold to this consistently in day to day living.

Naturalism is a philosophy that in its inclusivistic form rules out large bodies of beliefs that most people have; however, most of Western civilization today assumes at least one belief that presupposes Naturalism. In general western culture assumes that what counts as knowledge must be scientific or at least rooted in science, and this is clearly a point where Naturalism is already apart of our culture. So, the Center for Naturalism is probably trying to help people become consistent with their belief systems and assume that what needs to go is all this nonsense about having choices, punitive punishment, life after death, and God among other things like that you are conscious. The problem is that Naturalism has already limited what counts as knowledge to scientific data. Given this situation, Naturalism is true by definition because science no longer, generally speaking, considers data outside matter. For example, Science can never answer questions about the fact that pains hurt. Pains don’t hurt scientifically (empirically, although I don’t deny that there is a close relationship). Science can explain that there are simply various fibers that stimulate a brain state. “Hurting” entails much more than the physical universe and pains hurt. Minimally, hurt entails an owner to hurt, and the sensation of painfulness. I don’t have time to spell this argument out fully here, but if you post a comment requesting information, I will argue this more fully in another post and present both sides of the argument as well.

Naturalism as it relates to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory can be seen as a cumulative case argument with an inference to the best explanation. So, the real question is DOES SCIENCE best explain what is going on? IF so, then Naturalism may be correct (IF there really is NO ENTITY that exist outside physical matter). IF there is at least ONE ENTITY that cannot be explained, then Naturalism is false. The best general strategy is to call into question what is the best explanation like the Intelligent Design guys are going. At least this seems a good starting point because if the ID arguments are possibly true, then one cannot simply stipulate away the existence of souls, freewill, personal responsibility, and consciousness. If the ID arguments are possibly true, then there is reasonable doubt to support at least more investigation. In my view, Naturalism is begging the question more than they are self-defeating. They have starting points for their view that could come to no other conclusion than their view. It seems that the current formulation of Naturalism is self-defeating, but it seems POSSIBLE that they might be able to reformulate it so that it is not. But it is possible that I might win the lotto too, so I am not sure mere possibility offers too much hope for strict Naturalism.

My thanks go to the The Evangelical Outpost (EO) for bringing the Center for Naturalism to my attention. Although I agree with many of his thoughts, I believe there are a few things in his article that given an imprecise perception (Naturalism for Dummies: Contradictions, Causal Connections, and the Center for Naturalism). Naturalism is not self-evidently self defeating, and one should not one should not simply go around claiming without argument that Naturalism is self defeating (even IF it is. Plantinga’s argument may go through, and at the very least one should link to a version of it before making dramatic assessments (even IF true). Further, Plantinga’s conclusion is that “The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is that the conjunction of naturalism with evolutionary theory is self-defeating: it provides for itself an undefeated defeater. It is therefore unacceptable and irrational.” So, maybe it is not exactly correct to claim that Naturalism is self defeating, but the CONJUNCTION of Naturalism and Evolutionary theory is self-defeating. However, the Center for Naturalism affirms a evolutionary stance and I do not know of any Naturalist’s who don’t; so this might be an accurate criticism at the end of the day. My motivation is that as Christians I think we should be as fair as possible, even if they are not fair to us. Sadly, I think that, more often than not, many Christians are not willing to read a "for Dummies" assessment. Instead, it seems that many Americans simply pick a side without even engaging in the issues (many are not even aware of deeper issues). Cheers to you Evangelical Outpost for trying to help some Christians, but it would be help to link more to full argumentation of the issues.

One other brief critique of Joe’s post, which is really my only true criticism is that when Joe says “Think about what is being claimed: A human is indistinguishable from nature and comprised completely of physical matter; not one molecule in our bodies is sentient. Yet somehow when you combine all of these non-sentient molecules in the shape of a human being, a unique property magically arises.” (http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1257) I do not think that the Naturalist actually is claiming that a new property emerges. At least the Naturalist is not claiming this “out loud,” but there is some hocus pocus. It seems to me that the claim is more like “Can you believe it? Somehow it really seems like we have consciousness (or some other mental property), but we don’t. That is amazing.” It has a mystic-phyicalist-Buddhist flavor.

In Conclusion, Naturalism is a major bullet to bite that contradicts much of history, intuition and seems hard to live by. It is extremely difficult for me to deny that I am a self with a mind that can “hurt,” etc. Naturalism may be self-refuting, but let’s not take a tone that makes Naturalist’s seem foolish or un-intelligent. On the other hand, verificationism was definitely self-refuting and there were a lot of brilliant people who believed and defended it for years before it finally crashed. What will history show? So, the Center for Naturalism has a web site to help you choose Naturalism to be the guiding principle of your belief system, and that appears to be a self-defeating proposition if they are correct.

Honoring the Pope's Life

Nicholas Kristoff has an excellent piece on how world leaders could do more to the Pope's life and memory by doing something about the Sudan rather than reveling in the pomp and circumstance of an elaborate funeral. What I particularly like is his idea of expanding the "culture of life" to include acting against genocide and violence. If Americans are serious about promoting life and peace, our focus must be on injustice everywhere, even distant lands and foreign cultures.

Where There Was Light, Now There Is Darkness

John Paul II will be sorely missed. His papacy was courageous, dynamic, and unprecedented. He left for us an example of what true discipleship should look like. Unafraid to rebuke the Western world for its material excesses, the Pope nevertheless earned the respect of anyone who took the time to listen to his words. He was, in the end, a tireless advocate for the dignity of all human life, regardless of its perceived use by an impatient and superficial culture. Nearly everyone who has an opinion on this particular Pope has at least recognized that he was a man of extraordinary intellect and even greater principle.

And yet, the Pope had his detractors. For many positions he advocated, one can easily find scores of critics who argue that he stood in the way of progress. The Pope, of course, was unswayed by such criticisms. That, in the end, is the mark of a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

I'm reminded of the passage in First Corinthians, where St. Paul proclaims that the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved, it is the very power of God. The life of John Paul II embodied these words. He was a fool for Christ because he rejected the ethos of our age. And yet, he was still respected. Intellectually, he was a worthy opponent. In terms of his life, there was not a hint of hypocrisy. An opponent of the Pope's message cannot comfort himself or herself simply by relying on a strawman's argument. An opponent of the Pope's message of life and peace must instead confront a startling reality; he or she is against the cross of Christ. It is in that sense, that the cross of Christ is foolishness to the enemies of God.

All of us, Christians and non-Christians, would do well by imitating the courage of the Pope to stand up for what he thought was right, and the passion and sophistication with which he fought for those same convictions.