Christian & Non-Christian Culture

I grew up in a non-religious environment, became a Christian in college, went to seminary, became an agnostic/skeptic for awhile, and recently came back to belief in Christ; although, I am not evangelical or fundamentalist by any means. This post will not address my journey through these seasons, but will aim to constructively critique the Christian and non-Christian academic cultures in their understanding of one another. Secondly, I include constructive criticism of the Christian church in an effort to help it to stand for truth, love, justice, and everything else that Jesus stands for. My thoughts are inspired by the following: my experiences within the Christian culture and academia, non-Christian culture and academia, friends from various backgrounds and worldviews, a recent talk given by philosophy professor at CU Boulder: Michael Tooley, and a recent conversation with an intelligent philosophy student at Denver Seminary.

I will begin with the secular academic culture’s understanding of Christianity, which Michael Tooley’s talk illustrated so well. During his speech on the topic of “What is Wrong with the World, and Who is to Blame?” he implies that there is an inverse relationship between education and religion; the more education one receives, the less religious one becomes. This view is alive and well in secular academia; Christianity lies outside of logic and reason. Besides, a recent survey over hundreds of schools indicates that 72% of philosophy faculty identify themselves as atheists, so this must be correct, right?

Secondly, during the question and answer time of Michael Tooley’s talk, he referenced some contradictions that he believes the Bible embodies. However, I am skeptical that he has investigated what Bible scholars write in response. In fact, my hope for everyone who believes that the Bible contains contradictions is to read responses from Bible scholars in order to decide for themselves. It is imperative that individuals take up this task if they are going to seriously consider their beliefs about Christianity.

On a positive note, I agreed with Tooley’s comments about the need for critical thinking in schools prior to college. I believe California requires high school students to take a critical thinking class, so I hope other states adopt this requirement as well. Moreover, Tooley also declared that parents possess an ethical responsibility to teach their children how to think; not merely what to think. Of course, I think parents should share their beliefs, but also allow their children to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, Tooley mirrors Dawkins’ position that teaching children religion is merely indoctrination and should be condemned. If parents teaching children their religious beliefs is indoctrination, then so is teaching them atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, or worldview ‘X.’ I agree with Michael Tooley in that parents need to learn critical thinking, so that they can teach children how to think independently and assess what parents teach. If parents and schools took critical thinking seriously, then children who reach the developmental stage of abstract thinking could thoughtfully form their worldview. Isn’t this what academia should stand for?

So, what is wrong with schools today besides not teaching critical thinking? The problem is that many schools need to teach students to achieve high scores on state exams in order to get a bonus or keep funding for their school. The pressure for schools to produce certain scores on state exams leads to an education saturated with memorization. When and if high school students reach college, no wonder they cannot think critically, let alone write a coherent essay. Of course, there are exceptions, as I’m sure some parents and schools are doing well with critical thinking. However, it seems like the majority of parents and schools are not.

Observation of masses reveals the following: a lack in understanding of opposing views, a lack in understanding of the political and economic issues facing America; let alone the world, and the amount of people who allow emotion or sensationalism to guide their thinking. Instead of taking the intellectual task seriously, humanity is becoming increasingly enslaved to insatiability than ever before. We desire to fill our existential voids with more material items and convenience. As Blaise Pascal wrote, we so often find “nothing so intolerable as to be in a state of complete rest, without passions, without occupation, without diversion, without effort. Then one feels their nullity, loneliness, inadequacy, dependence, helplessness, emptiness” (paraphrased). As a result, students and parents face monumental challenges to sit still and commit their minds to critical thinking.

My challenge to all humanity is to infuse more critical thinking and lessen emotion as the driving force behind their decisions. I am not encouraging stoicism or emotional ignorance, however, I am calling on humanity to learn how to regulate and process their emotions well. An increase in critical thinking will help individuals need to re-evaluate what they think they know about opposing views. This involves thoughtful engagement in dialogue with a variety of ideas, utilization of critical thinking, and research. I believe the future of America and the rest of the world relies on this. Individuals must gain better understanding and education of themselves and the world in order to make well-informed, rational choices. Perhaps more wars, torture of others, genocide, political corruption, and sex slavery may be alleviated to some degree if critical thinking was applied to the decisions leading to these evils.

While I believe that faith in Christ brings ultimate healing and restoration to one’s soul, critical thinking must accompany all decisions one makes. Since secular universities often think that critical thinking leads one away from faith, I would argue that this is far from the case given the amount of intellectually serious Christian scholars in philosophy, including many other academic disciplines. Many Christian philosophers write about why Christian Theism is the case based on critical thinking. Secular students and teachers need to become aware of these arguments and thoughtfully consider them.

My focus will now shift to secular college academia in regards to Christianity and philosophy. The reason why the philosophy faculty survey displays such a high percentage in the atheist category is because secular post-secondary colleges fail to teach views of Christian philosophers. If Christian philosophy is taught, the professor typically presents Christian philosophy as fideism, which lacks rational grounding. Indeed, I am not saying this about all secular schools, as I’m sure there are exceptions, but I suspect most colleges lack accurate teaching in Christian philosophy. College students, just ask your professors if they know who the following are: Alvin Plantinga, W.L. Craig, Edward Feser, Gary Habermas, Richard Swinburne, Peter Kreeft, Stephen T. Davis, Norm Geisler, Ravi Zacharias, C.S. Lewis, or Paul Moser. Some may recognize certain names, but very few are familiar with their arguments. I think the secular university lacks understanding of what Christianity argues and stands for. Thus, I am not surprised at the high percentage of atheist philosophy professors.

On the other hand, I think a majority (not all) of Christian universities and seminaries fail to seriously engage atheism, skepticism, and agnosticism. If they do, they tend to unfairly represent non-Christian beliefs as well. I think it is imperative for Christians to carefully think through non-Christian thinkers such as: Daniel Dennett, W.V.O Quine, Hume, Bertrand Russell (other than his writings on religion), Wittgenstein, Hegel, Heidegger, Thomas Kuhn, John Searle, Richard Carrier, Bart Ehrman, Gregory Dawes, Paul Draper, Elliot Sober, A.C. Grayling, Kai Nelson, Graham Oppy, Robin le Poidevin, William Rowe, John Schellenberg, and Quentin Smith to name just a few.

The challenge I want to impart on everyone in both Christian and non-Christian post-secondary institutions is to seriously engage opposing views. Know what the opponents teach and what they believe. Do not merely read from those whom you agree with to understand what the opponents argue. Read the opponents for yourself and apply critical thinking to articulate why you disagree, or maybe you may find yourself agreeing with the other side! If so, articulate why. It is surprising how many top-notch philosophers set up straw man arguments against their opponents. My challenge to them is to read top-notch scholars in the opposing camps, directly critique their arguments, and engage in dialogue instead of debates. This is because debates are not constructive for either side in understanding where the other is coming from. Instead, debating widens the divide between opponents to the point that it does not matter what the other argues.

I would now like to discuss Christian culture in both the church and academia. The most glaring problem that I observe is the message that Christian culture sends to men and women. The secular and Christian culture communicates to men that they should be unemotional, type-A personality, lead the family and church, pursue intellectually and professionally demanding opportunities, and be the breadwinners. On the other hand, women are encouraged to focus on getting married, taking on most of the child rearing, grocery shopping, cooking, cleaning, and social coordinating. Furthermore, women are discouraged to seek higher education or leadership beyond childcare and teaching other women. As a result, women are rarely encouraged to be critical thinkers or pursue higher education in theology, biblical studies, or philosophy. However, of course, counseling is acceptable because women are caretakers and helpers, so this does not threaten men.

If women do pursue graduate studies at a theological school, theologically and philosophically educated women tend to threaten Christian men. As a result, men feel like this threatens their manhood if a woman is intellectually ahead of them in subjects outside of homemaking and other feminine subjects. Nevertheless, I do not place all the blame on men. However, I do place blame on the culture that perpetuates this polarization of the sexes and improper interpretation of Scripture.

This root cause conditions men to fear educated women and as a result, impedes women from advancing the Gospel in leadership together. The majority of Christian culture and church has failed to teach how women and men must work together to change the world for Christ. This means, sharing all forms of ministry leadership based on one’s gifting, not one’s gender. Sadly, several women from seminary say that men rarely talk to them, let alone look them in the eye! Men are afraid to talk to other women besides their wives and I also suspect that Christian men do not know how to handle intelligent Christian women who are educated in theology, the Bible, and/or philosophy. This is because culture teaches men that they must lead the home and church. If more intelligent women emerge, then this threatens their leadership power.

My challenge for Christian colleges and graduate schools is for women and men to engage in intellectual discussion more often because both genders need each other to further the Gospel. Men and women must lead the church, home, and academia in order to most accurately represent the body of Christ. My challenge to women is to stop reading Beth Moore Bible studies and read systematic theology, Bible scholars, Greek and Hebrew, psychology, critical thinking, Church history, philosophy, and apologetics.

Certainly, men need to study these topics as well, but they are already encouraged to do so, while women are encouraged to get married, subsist as ultimate supporters, and raise kids. According to Christian culture, this equals “success” for all Christian women. Of course, I am not condemning this role for all women, but tragically, these roles are taught to all women as their sole destiny and purpose in life. Certainly, some churches and parents do not fit this scenario, but this percentage is very low.

My prayer is that Christian and secular post-secondary schools, if not secondary schools, take up the challenge to do the following: understand, teach fairly, and critically think through opposing views. Secondly, my prayer is that Christian ministries will learn how to empower both men and women based on their gifting, not their gender. Relationships of subjugation and dominance are a result of The Fall (Genesis 3). Christian ministry must overcome this in order to most accurately reflect the Gospel.

My Current Musings

1) I am currently researching whether physical processes alone can account for multiple personality disorder. In other words, do physical processes and abusive contexts sufficiently account for multiple personalities? Are multiple personalities reducible to brain chemistry/neural pathways alone?

2) Occam’s Razor is a useful tool, but when does this become too limiting? I’m skeptical that the easiest explanation is always the best explanation.

Reformed Epistemology

Reformed Epistemology (RE) is espoused by Plantinga and W.L. Craig. They reject the evidentialist assumption with their claim that belief in God can be rational even without evidence for God’s existence. On the other hand, RE also reacts against classical foundationalism, which claims that knowledge must be absolutely secure or free of skepticism. Thus, basic beliefs must be infallible, incorrigible, indubitable, or certain.

Foundationalism explains how one’s beliefs are justified and points to two types of epistemic justification: inferential and non-inferential. In brief, inferential justification is inferred from other justified beliefs. For instance, if I believe my car’s gas meter indicates that my fuel tank is half full, then I am justified in inferring that I have a half a tank of gas. However, inferential justification alone leads to an infinite regress, which only halts at non-inferential beliefs.

Non-inferrential beliefs must be either indubitable or self-evident. A belief is indubitable if it cannot possibly be found to be in error; belief in one’s own existence is thus an indubitable belief. Self-evident beliefs include mathematics and logic, such as 2+2=4 and the principle of non-contradiction.

Given this understanding of RE, I find this approach to knowledge problematic because other religions can use this method to support their god(s). As a result, RE allows for contradictory beliefs.

Furthermore, I agree with Eric Baldwin and Michael Thune’s essay, “The Epistemological Limits of Experience-Based Exclusive Religious Belief.” which argues that “continued epistemic support for exclusive religious belief will require the satisfaction of non-basic epistemic criteria (such as evidence and/or argumentation).” I believe Christian Theism can build a persuasive cumulative case based on what we can know; not based on speculative feelings or what we do not know (god of the gaps).

This is what Christian Theism must concentrate on instead of speculative, unpersuasive religious experience “arguments.” However, I think religious experience could be part of the cumulative case for Theism with the universal human testimony to a fundamental need for God. In other words, most all humans experience an existential void that they claim God can only fill. To establish the truth of a particular religion, philosophy of religion must focus on establishing arguments for why Christianity or another religion is true. Religious experience should never stand on its own or serve as a foundation of knowledge, but remember, it may serve as part of a cumulative case for Christian Theism.

Michael Tooley Talk

From the Think! Lecture series at CU Boulder:

Please join us for the 1st Think! talk of the semester on Tuesday, February 2nd at 7:30 pm in Old Main Chapel.

Michael Tooley: “What is Wrong with the World, and Who is to Blame?”

Abstract:  The list of things that are wrong with the world would be a very long one indeed.  I shall argue, however, that most of the world’s ills have their source in three related things: irrational beliefs, the absence of a capacity for critical thought, and a general unwillingness to think seriously about important matters.  If this is right, who is to blame?  The obvious answer is that educators are to blame.  It would be difficult initially, however, to make the needed changes at the primary and secondary school levels because of the control that communities  and politicians exercise over the schools.  The universities, however, are not generally subject to such control, and their failure to develop in students a strong capacity for critical thought, to provide students with crucial information, and to encourage them very strongly to think seriously about fundamental beliefs and values, is unacceptable.

MICHAEL TOOLEY (PhD, Princeton, 1968) has been at CU Boulder since 1992 and received the Boulder Faculty Achievement Award for Research in 1999 for his book, Time, Tense, and Causation (Oxford). He was recently named College Professor of Distinction.

Atheist/Skeptic Dialogue Continued…

MN = metaphysical naturalism.

atheist/skeptical comments:

Outside the level of foundational concepts (or what pasts philosophers have called “first principles”) then OF COURSE I think one must have evidence for one’s beliefs (“evidentialism”). I’m puzzled when someone questions this view. The word “evidence” here simply refers to having comprehensible/coherent/public reasons for holding a belief, and where a belief includes an empirical claim one must (of course) have empirical evidence for that claim. What on earth could be wrong with such a view? And more pertinently, what on earth else could provide reasons to believe a claim such as “Jesus has been resurrected”??? That is most definitely an empirical claim. (BTW I believe that MN is better viewed as analogous to evidentialism not logical positivism.)

Regarding your last comment, I shouldn’t have to tell you this kind of thing because at this point you shouldn’t be making these kinds of errors, but you’re reasoning has become transparently circular. You mentioning the Roman authorities, guards, and the empty tomb, etc. – these are all based on the Biblical account. We are (and have been for some time) talking about what evidence does one have to BELIEVE the Biblical account! You are back to using the Bible to prove the Bible. Sigh.

As I mentioned, there are quite a few reasons to DISBELIEVE the Biblical account (one’s I’ve stated already, but I’ll be happy to repeat if necessary, and there are more that I haven’t offered). I have still to hear anything remotely close to substantive/weighted evidence to believe it. And I’m familiar with what has been said on this matter and it’s nothing at all remotely close to resembling half-decent evidence (see my comments above). There is just nothing substantive at all in the empty tomb arguments.

Are you sure you don’t want to be “spiritual, but not religious”? It would be a lot easier to rationally defend.

My response:

In my response about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, I am not only referencing the Bible (I don’t think this source should be thrown out) but I am also referencing extra-biblical sources that reference Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (I mentioned several authors earlier, but can provide them again if need be). Of course, one can reject all extra-biblical evidence and the Bible, but I don’t think this is based on good reason.

The following information on why I think this is so can be found in F. F. Bruce’s book, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Basically, we accept the authenticity of Thucydides’ historical work (460–400 b.c.) even though we have only eight manuscripts and a few papyrus scraps. Typically, with many of the works of antiquity—Thucydides, Caesar, Tacitus, Sophocles, or Euripides—we have gaps of hundreds or even over a thousand years from the time of writing to the earliest extant manuscripts, yet these texts are generally presumed authentic. By comparison, the gap between the writing of the New Testament books and the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament we possess is far narrower. Take, for instance, the famous John Rylands papyrus fragment (you can look this up at Wiki for a brief overview) of John 18:31–33; 37–38, which dates to around a.d. 140; the manuscript was written only fifty years after John wrote his Gospel. This is just one of many such examples. So from a textual point of view, the Gospels are excellent, reliable ancient documents.

Haha. No, that phrase “spiritual, but not religious” is just as self-defeating as the LP position.

As for MN, this system is incomplete because it cannot account for immaterial realities like thoughts, morals, or first-person experience (I’m not saying that naturalists lack morals, but cannot account for them under a naturalistic system since they are immaterial).

Furthermore, if the mind is entirely dependent upon a brain process, then physical processes eliminate one’s freedom. In a naturalist system, mental states have no causal powers, so your desires or motives are entirely determined by physical processes. A naturalist cannot affirm that another person has thoughts unless the other person writes them down or speaks them. However, I think denying other minds is absurd just because it cannot be verified with observation or explained with purely naturalistic processes.

At this point, I think a creator with a personal mind makes more sense of consciousness, morality, meaning, beliefs, intentionality, and agency than metaphysical naturalism. Perhaps I will write a critique of metaphysical naturalism this spring in order to work through this case more. If anything, this would provide a good challenge and either solidify my critical stance towards MN or change my current view.

Atheist/Skeptic Dialogue

Here is a portion from one of my most recent dialogues with an atheist/skeptic with  my response below theirs.

atheist/skeptic comments:

You said “I do think that if the resurrection were a hoax or delusion, that Jesus’ body could be found.” The fact that you can say something like this (and this is not you taking creative license – you actually believe it!) reveals an epistemological chasm between us. The idea that it is reasonable to expect to be able to find a SINGLE body from over 2,000 years ago is rather obviously ridiculous. (You cannot use Jesus’ fame as a reason to expect to find his grave or body. First of all, even by Biblical accounts you couldn’t call Jesus “famous”, but you cannot even use such accounts – to do so would be circular reasoning – what s at issue here is the legitimacy of the religious claims surrounding Jesus, so you cannot use his religious significance as evidence. The dates of the Gospels and the establishment of a genuine “religion” coming much later simply makes my point stronger and stronger. These are things that again I would expect to also not have to tell you, but, well, whatever.) The fact that one would have to even respond to such a statement is the kind of thing I used to think is completely bizarre. I mean very intelligent-sounding people say things like “Well then where’s the body??) . . “Are you kidding me?!” used to be my main reaction.

Over time and exposure to a wide variety of “intellectuals” (and the very dangerous “religious intellectuals”) I think I’ve come to understand. There are a lot of people that “know” more than I, i.e. have read more than I have. I make no claim to superior knowledge over them or you. You seem like a fairly voracious reader, a quality I admire. The problem is that reading more does not necessarily mean improving a person’s rational judgment. In fact I’m afraid in many cases, depending on the material being read and the spirit in which it is digested, reading more can actually pervert one’s rational powers. I’ve seen this from within religion as well as in an academic field like philosophy. I could give you plenty of examples of well-published/respected philosophers who are so deeply involved in their own schtick they have completely lost touch with common sense (not to mention humility). James Randi has caught some very intelligent PhD’d individuals believing some really stupid shit (as have I).

When you add Christianity to the mix you get a particularly seductive pseudo-intellectual belief system. The best of both worlds! It draws one in with all the hope, satisfaction of order, and spiritual satiation the religion offers with just enough intellectual-sounding shit to make one feel legit.

There is a part of me that is still puzzled when otherwise intelligent people like yourself swallow rather obviously silly claims wholesale (and that I have to point it out when they do) but overall I think I understand what is going on. A world without spiritual satisfaction is simply too ugly for some to bear, and it’s completely human to simply try to justify what we want to believe after we’ve chosen to believe it (which can by “smart” people like yourself be done in such a way that few people will challenge you – I mean challenging this kind of BS is my thing but I’m going to stop challenging you too because as an atheist/skeptic who has been religious and knows a lot of religious people I know that it becomes pointless to do so. Since my soul is not on the line in an act of saving yours, I will soon lose interest – you will become yet another human being who holds puzzling/silly beliefs. One is already surrounded by similar people simply by living on planet earth, and maybe more so by residing in the U.S.) On top of all this you’ll very likely start (or have already started?) spending your time with like-minded people who reinforce a similar evidential structure to their Christian beliefs, making you feel even more justified (and you can do cool shit like pray and go to service with them).

In a way none of this really matters since I’m pretty sure when it’s all said and done folks like you and I will end up on the same place. All I ask is that you keep it in perspective and be willing to admit you’re beliefs are not *actually* based on reason/evidence – they are based on faith. (But I expect no such admission will arrive.)

My response:

Thanks for your thoughts. First, I think we disagree on the approach to knowledge. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to adhere to logical positivism (LP) or in other words, methodological naturalism (MN). If ‘X’ cannot be empirically verified or confirmed through a repeatable experiment, then no one has justification for believing ‘X.’ While this method is certainly useful, it is incomplete and unlivable when it represents the ONLY method of acceptable inquiry.

Why is this the case? If LP/MN are indeed the only valid approaches to knowledge, then forensic science, astrophysics, archaeology, and anthropology are arbitrary disciplines. In the particular case of Jesus, I think there are sound reasons for belief (i.e. extra-biblical references about Jesus and the Gospel accounts). As for Christian Theism, several reasons build a cumulative case that provides solid evidence (i.e. natural theology, moral argument, and the Kalam to mention just a few). Thus, this is why I do not think that Christian Theism is based on blind faith. I have no issue stating that faith is involved in accepting Christ since no one can prove the existence or non-existence of God or Jesus. However, I think that faith in Christ arises from a cumulative case put together by reason.

As for commitment to a belief system, while I obviously hold certain beliefs, I am open to changing them if I find good reason for doing so. In reference to Christianity as a whole, I am not sure what you mean by how I am “swallowing the entire belief system” wholesale. All I can say is that I accept the minimal facts about Christianity (Christ’s life, death, and resurrection), while admitting that I need more time to think about the areas I question.

As far as my statement about Jesus’ body, I am talking about people who claimed to see Jesus several days after his crucifixion. If people were making this up or delusional, then one would think that the Roman authorities, guards, or someone else could produce the body in order to debunk these irrational people. The fact that the tomb was found empty and the body was not produced when it easily could have been, then it’s not far fetched to believe that He probably rose from the dead.

Stroud and “The Problem of the External World”

Here are some brief thoughts on Stroud’s essay “The Problem of the External World” in Epistemology: An Anthology by, Sosa, Jaegwon Kim, Fantl, and McGrath.

Stroud’s goal in his essay, “Problem of the External World,” is to consider the implications of Descartes Meditation I. He does not offer a direct refutation or criticism of Descartes, but sets out to understand Descartes’ position.

Stroud makes the point that if we don’t know how we can have knowledge, then we cannot know about external objects. Descartes’ position in Mediation I poses a dilemma and ultimately ends in Skepticism. This dilemma says that either we can never know that we are dreaming or what Descartes says is a condition for knowledge of the external world is not a condition in knowing things about the world. In other words, Descartes utilizes reason, which is cast into doubt. If reason cannot be trusted, then it cannot serve as the foundation of knowledge. In order to avoid this inevitable result of skepticism, Stroud poses three questions that could be pressed: is the possibility that Descartes might be dreaming really a threat to his knowledge of the world around him? Is he right in thinking that he must know that he is not dreaming if he is to know something about the world around him? And is he right in his “discovery” that he can never know that he is not dreaming? Stroud asserts that if Descartes were wrong on any of these points, it might be possible to avoid the problem and perhaps even to explain without difficulty how we know things about the world around us.

Stroud demonstrates that Descartes’ dream argument is not really a problem after all. Just because one is dreaming does not mean what they are dreaming is not really happening. For example, the Duke of Devonshire dreams that he is speaking to a room full of people, but it could be the case that when he wakes up, he truly is speaking to a room full of people. Essentially, Stroud claims that it is not necessary for one to know that they are not dreaming in order to know anything about the world.

OT Issues Continued….

It still seems to me that Christians pick and choose what applies from the OT and what doesn’t. In fact, this is what one OT scholar believes as I’m sure many others do as well. Furthermore, we must accept the fact that if the personal God of the Bible exists, that he interacts with culture differently as it changes over time. Or, do I dare ask, does culture create God and determine what is true? Perhaps Hegel is correct in that we are all born into a context, which determines who we are, what we believe, and how we interpret the Bible? For example, genocide and stoning were proper, even God commanded activities at one time in history. Now, these are unbearable to most cultures today (excluding extreme sects in the Middle East). Part of me observes a beautiful story of how God interacts with humanity through the OT, but part of me sees it as a mere human creation, reflective of purely human desires (i.e. imperialism). A myriad of questions that I’m not sure are answerable…..

By the way, how does one even defend inerrancy of Scripture if we don’t even have the original manuscripts? I could see maybe the infallibility of Jesus’ teachings, but that’s as far as I can go. Why infallibility? I think there’s at least some evidence for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection that supports his teachings. However, as far as the inerrancy of Scripture, this is a fideist leap. But the common cop-out is, well, “this issue is irrelevant.” Blah, Blah, Blah. Ok, I will stop ranting on the OT for awhile. Time to write about more productive topics.

UCD Ethics Bowl Team

My ethics debate team will compete in the national ethics bowl competition located in Ohio on March, 4th. Here are the cases we will be debating. I am assigned to prepare a position and rebuttal for cases 4, 8, & 12. These are all current issues that will provide for a challenging debate.

Logical Positivism

Should we reject all claims that cannot be verified empirically and cannot be verified through repeatable scientific testing?

Some would say “yes, absolutely.” However, the problem with this approach is that one cannot measure with instruments or confirm with their senses the existence of other minds/thoughts. While we can confirm that others have thoughts when they manifest themselves into the external world, should we reject the existence of thoughts before they do manifest into the external world? Should we reject the claim that “other people have thoughts” just because we cannot directly observe them with our senses or measure them with instruments? Obviously, this notion is absurd. Thus, adhering to strict scientism is an incomplete epistemological system when searching for truth.

Video Series on Heidegger and Husserl

OT Issues

This upcoming Friday I am meeting with a Christian Old Testament scholar who specializes in Ancient Near East history and the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is because I take issue with much of the OT with its barbaric laws that God supposedly commands (i.e. stoning people for not obeying the sabbath, for being homosexual, and commanding genocide) and I’m trying to understand how Christians deal with this difficult issue. While understanding the Ancient Near East culture from our postmodern stance is quite a daunting task, it does not make sense to me how a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and all loving allows, and even commands such vile actions.

I used to take issue with Deuteronomy 22, which appears to condone rape. However, it is clear that when one looks at the Hebrew language in this passage, the two words for ‘rape’ in vv. 25 and 28 are different. Verse 28 contains the hebrew word ‘tabas,’ which english translators used “rape” again, when the hebrew word for ‘tabas’ means seduction. The sexual acts that Deut. 22:28 refers to is consensual, not forced. If this occurs, then it was custom that the man marry the woman, which is much different than the rape scenario. For more in depth information about the difference between the word “rape” in both verses go here.

Questions for the OT scholar or anyone else who has resolved this issue:

1) Why does God command genocide?
2) What still applies from the OT given Jesus’ fulfillment of the OT law? Do Christians merely pick and choose what they want to follow and what they don’t?
3) It appears to me that Israel was just another imperialist nation looking to conquer another nation for their land. This does not seem like something an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and all loving God would be involved in.

Theological Fatalism?

Here’s another interesting objection that I have received. This time I edited out the ad hominem comments.

“1. If god is omniscient, then freewill must be an illusion, or god is not omniscient. Choose one.

You only get one. If god is omniscient then he already knew every choice Lucifer, you, I, everyone, will or would make, before they were made. So it’s predetermined; has to be. If it’s not, then omniscience is not possible.

Let me know which way you’re arguing. Of course, if god is not omniscient, then you’re creating a new god, since every Christian I’ve ever known claims he is, and if he is, then you’ve just exposed one of the biggest church lies, since he can’t give us true choices if he already knows the outcome. BTW, your own bible says god created evil as well as good; look it up.”

My Response:

This refers to the Newcomb’s paradox and theological fatalism. The problem with your dichotomy is that God’s omniscience does not have a causal relationship with human actions. Just because God is omniscient does not mean that he determines human actions. Knowledge about the future does not entail that this knowledge or being determines the future.

As W.L. Craig says, “given that God foreknows what I shall choose, it only follows that I shall not choose otherwise, not that I could not. The fact that I cannot actualize worlds in which God’s prediction errs is no infringement on my freedom, since all this means is that I am not free to actualize worlds in which I both perform some action a and do not perform a.”

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/newcomb.html.

As for your claim that God created evil, you will have to back that up with evidence, Mr. Logic.

Answering Atheist Objections

Below is a recent objection I received via Facebook. I used to use this objection myself when trying to defend the agnostic/skeptic worldview, minus the cuss words because I have a better vocabulary than to resort to those in intelligent dialogues. With this post, I will demonstrate, the following statement is a straw man argument against Christianity.

Comments from an atheist:

“A perfect god who knew everything created an imperfect world which he knew was going to really fuck up, since he also created the angel he also knew would fuck it up and become his fall guy, just for having the audacity to question his not very good judgment. He then pretended he didn’t know that would happen and changed his mind. To make up for his incredible screw-up he created a son whose sole purpose was to be murdered because the humans god created acted exactly as he knew they would. Oh, and to create this son, who is really just a sliver of his omnipresent self, and raped a woman who was married to someone else. After that, his sliver went around performing parlor tricks and pissed off the rulers, who (as planned) murdered him, except they really couldn’t because he was after all just a fleshy sliver, but because they did we can now be forgiven for any evil thing we do, including rape, murder, whatever – except denying the Holy Sliver’s existence – by just believing this incredible bullshit story.”

My response:

With your understanding of God and theology, I would be an atheist too. In fact, I used to provide the same reasons you just described, which is the most popular objection to Christianity. The problem for your position is that Christianity/God is not as you describe.

1) God did not create an imperfect world. He gave humans freewill to choose whether they would obey God or not. Without freewill, there are no relationships, no genuine love, or unique personhood. With freewill comes the capacity for evil, so no, God is not the author of evil, but freewill, love, and all that is good. He provides humanity a way to escape evil and destruction by engaging in relationship with Him. Humanity was created to engage God, be in community, and work to restore the broken world; a product of human choices for evil.

2) Lucifer the angel did not question God’s judgment, but wanted to be his own God. I’m not sure where you mean by, “He then pretended he didn’t know that would happen and changed his mind.”

3) As established in #1, God did not screw up, humanity did. Also, Jesus was not created, or at least this is not what Christianity teaches. If you disagree, tell me exactly where the Bible or Christian theologian endorses this view.

4) Where did God/Jesus rape a woman? Rape refers to physical intercourse, not a miraculous claim of immaculate conception.

5) The unforgivable sin refers to the one who remains in a state of unbelief and dies in this state. However, it is never too late before death, as 1 John 1:9 says, “if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

All I can say at this point is to encourage you to reconsider your view of Christianity and what it teaches. This means consulting commentary on passages that you find disturbing and scholarly, peer reviewed responses to the issues you raise with the Fall, evil, and divine hiddenness. Moreover, engage thoughtful, intelligent Christians (yes, these people do exist), preferably any Bible, theology, of Christian philosophy scholars. By building relationships with intelligent, scholarly Christians, this will either challenge your beliefs or solidify what you already believe. At the very least, try to understand Christianity properly before knocking it down.

Faith in Christ for me is not about turning my mind off and just resting in faith. As Pascal says, “nothing gives rest but the sincere search for truth.” A relationship with Christ is only the beginning to a robust, thoughtful, yet challenging engagement with the world; its paradox of beauty and brokenness. Jesus calls people to follow Him in restoring this world and point humans towards a life of freedom, love, hope, grace, peace, wholeness, and deep compassion for others. We can only come to know our true selves and what we are made to accomplish through Christ.

Christianity Is Not Debunked

Shortly after completing an M.Div degree, I became an agnostic/skeptic because I faced deep doubt regarding Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and the barbaric nature of God in the OT. However, while debating against Christians and ardently researching why Christianity wasn’t the truth, I came to realize that it best explains the human condition. Furthermore, there is sufficient evidence for the reliability of the Gospels along with extra-biblical support for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. You can read more about this evidence here where I discuss the mystery religions.

While I am still researching OT issues, mostly regarding genocide, I don’t think the OT condones rape. The two hebrew words for ‘rape’ in Deut. 22 are different. For more information on the OT and rape, go here.

My reasons for returning to Christianity are not merely my opinions, but a product of a wide variety of reading and trying to defend the agnostic/skeptic worldview. Of course, volumes have been written on all the the points I raise in support of Christianity, but I think they represent robust, solid reasons for belief over atheism/agnosticism/skepticism. Here’s my list to name just a few: the Christian world view makes the most sense of evil and good (naturalism cannot), the human condition (i.e. the void), meaning, purpose, consciousness, a finely-tuned universe, complexity/order in nature, and information in DNA (see Steven C. Meyer on this point). As for intelligent design (ID), this theory does not require Theism because Aristotle’s materialistic unmoved mover could be the intelligent designer. However, I interpret the evidence in favor of ID to support a personal God because information in DNA or any organized information does not arise from unintelligent, chancy processes. In addition to the reasons just mentioned, I also think that substantial evidence exists in favor of the Gospels as reliable accounts of Jesus. Here are some extra-Biblical sources: Suetonius, Tacitus, the Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, Mara -Bar Serapion, and more.

Is there room to doubt? Of course, but I think the case for theism is more robust and plausible than atheism/agnosticism/skepticism. Naturalism, which all these views must adopt, has nothing to say about good, evil, any objective morality, or meaning. At best, it supports relativism. A life of non-belief is a life that leads to despair and leads one to seek constant distraction from the inevitable end that death brings.

On the topic of death, the more I study philosophy and theology, the more I notice despair in the lives of those around me. In fact, most people do not care about history, about making sense of the world, or engaging with ultimate questions that matter. Instead, they seek a hedonistic life that creates pseudo meaning. However, no one’s soul can be completely squelched, thus, the empty, false pursuit of diversion always fails. While I think Christ does offer meaning, hope, and models how one should live, this does not mean that life will be easy or always joyful. In fact, one who follows Christ will face trials in this Fallen world and will lament over the state of the world the closer they grow to Christ. However, there is hope for restoration, so Christians need not despair (1 Peter 1; Ephesians 1).

Regarding despair, these quotes continue to rest vividly in my mind: “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation” -Thoreau. “Nothing is so intolerable to man as being fully at rest, without passion, without business, without entertainment, without care. It is then that he recognizes that he is empty, insufficient, dependent, ineffectual. From the depths of his soul now comes at once boredom, gloom, sorrow, chagrin, resentment and despair” -Pascal.

A life lived with Christ, when done correctly, brings: freedom, deeper relationships, love/care for others, and a deeper sense of community. Indeed, many pseudo christians and churches exist, but this does not mean that the central message of Christ is not true. It means, that we all need to think critically and discern the truth with the information we have available. I have done this, journeyed through non-belief, and arrived back with Christ; not as an evangelical/fundamentalist, though.

Thoughts and Fallacies

Below is a profound statement from The Human Experience by, John Russon.

“A young man believes that he has evidence that he is worth nothing, having consistently had this implied to him as a child by his parents’ deeds of overruling his statements of his desires and preferences, or ignoring the boundaries of his privacy, and in general of paying him little heed. On the other hand, just by being a living center of meaning he cannot deny the sense that he is someone. Throughout his day-to-day affairs he constantly contends with the immediate sense that he must be wrong to feel like he is someone. He is convinced that various events are tests of his value that will confirm this self-interpretation: in facing certain situations he immediately recognizes them as situations in which he will fail and in which he will therefore find proof of his valuelessness.

When asked whether success in these events will count as evidence for his value, for his being someone, he concedes that they will not. He thereby comes to recognize that the project of interpreting these events as tests is not mounted on real principles of evidence and evaluation, though they claim to be; these are, rather, projects of interpreting in which the implied, forgotten premise is that “I am nothing” (the premise that was required for the successful navigation of family life). These situations explicitly claim to be proofs, but only based on an implied commitment to already endorsing the supposed conclusion. By claiming to be a proof, this stance makes itself open to the demand that it live up to the requirements of proof, and this supposed proof is fallacious–a circular argument; it reveals itself to be unsatisfactory according to its own principles. Rendering this fallacy explicit is crucial to stripping the supposed proof of its unquestioned hold, for though it remains immediately, perceptually gripping, it is discursively recognized as fallacious.”

Rape, Genocide, & the OT (Some Answers)

Professor Rick Hess from Denver Seminary provides some input to my issues from the previous post regarding rape, genocide, and the OT.

1. Deut. 21:10-14 describes a phenomenon common in warfare. The women, rather than being killed, were given to soldiers as wives. See in the Bible for example, Judges 5:28-30, where in vv. 30 the NIV translates “a girl or two” where the Hebrew literally has “a womb or two.” There seems to be a higher standard of treatment for female POWsin Deuteronomy 21. There are given a month for mournning. They are given a new set of clothes (implicit in v. 13). The assumption is that of a marriage, not concubinage. Slavery is explicitly forbidden. If the man “is not pleased” with her, he cannot further abuse but must allow her complete freedom. No such regulations are found for female POWs in any other legal collection in the ancient Near East, and I have read them (most in the original).

2. Let me at least start this discussion by asking you to look at my article, “War in the Hebrew Bible: An Overview,” pp. 19-32 in R. S. Hess and E. A. Martens eds., War in the Bible and Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, co-editor with E. A. Martens (Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 2; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2008).

3. Christians are not commanded to follow the laws of the Mosaic covenant.

4. Sin brings death. The Bible teaches that from Genesis 2 onwards. First, the fact that Absalom publicly lay with David’s wives was a means of disgracing David. Absalom chose to do this. He was not required to do it by God. Therefore, this is a prophecy of the consequences of David’s mess of his marital life; not something God “did” to David. As for the son dying, sin may be forgiven but it does have consequences. Again, we are not told here that God caused the death; only that Nathan predicted it and associated it with David’s sin. If David caused one so close to God to die (Uriah), is it unjust for God to allow one close to David to die?

5. Yes, this passage is similar to others that speak of God’s punishment on Jerusalem for its sin. Often this punishment comes through other nations such as Babylon. However, God also judges and condemns these nations for their brutality (see the condemnation of Assyria, an earlier threat and destroyer of the Northern Kingdom, in the book of Nahum). God chooses to give Jerusalem and the nation into the hands of their enemies to battle and destroy them. He does this rather than personally destroy them as he did with Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. Yet he always gives them a warning such as this so that they might repent and be saved. Such a thing happened with Nineveh in the book of Jonah, and it could happen with Jerusalem in any generation.

Old Testament Questions

Below are some topics that I am researching and asking OT scholars about. If given permission, I will post answers when they become available.

1) Rape is condoned in the OT. In fact, they were rewarded with a wife and encouraged to rape captive women (Deuteronomy 21 & 22). While I think the monetary penalty in Deut. 22 could indicate that this action is wrong, it seems like a very minor punishment. Besides, this contradicts God’s allowance of rape in Deut. 21.

2) God commands genocide. Just because other nations are rebellious does not mean God should have annihilated them. In fact, Israel parallels with militant Muslims today.

3) Why don’t we stone people today for being homosexual or disobeying parents? I can see why we do not for the Sabbath since Jesus spoke about not strictly adhering to the Sabbath laws in his teachings.

4) 2 Samuel 12:11-14 presents God as a “moral monster.”

5) God condones rape and plunder: Zechariah 14:1-2

While I realize that the ancient near east is vastly different from our post-enlightenment culture, common objections point to the issue that culture almost fully dictates how the Bible applies. How could the “perfect” Word of God change so much with time?

Contemplation

Acquiring wisdom from all the pages that philosophers have passed down throughout all the ages. No use for the sages. My heart races for truth. I wage war on the culture of death and despair. May the lyrics not ring true “living lives just like deer in headlights, terrified, blind, and wait to die.” May the One who can supposedly heal the broken move from passivity to activity.

My Current Reading List

Outside of my classes this spring, which include: symbolic logic, epistemology, communications & diversity, music appreciation, Germany and the Germans, Ethnic Studies, and Heidegger (auditing this class). I am currently reading the following:

1) The Truth About Muhammad. By, Robert Spencer.
2) The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. By, Craig Keener.
3) The New Testament Apocrypha. By, John Knox and edited by E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher.
4) The Human Experience. By, John Russon.
5) Bearing Witness to Epiphany: Persons, Things, and the Nature of Erotic Life. By, John Russon.

Reading this spring:

1) Contending With Christianity’s Critics. By, William Lane Craig.
2) Acts of the Apostles. By, David Peterson.
3) Parts of Being & Time. By, Martin Heidegger.
4) Reading various authors surrounding the philosophy of mind discussion over emergentism.

Christianity & The Mystery Religions

I found a very good website that debunks the ties between mystery, savior-gods and Jesus. Non-Christians often point to messiah’s who pre-date Jesus in order to argue that Jesus is just another mythical, savior-god. While some similarities exist between Jesus and the mystery messiah’s, however, with further examination, one will be able to recognize that these ties are very weak.

I have read the stories of these mystery Gods to see what they actually claim instead of merely adopting what documentaries and various internet sites claim. Not only is the writing style vastly different between the Gospels and mystery religion stories, but mystery religions were meant to be individualistic. Furthermore, no evidence exists that these mystery-messiah’s actually existed whereas non-Christian evidence for Jesus’ existence is compelling (i.e. Sanhedran, Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides, Pliny’s letters, and more). As a result, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus is indubitably set apart from the mystery religion characters.

From the website “The Divine Evidence” (highlighted above), one will find solid arguments against the following ties between mystery religions and Jesus:

Born of a virgin on December 25
Stars Appeared at Their Births
Visited by Magi from the East
Turned Water into Wine
Healed the Sick
Cast out Demons
Performed Miracles
Transfigured Before Followers
Rode Donkeys into the City
Killed on a Cross or Tree
Descended into Hell
Resurrected on Third Day
Ascended into Heaven

Richard Carrier, as part of his review of a “Christ Myth” book (see “1.3 Beddru – the TRUE God Who Wasn’t There”) makes this point:
Although I have not exhaustively investigated this matter, I have confirmed only two real “resurrected” deities with some uncanny similarity to Jesus which are actually reported before Christian times, Zalmoxis and Inanna, neither of which is mentioned by Graves or John G. Jackson (another Gravesian author–though both mention Tammuz, for whom Inanna was mistaken in their day). This is apart from the obvious pre-Christian myths of Demeter, Dionysos, Persephone, Castor and Pollux, Isis and Osiris, and Cybele and Attis, which do indeed carry a theme of metaphorical resurrection, usually in the terms of a return or escape from the Underworld, explaining the shifting seasons. But these myths are not quite the same thing as a pre-Christian passion story. It only goes to show the pervasiveness in antiquity of an agricultural resurrection theme, and the Jesus story has more to it than that, although the cultural influence can certainly be acknowledged.

Complementarians are Sexist

That’s right. Christians who hold the complementarian view are sexist and need to repent of this view. According to Ligon Duncan III who is a reformed minister, professor, author, and PCA elder defines complementarian as, “God has created men and women equal in their essential dignity and human personhood, but different and complementary in function with male headship in the home and in the Church.”

Assuming the Adam and Eve story is literal, just because God created Adam first, assigned him the task of naming the animals, and allowed Adam to name his companion ‘woman’ does not automatically mean that men are by default leaders of women. Adam and Eve were created by God to take care of His creation, to populate the earth, and to have a relationship with Him. No command exists that assigns the man as the default leader. In other words, there is no evidence that men are to dominate or lead above women prior to the Fall. It is important to note that the battle between the sexes is a result of the Fall. Not only do sexes battle, but subjugation applies to all human relationships.

Sexism is under the same category as racism and scientism–to name just a couple examples. Since complementarian views perpetuates discriminatory practices that are the result of the Fall, Christians should not hold this view.

Here’s an interesting tie between complementarianism and apartheid from this blog:

“The comparison came very quickly between C-ism and apartheid. Apartheid is plainly not Christian (Galatians 3:28). Apartheid did not claim a difference in personhood; it began in earnest belief that separating people of contrasting cultures because those cultures were different. Because of this, it was accepted by both parties. That doesn’t mean that it did not result in evil, despite its initiation with good (and valid) intentions: At the time, colonials and natives had vastly different, largely incompatible cultures that did not want to be compromised through contact with each other.

So how is C-ism different from apartheid? In C-ism male and female are considered equal, but the male is in authority over the female; analogous to the relationship between the Father and the Son in the Trinity. Ontologically, race, gender, etc. are all equal and bear the image of God. C-ism is not about ontology (whether or not males and females are designed to be unequal partners) but about function. However, from the E perspective, this doesn’t sound any different from apartheid. This is why E’s object so strongly: if the male is in authority over the female by design or function, then there is no equality between them. It’s like saying a black person is in the same category as human being, but is functionally different because of their skin color. If unequal roles are not by design (ie. a result of the Genesis 3:16 curse), then C-ism should be overcome for the sake of God’s original intention. To do anything else would be to accept an evil.”

Anti-foundationalism?

What do you think of the following statement by a fellow classmate?

“Thinking about why I have such a stronger belief in atomic structure over divine structure. We say “evidence tells us…”, but evidence tells us nothing. It is our interpretation of evidence that tells us something. At the start of inquiry, it seems like epistemolgical ground is already shakier than what is acknowledged.” -John Fox

The Examined Life?

The more I study philosophy and theology, the more I notice despair in the lives of those around me and the ways of culture. Most people do not care about history, making sense of the world, or wrestling with ultimate questions that matter. Instead, they seek a hedonistic life that creates pseudo meaning. However, no one’s soul can be completely squelched, thus, the empty, false pursuit of diversion always fails. While I think Christ does offer meaning, hope, and models how one should live, this does not mean that life will be easy or always joyful. In fact, one who follows Christ will face a heavy dose of trials and lament over the state of the world the closer they grow to Christ. However, there is hope for restoration, so Christians need not despair. Whether you are a believer or not, and you opt for the examined life, why? How do you approach this task? Personally, I read a wide variety of subjects (science, economics, philosophy, theology, history, cultural criticism, and politics), maintain discussions in person, on blogs, email, and Facebook.

These quotes continue to rest vividly in my mind: “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation” -Thoreau. “Nothing is so intolerable to man as being fully at rest, without passion, without business, without entertainment, without care. It is then that he recognizes that he is empty, insufficient, dependent, ineffectual. From the depths of his soul now comes at once boredom, gloom, sorrow, chagrin, resentment and despair” -Pascal.

My Current Thoughts About Christ and Other Topics.

In expansion of the previous post, I do believe that Jesus probably lived, died, and rose again. However, I am not an evangelical Christian because of the following beliefs:

1)   The Bible is not inerrant. However, it is powerful and should be studied. I think I can uphold infallibility in that the teachings of Christ are correct.

2)   The Adam and Eve story (including original sin) is non-literal, if not a myth. However, I believe that God did create humans with freewill through the process of evolution. What he decides to do with those who choose to live a life without Him falls under his perfect judgment in the end. I am not sure that hell is an eternal reality or that second chances do not occur.

3) I cannot logically and scientifically say that homosexuality separates people from God or denies them salvation. Perhaps, like slavery, the culture of the day deemed homosexuality as “wrong,” whereas today, with new evidence, it is well documented that homosexuality is not a choice. Just as one does not choose their gender, one cannot choose their sexuality. While this is not an area I personally deal with, I have known many homosexual individuals and have studied this issue for many years.

After these statements, I also want to mention that I take issue with the most (not all) churches because they are highly political, showy, full of pot-lucks and holy huddles, espouse mostly mind-numbing entertainment, only raise up people based on one’s likability rather than one’s gifts, and tells women they are equal in worth, yet at the same time, they cannot serve in various forms of leadership. Certainly, society communicates to women that marriage is their ultimate purpose in life, which deters many women from challenging academic and leadership pursuits. Moreover, the church exacerbates this lie almost to the max, although, Islam obviously surpasses Christianity on this issue. Please note that I am not a radical feminist, nor do I look down on women who decide to designate their husband as the leader of the home, nor do I look down upon women who decide not to pursue leadership in ministry and/or business. However, this role should never be the default for all women. It is tragic that gifted women who desire to serve in ministry, but cannot, due to their gender is equivalent to the tragic reality of racism.

Lamentably, some Christians I know have given up on me by disconnecting from my life both virtually (via Facebook) and in reality. This is one of the worst examples of Christ I have witnessed from “believers.” They too easily give up on those in their midst who are non-believers or backsliding believers. This does not mean that believers should constantly push the Gospel with mere words, which is highly ineffective, but rather, they should primarily preach the gospel through actions. Too many believers have forgotten this. Perhaps they find objections too threatening, too messy, or tiresome to deal with. Besides, life is challenging enough outside of personal relationships; thus many opt out of the challenging endeavor to walk alongside others who differ in beliefs. Many are not up to the task of taking 1 Peter 3 seriously by offering reasons for the hope they have within that stretch beyond mere religious experience. Please note, this reason means almost nothing to the non-believer, especially well-educated non-believers. I have learned a lot of quality lessons about how not to act as a Christian or how not to lead anything. Period.

I am unsure how I want to be involved in Christian community or church. For now I’m most passionate about writing and studying philosophy and theology. My primary plan is to pursue academia, with a backup plan geared towards law. Either way, I have a passion for writing and hope to write a book someday.

I believe in Christ’s paradigm of the following:  1) service, 2) love, 3) calling out fakers, 4) summoning everyone to live in freedom through mutual submission to one another, 5) breaking bread together (i.e. being in community), 6) extending love equally to friends and enemies, 7) inspiring those in despair to leave destructive ways, and lastly, offering an everlasting hope that God is currently working to restore this world and will in the end. Moreover, hope may be revealed in Jesus’ promises of eternal life. I cannot say what eternity will entail and we could talk in circles about whether freewill, sin, work, ect…..exists in eternity, but I do not think these questions can be answered from the finite, human standpoint.

If you read all of this, thanks for your time. If nothing else, this post was a helpful outlet for me to process thoughts.

The Church

The church does many positive things for society: helps the poor, builds community, and gives people hope and meaning. However, what bothers me is that uneducated, maybe somewhat talented black, white, hispanic, or whatever type of man has more leadership opportunities in churches than any gifted woman with a BA, MA, Ph.d. My second contention with church is that it seems to be a holy huddle most of the time and rarely interacts with the world beyond its doors. It’s a place where a lot of talk, pot-lucks, and entertainment occurs, but rarely does anything thoughtful, productive, or substantive emerge from such a place.

Review of Signature in the Cell

Steven Meyer’s Signature in the Cell offers the most compelling argument in favor of Intelligent Design. For the seasoned and unseasoned scientist, the reader will encounter comprehensible, well-researched scientific arguments that warrant further discussion and research regarding design as a viable scientific theory. I urge Darwinian evolutionists to thoughtfully consider this book and engage with the arguments.

Chapter one offers an overview of Meyer’s intellectual journey of how he arrived at the question behind the origin of genetic information in DNA. Darwin asserts that unguided, natural processes appear designed, but it is not. Darwinian evolutionists halt at the observation of natural processes that appear designed and then assume that blind, natural processes fully account for this appearance. Thus, no further explanation is needed. However, Meyer astutely points out that Darwinian evolutionist language employs teleological language in describing living organisms, such as: “genetic information,” “transcription,” “translation,” and “signal-transduction circularity.” This chapter correctly asserts that evolutionary theory fails to account for the origin of life because “it could not explain the origin of genetic information.” The rest of the book discusses the numerous attempts that have been made in solving the “DNA enigma” and offers an inference to the best explanation in favor of Intelligent Design as the most viable account of DNA information.

Chapter two gives a historical overview of design and the process that led the scientific community to move towards favoring Darwinian evolution. Meyer reviews Wohler’s synthesis of urea experiment and Oparin’s view that evolutionary abiogenesis advanced gradually over a multibillion-year process. Chapter two closes with a discussion on the Miller-Urey experiment, which worked to advance Oparin’s ideas. Miller-Urey led many to believe that the origin of life could be accounted for with this lab experiment until Watson and Crick’s new discovery of the double helix DNA molecule in 1953.

Chapter three discusses Watson and Crick, the mystery of heredity, and the fact that DNA possesses a structural complexity that possesses a sequence of bases that carries genetic information. Meyer works to make a division between Shannon information and functional information. Meyer states, “Shannon information means that the more improbable an event, the more uncertainty it eliminates, and thus, the more information it conveys when a particular event occurs. The greater the number of possible characters at each site, and the longer the sequence of characters, the greater the information-carrying capacity or Shannon information associated with the sequence.” According to Meyer, Shannon information theory indicates that DNA and proteins possess vast information-carrying capacities, but it cannot distinguish between improbable sequences of symbols that convey a message. Chapter four continues the discussion of DNA code, the complexity of and specific arrangement of proteins, and information theory. In particular, Meyer discusses Shannon information theory in its assertion that the arrangement of letters “abfd skdj fkds” and “The sky is blue” are equal in the amount of information, but does not indicate whether one communicates something or not. In other words, it cannot distinguish between the functional or “message-bearing” ability from random arrangements. Ultimately, Meyer asserts that one must distinguish between sequences of characters that are improbable from those that are improbable, but specifically arranged to perform a function. This chapter works to distinguish DNA from mere information-carrying capacity and demonstrate that it possesses functional information that carries out a purpose.

Chapter five discusses more in depth how DNA code represents complexity that expands beyond any computer software code. In particular, Boeing’s CAD-CAM system strikingly resembles the DNA transcription and translation process. However, DNA’s code is much more complex. Thus, by using inference to the best explanation, intelligent design does provide the most explanatory power in regards to the presence of DNA information that surpasses any software system in complexity.

For the sake of space, I will not overview all twenty chapters, but will outline the most crucial points throughout the rest of this book. Before I do that, it is important to note that many attempt to equate intelligent design with creationism, arguments from ignorance, and god of the gaps fallacy. However, intelligent design does not qualify for any of these labels. The theory of intelligent design postulates that certain living things remain best explained by an intelligent cause, rather than by an undirected, chancy process. While intelligent design does not oppose Darwinian evolution in the sense of changes over time, or that common ancestry exists between living organisms, it postulates that an intelligent source best explains certain irreducibly complex life forms. Accompanied by this point of disagreement, it is important to note that intelligent design does not endorse Creationism because ID theory defers commenting on the nature of the intelligent source, nor does it endorse any religious texts (i.e. Bible, Koran, ect…)

In fact, intelligent design need not point to supernatural source, for mathematician and philosopher of science William Dembski puts it this way: “Whether an intelligent cause is located within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question from whether an intelligent cause has operated. Human actions are a case in point: Just as humans do not perform miracles every time they act as intelligent agents, so there is no reason to assume that for a designer to act as an intelligent agent requires a violation of natural laws.” Proponents of ID claim that inferences may be made about the past with confidence when they discover evidence or artifacts for which there is only one cause known to be capable of producing them, known as abductive reasoning.

Intelligent design is a viable scientific theory because it is not postulating theories from ignorance, mystery, or god of the gaps. Instead, design theory observes what can can be observed from nature and makes an inference to the best explanation that would best account for the presence of DNA information code that surpasses complexity of any human made software system. Indeed, one may accuse this reasoning of being a false analogy, but this argument still goes through because it’s not dependent upon the similarity between computer software and DNA. It depends on empirical observations of DNA information and postulates the best explanation that would account for the instructional code present in DNA. If natural processes could account for the origin of this information, then intelligent design would be falsified. Thus, until then, Intelligent Design is a viable theory.

To the previous commentators, you obviously have not read this book if you call this creationist propaganda. Intelligent design is not arguing for creationism, so please read this book and bring objections that the book actually discusses. In fact, one of the most influential modern day philosophers in my intellectual development is philosophy professor, Thomas Nagel (Atheist philosopher). See what he says about Meyer’s Signature in the Cell here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article6931364.ece (scroll down until you see “Thomas Nagel” as the heading).

Critique of C.S. Lewis on the Efficacy of Prayer

Below are some comments on the efficacy of prayer by, C.S. Lewis. My comments are in bold.

SOME YEARS AGO I got up one morning intending to have my hair cut in preparation for a visit to London, and the first letter I opened made it clear I need not go to London. So I decided to put the haircut off too. But then there began the most unaccountable little nagging in my mind, almost like a voice saying, “Get it cut all the same. Go and get it cut.” In the end I could stand it no longer. I went. Now my barber at that time was a fellow Christian and a man of many troubles whom my brother and I had sometimes been able to help. The moment I opened his shop door he said, “Oh, I was praying you might come today.” And in fact if I had come a day or so later I should have been of no use to him.

It awed me; it awes me still. But of course one cannot rigorously prove a causal connection between the barber’s prayers and my visit. It might be telepathy. It might be accident.

These scenarios happen all the time regardless of prayer. I bet without prayer, one’s hopes would still come true at times and events that surpass our understanding would still occur. It may or may not be an accident, but it is impossible to know for sure either way.

I have stood by the bedside of a woman whose thighbone was eaten through with cancer and who had thriving colonies of the disease in many other bones, as well. It took three people to move her in bed. The doctors predicted a few months of life; the nurses (who often know better), a few weeks. A good man: laid his hands on her and prayed. A year later the patient was walking (uphill, too, through rough woodland) and the man who took the last X-ray photos was saying, “These bones are as solid as rock. It’s miraculous.”

But once again there is no rigorous proof. Medicine, as all true doctors admit, is not an exact science. We need not invoke the supernatural to explain the falsification of its prophecies. You need not, unless you choose, believe in a causal connection between the prayers and the recovery.

Exactly. Many scientific studies have been done on prayer and none reveal that prayer makes any difference. It is more obvious that the universe acts in an undiscerning manner, regardless of what one believes or whether they pray or not. See Harvard Medical School’s test results: http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html

The question then arises, “What sort of evidence would prove the efficacy of prayer?” The thing we pray for may happen, but how can you ever know it was not going to happen anyway? Even if the thing were indisputably miraculous it would not follow that the miracle had occurred because of your prayers. The answer surely is that a compulsive empirical Proof such as we have in the sciences can never be attained.

Some things are proved by the unbroken uniformity of our experiences. The law of gravitation is established by the fact that, in our experience, all bodies without exception obey it. Now even if all the things that people prayed for happened, which they do not, this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable “success” in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all. It would prove something much more like magic—a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature.

There are, no doubt, passages in the New Testament, which may seem at first sight to promise an invariable granting of our prayers. But that cannot be what they really mean. For in the very heart of the story we meet a glaring instance to the contrary. In Gethsemane the holiest of all petitioners prayed three times that a certain cup might pass from Him. It did not. After that the idea that prayer is recommended to us as a sort of infallible gimmick may be dismissed.

Other things are proved not simply by experience but by those artificially contrived experiences, which we call experiments. Could this be done about prayer? I will pass over the objection that no Christian could take part in such a project, because he has been forbidden it: “You must not try experiments on God, your Master.” Forbidden or not, is the thing even possible?

So God commands anti-intellectualism to not put him under the test? What about doubting Thomas? Jesus invited and answered his need for verification. Also, testing God is deemed acceptable for Gideon in Judges 6:36-40, but not in Deuteronomy 6:16 or Matthew 4:7, Luke 4:12. Good last question here.

I have seen it suggested that a team of people—the more the better—should agree to pray as hard as they knew how, over a period of six weeks, for all the patients in Hospital A and none of those in Hospital B. Then you would total up the results and see if A had more cures and fewer deaths. And I suppose you would repeat the experiment at various times and places so as to eliminate the influence of irrelevant factors.

The trouble is that I do not see how any real prayer could go on under such conditions. “Words without thoughts never to heaven go,” says the King in Hamlet. Simply to say prayers is not to pray; otherwise a team of properly trained parrots would serve as well as men for our experiment. You cannot pray for the recovery of the sick unless the end you have in view is their recovery. But you can have no motive for desiring the recovery of all the patients in one hospital and none of those in another. You are not doing it in order that suffering should be relieved; you are doing it to find out what happens. The real purpose and the nominal purpose of your prayers are at variance. In other words, whatever your tongue and teeth and knees may do, you are not praying. The experiment demands an impossibility.

How about conducting experiments where there are people who truly care and have the correct motive (as best as humanly possible), pray in the experiment mentioned in the previous paragraph? Why can’t this work?

Empirical proof and disproof are, then, unobtainable. But this conclusion will seem less depressing if we remember that prayer is request and compare it with other specimens of the same thing.

This conclusion isn’t depressing, but just asserts that prayer lacks evidence in its favor. I would rather pursue truth and disregard falsified theories rather than be comfortable. This paragraph is playing intellectual gymnastics in trying to save the value of prayer and it fails due to its emotive agenda.

We make requests of our fellow creatures as well as of God: we ask for the salt, we ask for a raise in pay, we ask a friend to feed the cat while we are on our holidays, we ask a woman to marry us. Sometimes we get what we ask for and sometimes not. But when we do, it is not nearly so easy as one might suppose to prove with scientific certainty a causal connection between the asking and the getting.

Actually, David Hume is correct in saying that one cannot have 100% certainty in causal events. Lewis is on to something here.

Your neighbor may be a humane person who would not have let your cat starve even if you had forgotten to make any arrangement. Your employer is never so likely to grant your request for a raise as when he is aware that you could get better money from a rival firm and is quite possibly intending to secure you a raise in any case. As for the lady who consents to marry you—are you sure she had not decided to do so already? Your proposal, you know, might have been the result, not the cause, of her decision. A certain important conversation might never have taken place unless she had intended that it should.

I tend to think that proposals are the result of a relationship heading towards lifelong commitment. Her decision rests on the foundation of a healthy and loving relationship, not in the question alone. However, the question is a crucial ingredient for advancing of a dating relationship to a marriage relationship.

Thus in some measure the same doubt that hangs about the causal efficacy of our prayers to God hangs also about our prayers to man.

Since when do people pray to man? Is this a Biblical teaching?

Whatever we get we might have been going to get anyway. But only, as I say, in some measure. Our friend, boss, and wife may tell us that they acted because we asked; and we may know them so well as to feel sure, first that they are saying what they believe to be true, and secondly that they understand their own motives well enough to be right. But notice that when this happens our assurance has not been gained by the methods of science.

First of all, I do not see any assurance here whatsoever, with or without science. Second, this approach is using practical reason and psychology. Thus, this case does use methods of science.  How so? By first studying or getting to know the behavior and character of the other person, then making predictions and placing confidence in a particular outcome.

We do not try the control experiment of refusing the raise or breaking off the engagement and then making our request again under fresh conditions. Our assurance is quite different in kind from scientific knowledge. It is born out of our personal relation to the other parties; not from knowing things about them but from knowing them.

I don’t believe personal relation to others erases science or reason. One bases decisions off of experience and the knowledge they have up to a certain point.

Our assurance—if we reach an assurance—that God always hears and some­times grants our prayers, and that apparent grantings are not merely fortuitous, can only come in the same sort of way. There can be no question of tabulating successes and failures and trying to decide whether the successes are too numer­ous to be accounted for by chance. Those who best know a man best know whether, when he did what they asked, he did it because they asked. I think those who best know God will best know whether He sent me to the barber’s shop because the barber prayed.

Half of this paragraph is devoted to the fact that one cannot know whether an outcome is by God or by chance and the second half is saying one can know if they “know God best.” This presumes that God is knowable, so it begs the question on how God is knowable.

For up till now we have been tackling the whole question in the wrong way and on the wrong level. The very question “Does prayer work?” puts us in the wrong frame of mind from the outset. “Work”: as if it were magic, or a ma­chine—something that functions automatically. Prayer is either a sheer illusion or a personal contact between embryonic, incomplete persons (ourselves) and the utterly concrete Person. Prayer in the sense of petition, asking for things, is a small part of it; confession and penitence are its threshold, adoration its sanctu­ary, the presence and vision and enjoyment of God its bread and wine. In it God shows Himself to us. That He answers prayers is a corollary—not necessarily the most important one—from that revelation. What He does is learned from what He is.

If God shows himself to humans through prayer, why does He show himself in millions of ways such that humans do not have a coherent idea of God’s existence, let alone which God is the one true God. Isn’t it interesting that people in the Middle East say this same thing, but insert Allah as God? I propose that beliefs change people, not God. For example, Muslims live a certain way because of their beliefs in the what the Koran commands, Christians live a certain way because of their beliefs, ect….Jews, Muslims, and Christians all say the same thing regarding revelation, but all contradict one another. Some possibilities for this is: one true God exists and speaks in contradictory ways, all three Gods exist in a contradictory existence, God or Gods do not exist and humanity creates religion which is reflective of our different cultures, or there is one true God and He is allowing people to believe in counterfeit Gods and/or not speaking to certain people through revelation.

Petitionary prayer is, nonetheless, both allowed and commanded to us: “Give us our daily bread.” And no doubt it raises a theoretical problem. Can we believe that God ever really modifies His action in response to the suggestions of men?

Open Theism anyone? One will never know whether open theism, Calvinism, or any other theological stance is correct as the Bible can defend multiple views on this topic.

For infinite wisdom does not need telling what is best, and infinite goodness needs no urging to do it. But neither does God need any of those things that are done by finite agents, whether living or inanimate. He could, if He chose, repair our bodies miraculously without food; or give us food without the aid of farmers, bakers, and butchers; or knowledge without the aid of learned men; or convert the heathen without missionaries. Instead, He allows soils and weather and animals and the muscles, minds, and wills of men to co-operate in the execution of His will.

This is the appeal to mystery regarding evil and the unsaved. Moreover, this behavior is incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent God. If he truly could eradicate evil and chooses not to or even worse, could save the “heathen” without missionaries, then this kind of God is sadistic and cruel. Given this reasoning, it is far from clear what “God’s will” is. If God’s will is indiscernible, then why bother?

“God,” said Pascal, “instituted prayer in order to lend to His creatures the dignity of causality.” But not only prayer; whenever we act at all He lends us that dignity. It is not really stranger, nor less strange, that my prayers should affect the course of events than that my other actions should do so. They have not advised or changed God’s mind—that is, His over-all purpose. But that purpose will be realized in different ways according to the actions, including the prayers, of His creatures.

Where is the justification for movement equaling God’s agency?

For He seems to do nothing of Himself which He can possibly delegate to His creatures. He commands us to do slowly and blunderingly what He could do perfectly and in the twinkling of an eye. He allows us to neglect what He would have us do, or to fail. Perhaps we do not fully realize the problem, so to call it, of enabling finite free wills to co-exist with Omnipotence. It seems to involve at every moment almost a sort of divine abdication. We are not mere recipients or spectators. We are either privileged to share in the game or compelled to collabo­rate in the work, “to wield our little tridents.” Is this amazing process simply Creation going on before our eyes? This is how (no light matter) God makes something—indeed, makes gods—out of nothing.

So at least it seems to me. But what I have offered can be, at the very best, only a mental model or symbol. All that we say on such subjects must be merely analogical and parabolic. The reality is doubtless not comprehensible by our faculties. But we can at any rate try to expel bad analogies and bad parables. Prayer is not a machine. It is not magic. It is not advice offered to God. Our act, when we pray, must not, any more than all our other acts, be separated from the continuous act of God Himself, in which alone all finite causes operate.

If all “finite causes operate from the continuous act of God,” then God is the author of evil and failure.

Combating the Diversion Obsessed Culture

American culture is enslaved to distraction, vanity, and a myriad of pursuits that tragically leads to a fleeting sense of fulfillment. Time and energy are spent fueling the unexamined life in order to escape thinking about despair in their lives, their mortality, and the ultimate purpose in life. The unexamined life is filled with an inordinate amount of activities that encompasses constant diversion, which ultimately leads to separation from thoughtful pursuits. Furthermore, the unexamined life leads to surface level relationships and further insinuates the culture of isolation. As a result, individuals increasingly cheapen the human experience by replacing it with an artificial human experience. Thus, one never truly fills the soul and instead, recapitulates the cycle of despair.

I think the following areas lie at the root of despair:  weak communication/inter-personal relationships due to an increasingly isolated individual, poor critical thinking skills, and diversion-driven minds. As a result, I hope to teach critical thinking to high school students (and eventually college students) to combat this ever increasing epidemic of uncritical thinking.

On a personal note, my separation from God has given me the most despair over the past year than anything else. Despite my theological and philosophical issues with Christianity and the Bible (especially the OT), I still think that Jesus led a compelling life that brings everlasting restoration and transformation. Furthermore, I think the way I engage the world and others largely reflects Christ’s influence (i.e. caring for the poor, sacrificing for others, living in community, cherishing my time alive, pursuing intellectual growth, encouraging the downtrodden, challenging the comfortable, hoping for an afterlife, and investing in people who are both like and different from me). Would I adhere to all Christian doctrines and beliefs? Not quite.  For instance, I am not willing to overlook or make excuses for God’s despicable character in the OT. This includes his commands involving genocide, stoning, and condoning the devil to torture Job. I also do not know what to do with the fact that if “the Fall” is real, then God did set humanity up for failure. As a result, He created humanity knowing they would fail and would need a “Savior.”

Furthermore, if anyone fails to arrive at proper belief about this Savior, they do not inherit eternal life. Does this make any sense to you given the fact that God is hidden and far from clear? Is this what one would expect from an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God? Why would a God create the world knowing that many would end up in hell? I do not think God should have created at all knowing that some of his supposedly beloved creations would suffer eternal separation from Him. If He was truly concerned about everyone’s eternal destiny, I think He should provide more obvious evidence that He exists and needs people to believe a certain way. If God allowed, if not destined humanity to fail in the beginning, why can’t He provide for a second chance after death or transform the person after death? I know Scripture explicitly states that there is no second chance after death in Hebrews, but this is absurd given God’s plan of doom for humanity, which results in only small group participating in heaven? Also, I seriously doubt the holy spirit’s power to convict people of this reality. It seems like God is allowing Satan to win most of the world’s population if Christianity is true.

Despite these issues, I think there is an insinuating power to Christ’s teachings that can, and has changed many lives for the better. I think his teachings need to be considered and lived out in community. This does not necessarily mean that one must participate in a church service, although it may be helpful. I think the community of Christian faith means: studying the ways of Christ, prayer, living out His teachings, loving friends and enemies (this does not mean 100% passivity), live a life that reflects hope in Christ’s redemptive and transformative power, sharing meals, stories, hopes, dreams, caring for one another along with the surrounding community, pushing one another to grow by devoting life to study and intellectual development together, and practicing accountability.

Philosophy Faculty Surveyed

931 philosophy faculty responded to a survey regarding many philosophical issues, but I will highlight one here:

Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)

Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)

Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

I’m actually surprised the theist side is that high. In my own experience (outside of seminary, of course), I would say every professor I have taken a class from were atheists or agnostics. One reason I think this is the case is because most philosophers studying as undergraduates focus on Hume, Nietzsche, John Dewey, Freud, Schopenhauer, Sartre, ect… when it comes to religion. Rarely does anyone read Winfred Corduan, W.L. Craig, J.P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, Norm Geisler, Peter Kreeft, Alvin Plantinga, Michael Rae, Richard Swinburn, William Wainwright, Pascal, and more….  Most philosophy professors I know at the secular university have no idea who any of these philosophers are. I think secular, undergraduate institutions need to deal more with theistic arguments for God and lessen the bias towards Atheism/Skepticism. Personally, while I think atheism contains the most compelling evidence (i.e. hiddenness of god, evil, the undiscerning nature of the universe, scientific studies confirm that prayer has no influence on outcomes, all “sacred” books are very humanistic, and no evidence for disembodied minds/spirits, so it seems like the mind depends on the physical body), however, I think theism is at least viable, but very difficult to support.

Yesterday, on my ancient Greek final, I wrote about Plato’s Laws X. There was a question that asked whether I find theistic or atheistic arguments more compelling. My response indicated that I think atheism has the best support intellectually, but I have a hunch or intuition that a God exists. Granted my reasons for even considering theism still points to the mystery of life from non-life (abiogenesis) and the unresolved phenomena of consciousness. Indeed, arguments from ignorance and god of the gaps fallacy apply here, however, my main goal as a philosophy student and aspiring teacher is to remain objective and follow the evidence where it leads. For now, I’m agnostic, but think atheism is more compelling, so why don’t I call myself an atheist? Well, it’s because I do not have enough confidence to say that God probably does not exist. All I can say is that I just don’t know either way given the evidence.

UCD Ethics Bowl Team

On Nov. 21st, I competed on a team with three other philosophy majors in the Rocky Mountain Region Ethics Bowl competition, held at the University of Colorado at Boulder. We won all four rounds to qualify for nationals, held in Cincinnati, Ohio in February! Here were the interesting cases we debated.

Gregory Dawes on “Theism and Explanation”

Has anyone read this book and/or know anything about Dawes’ worldview? After reading a review in the Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, I am very interested in reading this book. Unfortunately, I will have to wait until the end of December.

Notes on Nagel and Searle

Thomas Nagel: What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

1) Consciousness keeps the mind/body problem alive because reductive physicalism is incomplete when it comes to accounting for phenomenological features of subjective experience. Nagel is not refuting reductive physicalism, but merely states that it is an incomplete theory. For example, the neurophysiology of tasting a strawberry does not give account of the qualitative experience of tasting a strawberry.

2) Nagel further illustrates the problem with psychophysical reduction with his bat example. We can talk about what it’s like to be a bat with sonar, but we as humans will never know what it is truly like to be a bat, let alone a blind person or a Martian. Nagel asserts that there are facts that do not fit into human language and concepts. While disparate things (i.e. human and a bat) can objectively experience a wall in that we both know its there and looks a certain way, neither can know what its like to experience a wall as the other.

3) Further problems with psychophysical reduction: In one sense, phenomenological facts can be objective, as in one person can know what the other is experiencing, but the more disparate the experiencers are, the less objectivity remains in their experiences. So, objective processes can have subjective nature.

4) More thought needs to be given to the problem of objective and subjective phenomenology in order to begin discussing the mind/body problem.

Searle: Can Computers Think?

Searl is arguing against strong AI. In fact, he coined the term “strong AI” with his Chinese room experiment and worked to distinguish between 2 hypotheses about Artificial Intelligence:

1) An artificial intelligence system can think and have a mind.
2) An artificial intelligence system can (only) act like it.

Can computers think? Yes in a sense they can compute inputs and formulate outputs, but Searl’s main question is whether implementing the right inputs and outputs are sufficient for thinking. The answer is no. Syntax does not equal semantics. Thus, meaning does not equal symbolic manipulation, which the Chinese Room experiment demonstrates.

It is important to note the difference between duplication and simulation:

A computer can simulate the weather, but simulations are not the real thing. A computer simulation of a storm will not leave us all wet. Searle thinks that simulation of mental processes does not mean that the computer actually possesses mental processes. Thus, a computer is unable to duplicate consciousness, thoughts, feelings, & emotions.

Searle thinks there’s a simple solution to the mind/body problem. Mental phenomena are both caused by biological processes in the brain and are themselves features of the brain. As a biological naturalist, he claims that mental states are biological phenomena. Consciousness, intentionality, subjectivity and mental causation are all a part of our biological life history, along with growth, reproduction, the secretion of bile, and digestion.

Intelligent Design Conference

I attended The Legacy of Darwin Intelligent Design Conference in Castle Rock, Colorado on October 30-31.

Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, and John West gave presentations.

David Berlinski spoke about his arguments for ID based on his two books The Deniable Darwin and The Devils Delusion in interview format.

Saturday afternoon included a panel discussion with John West, Stephen Meyer, Doug Groothuis, and Craig Smith on the topic of “Training the Next Generation-Practical Strategies and Resources.”

Since I was fortunate to attend a seminar this past summer at the Discovery Institute, I already heard from John West on the cultural impact of Darwinism and a panel discussion on “training the next generation,” so I did not attend these sessions. As for David Berlinski, I will need to read his two books to comment. In this post, I will outline Steve Meyer’s argument and offer some comment on a couple potential objections at the end. Overall, I found Steve Meyer presented the strongest case for ID, while I think Michael Behe’s arguments and examples are problematic. However, I humbly propose that they can be improved. My comments on Behe will be included in the next post.

This is the second time I have heard Steve Meyer speak and it was an excellent presentation. He is definitely a gifted teacher who inspires me to present information that well in the future.

Here are his main points:

Steve Meyer’s thesis: Intelligent design is the best explanation for the existence of complex information in DNA.

Meyer begins speaking about the definition of materialism and its relationship to Darwinian theory. Under materialism, Meyer claims that “the thing from which everything else comes is matter or material process.” He then presents idealism (everything is mind dependent) and Theism as the other options to account for the “appearance of design.” On the appearance of design, Darwin even says that “life gives the illusion of design.”

Meyer is not answering Darwin’s theory of “undirected process” that is capable of producing the appearance of designed life. Instead, Meyer examines the question of life itself. Is there any evidence of design in the simplest forms of life? Up until recently, the cell was viewed to be made of protoplasm (T.H. Huxley, 1889). In 1953 Crick & Watson discovered that the DNA structure is double helixed and carried information from one generation to the next. Crick proposed the sequence hypothesis, which states that the bases in the genetic material (ACTG), determines the sequence of amino acids for which nucleic acid codes. This amino acid sequence then determines the structure into which protein folds, which is required for a protein to function. Meyer asserts that this hypothesis presents the essential link between stored information and the chemical process of inheritance, which enables life to exist.

Along the spine of the DNA molecule there are four molecules that behave like digital characters in a machine code. They conveyed instructions for building protein structures that the cell needs to survive through amino acid sequencing. Information in DNA directs protein synthesis (known as gene expression), in which messenger RNA (mRNA) moves through a ribosome (site of protein manufacture), which a molecular machine helps translate the mRNA instructions. These instructions consist of codons, which are “genetic words.” Codons provide a template to which adapter molecules attach and rings into a single amino acid. This translation process occurs with help from translator RNA (tRNA) and aminoacyl-tRNA). To see the process of gene expression, go here.

The instructions described in this process brings up a “DNA Enigma.” Where does this information come from? Meyer works to make a division between Shannon information and functional information. Meyer states, “Shannon information means that the more improbable an event, the more uncertainty it eliminates, and thus, the more information it conveys when a particular event occurs. The greater the number of possible characters at each site, and the longer the sequence of characters, the greater the information-carrying capacity or Shannon information associated with the sequence.”

According to Meyer, Shannon information theory indicates that DNA and proteins possess vast information-carrying capacities, but it cannot distinguish between improbable sequences of symbols that convey a message. For example, Shannon information theory would assert that the arrangement of letters “adnf slkd dkls” and “The sky is blue” are equal in the amount of information, but does not indicate whether one communicates something or not. In other words, it cannot distinguish between the functional or “message-bearing” ability from random arrangements. Ultimately, Meyer asserts that one must distinguish between sequences of characters that are improbable from those that are improbable, but are specifically arranged to perform a function. He concludes that DNA is more than mere shannon information because it possesses functional information that carries out a purpose.

Related to this issue, Meyer briefly discusses Dean Kenyon’s biochemical predestination theory, which Kenyon ends up rejecting. This theory worked to explain that the self-assembly of biochemical molecular compounds such as proteins from non-living raw chemicals under the correct environmental conditions. Amino acids are structured and have properties that are predisposed to assemble in a way that chance production of life molecules like proteins can account for.

However, the theory of biochemical predestination fails because it cannot explain how complex amino acid based proteins self-assembled themselves without DNA based sequencing or assembly codes. As a result, this theory begs the question because it assumes the existence of living molecules of which it seeks to explain its spontaneous origins. Alternatively, Meyer asserts that the base sequencing in DNA is not the result of biochemical predestination, just like the words arrangement on the printed page are not the result of chemical forces.

Charles Thaxton, whom I was fortunate to meet at the Discovery Institute seminar wrote a book, The Mystery of Life & Origin. He proposes that chemical evolutionary theory has failed to explain the origin of life and the central problem pointed to the origin of information in the DNA molecule rests on the fact that chance & necessity cannot account for its existence.

Inspired by Thaxton, Meyer asks, could you infer design as the best explanation? Inference to the best explanation (used in historical sciences and physics) posits that when you have a historical event you want to explain, you need to propose all plausible explanations and infer which cause is the best. But what does it mean to be the best causal explanation? Darwin utilized from Lyell’s answer to this question, that if you want to explain an event in the remote past, posit causes that are only known from experience to produce the effect in question. Then make an inference to the best explanation. Intelligent Design demonstrates by using this criteria, it is the inference to the best explanation. Even information theorist, Henry Quastler asserts, “the creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.”

This was the crux of his argument, but Meyer lists other hallmarks of design.
1) Nested coding of information
2) Files within Fodors Hierarchical Filing system
3) Distributed storage and renewal information molecules.
4) Junk DNA as operating system (see Richard Sternberg on this topic)

The criticism that I could imagine from opponents to ID would be reference to Thomas Kuhn’s objection that we set up the paradigm or rules that determine what language or information is. Thus, we are making a circular argument when we say that a particular arrangement forms a “functional message” because the criteria that determines the rules for a “functional message” are established by us in the first place. While this is true, we cannot do away with the fact that there are different levels of complex information. The question for ID opponents is, given that information processes in DNA are significantly more complex than any software program, can a chancy, naturalistic process account for specified information in DNA? Is it reasonable to infer intelligence given the fact that we only know of intelligence as the source of functionally complex information?

Another objection I can think of brings up the issue of mixing metaphysics with science. Once one probes into questions addressing whether DNA code equates with meaningful statements from human language systems (i.e. computer and verbal communication language), it seems like this involves metaphysics and/or the philosophy of language. Even if it does involve these philosophical areas, I still maintain that ID is making a design inference based on empirical facts, not merely metaphysical assertions.

Debate: Is Intelligent Design Viable?

Intelligent Design: Is it Viable? A debate between Dr. Francisco J. Ayala and Dr. William Lane Craig. Moderated by Dr. Bradley Monton. The debate will occur on Thursday, November 5, 2009 at 7 p.m. EST at Indiana University. See the website for more details. I’m really looking forward to this debate because I’m most interested in what Ayala, who is a biology professor and theistic evolutionist, will argue against ID.

I Get to Present on Intelligent Design at the U. of Colorado at Denver’s Sociology Conference

On Monday, November 16th at the University of Colorado at Denver’s Sociology Conference, I will present Intelligent Design as a historical science, which would merit its optional inclusion in science courses. The level of inclusion depends upon the science instructors, as long as it is presented accurately and in a non-proselytizing manner. Many may choose to never mention ID, which if fine. However, I think mentioning ID in an accurate manner would increase critical thinking for students to consider alternative explanations for the presence of information and complex life systems. Moreover, one must never equate with Creationism or any religious claims because as a historical science, it has nothing to say about teleology, the supernatural, God, or the particular nature of the intelligent source. If you want to know more, I can email you some more information.

Secular Humanism

I closely align with secular humanism minus its negative conclusions about metaphysics/God. Moreover, I think that science and reason point to theism instead of atheism.

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles (more info can be found here):

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

As for the supernatural, secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other “spiritual” beings outside the realm of the natural universe. Supernatural events such as miracles (in which physical laws are defied) and psi phenomena, such as ESP, telekinesis, etc., are not dismissed out of hand, but are viewed with a high degree of skepticism.

Typically, secular humanists do not rely upon gods or other supernatural forces to solve their problems or provide guidance for their conduct. They rely instead upon the application of reason, the lessons of history, and personal experience to form an ethical/moral foundation and to create meaning in life. Secular humanists look to the methodology of science as the most reliable source of information about what is factual or true about the universe we all share, acknowledging that new discoveries will always alter and expand our understanding of it and perhaps change our approach to ethical issues as well. In any case their cosmic outlook draws primarily from human experiences and scientific knowledge.

Bible Scholar Says Ethics Are Not From The Bible

Are There Ethics in the Hebrew Bible?

By Emeritus Professor Philip Davies
University Of Sheffield, England
September 2009

There seems to have been much debate recently in the media about atheism. Perhaps Professor Dawkins and other vociferous authors have to be thanked for this. But it’s a good thing, if only to counter some really ignorant prejudices about the values of those who do not believe in supernatural beings that influence their life. We can start by noting that atheism has little to do with secularism: most Western nations are both religious and secular. Democracy requires both: religion is one of those beliefs that secular society permits because gods are not registered voters and do not offer themselves at the ballot box and cannot speak in public. Next, the horrible phrase “people of faith” (like “people of color”) implies that atheists have no faith, whereas they do; in fact, they put their faith in certain human values—individual liberty, reason, toleration, human autonomy, science. I don’t see that an atheist’s belief in these is much different in kind from a belief in an invisible and sovereign being (or whatever) that ultimately determines the nature and destiny of everything. Except that it is always open to verification. If it’s wrong, we expect to find out some time. Meanwhile, we should believe in something…..

But what about ethics? After all, religion is not about whether you believe in gods. This is merely metaphysics. What defines religion is the belief that these beings require you to do something about it rather than leave them in peace (and allow them to do the same to you). I repeatedly hear advocates of religion asserting that it is religion that gives humans ethics that bestow value on human life. I have rarely heard anything so ridiculous in my life. So let’s look at ethics in the (Hebrew) Bible.

There are various systems determining human behavior. The best known comprises, the “commandments” or “laws,” supposedly dictated by the invisible god and stipulating that humans should not kill, steal, commit adultery or worship any god but this one, etc. What are the reasons for such behavior? That it is good to obey divine commands—additional motivation being provided by threatened consequences of neglecting to do so. However, “only obeying orders” was summarily dismissed as a defense at the Nuremberg trials and although in some circumstances one can still plead “higher authority” as a defense against charges of misconduct, these pleas do not constitute an assertion of ethical behavior: they are just a get-out where one has clearly behaved unethically.

Religious believers may accuse me here of parody. But no: this is no parody; this is what much of the biblical “ethics” are — rules that are imposed and expected to be obeyed. They are good rules because they are divine rules—and gods are good, or at least the god in the Bible. But ethics is about doing what is good because it is intrinsically good. It is children whom we simply command, and (at least until recently) punish for neglect of our commands because they do not as yet know better. But we are not children, and in fact, many Jews and Christians do behave ethically, obeying some commandments and not others. In doing so, they follow some principle of ethics because they are not children but adults.
So let’s take the wisdom literature as exemplified by Proverbs. Here we can find something closer to a rational system. The literary convention of parental advice to children can be ignored: Wisdom is not commanded but recommended as reasonable because it is in conformity with the way the world was created (this is what I take to be the point of Proverbs 8:22 : “Yahweh created me at the beginning of his work”). The universe, it runs, was created with a moral as well as a natural order, and right behavior consists of discerning and respecting that order. Here we surely have something approaching a proper code of ethics (not, in fact, so far from Stoicism). Unfortunately, it has two major flaws. The less serious flaw is that it does not work because what Proverbs recommends as good does not actually bring the promised reward, nor does its opposite bring punishment. The writers of Job and Qoheleth both seem to have acknowledged this but have no alternative to offer other than to respectively suffer or enjoy life without much understanding of what “good behavior” means. In addition, the writer of the Job story makes it very clear (via the mouth of the Satan) that good behavior is supposed to be disinterested (now that is a piece of real ethics!), and that rewarding it negates this virtue. Yet the more serious flaw is the tendency (mostly outside Proverbs) to equate this “wisdom” to “torah” (divine instruction), and then, to make it worse, to define “torah” as a written corpus of commandments. Hence the wise person, as Psalm 1 has it, is one who meditates on this continually, rather than the one who thinks, reads, or reflect. Ethics out of a can.

And the prophets—so beloved of biblical ethicists? Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Haggai, Zechariah, Habakkuk we can dispose of. Elsewhere we encounter rants against cultic irregularity (=bigotry, denial of human rights), xenophobia (ditto), exhortation to follow Torah (we’ve been here already). Some protests against social abuse, I will concede. But these critiques are hardly original, and being religiously grounded should not be confused with being religiously rationalized. If you want to challenge social or royal norms, you really do have to appeal to a divinity because nothing else counts. And why does nothing else count? Because the Bible is culturally totalitarian—unsurprisingly, because it emanates from a totalitarian world of monarchic societies. The development of monarchic religion in the Bible is hardly a supreme religious insight. Rather, it parallels the growth of ever-larger political units. Instead of local city-rulers fighting for supremacy (and their gods likewise), a supreme, if remote, “king of kings” controls everything (always through officials, of course), the semblance of world order that this emperor celebrates being reflected is the cosmic order governed by a supreme deity. (Plato’s monotheism, by contrast, has to be explained differently).

Western civilization, then, does not get ethics from the Bible (and I would say, not even from the New Testament, but I don’t have room to argue that. Go figure.) Ethics develop in a society where individuals have to make their own moral judgments about intrinsic goodness. In fifth-century Athens, we find Athenian dramatists using traditional myths and legends to explore ethical ambiguity, and especially the conflicts between duty to family city and nation. These are precisely the issues that will have confronted those Athenian citizens called upon to act as judges of their fellows in civic trials. In such a task there are no instructions from the gods, and indeed, no clear answers. Admittedly, the “good” was essentially political, and neither Plato nor Aristotle escaped this restriction. But it was a very good start. Where humans are (in theory) equal, and where political power lies within a citizen body, only educated judgment can hinder mob rule, while abdication of responsibility can easily lead to the return of monarchy. The moral lessons to be learned from the history of the Greek cities (and their Roman successors) can teach as much about democracy as the tragedies in which the heroes are typically caught between demands that are irreconcilable. Theocracy or totalitarianism actually triumphed. It is found first with Alexander, then the Caesars, and then the Roman Catholic Church. But for the time being, democracy, individual freedom, and ethics, are with us. Perhaps that is what we are fighting for in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or perhaps not. I am not sure the Bible would worry too much about torture: its god is quite comfortable with the idea.
Oh for the simplicity of a god to tell us what is right and wrong! If we read Genesis 2–3 in a certain way (the orthodox Christian way, for example) we have to conclude that when we try to do what we think is right, rather than simply obey a divine command, however inscrutable, we fall (and we get punished in a big way). “Doing what is right in our own eyes”—what heresy! Can any theology be more adamantly opposed to “ethics” than this?

Now, I treasure the Bible. And I even think that religion does have many advantages. But ethics is not one of religion’s gifts to humanity, and the Bible cannot serve a modern democracy as a moral guide—unless of course we decide ourselves, on or own ethical principles, which bits of it we will follow and which ones we will not. Come to think of it, though, isn’t this really what most of its believers actually do? So why not come clean and stop pretending that our Western culture is built on “biblical values”: for, thank god, it isn’t!

Stoicism & Logical Positivism

I very much appeal to Stoicism. Founded by Zeno of Citium (Cyprus), this school of philosophy teaches self-control and detachment from distracting, irrational emotions. This allows one to pursue clear thinking and interpret reality from a more neutral position. In addition, Stoicism fortifies individuals to pursue virtue, wisdom, and integrity of character. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoicism claims the possibility of overcoming discord from the world and find peace within oneself. Greek philosophers such as Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and later Roman thinkers such as Cicero, Seneca the Younger, Marcus Aurelius, Cato the Elder, Cato the Younger, and Epictetus are associated with Stoicism.

It is important to note that the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions. I think it is imperative that individuals address their emotions, but ultimately resort to developing clear judgement and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration. The foundation of Stoic ethics points to goodness that rests in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. I would rather err on the side of following reason where it leads than passion and speculative feelings.

As for logical positivism, the positivists rejected transcendental metaphysics as meaningless assertions since one could not verify metaphysics through experience. While earlier critics of metaphysics were content to describe it as empty, useless, or unscientific, the logical positivists took over from Wittgenstein’s Tractatus the rejection of metaphysics as meaningless. The propositions of metaphysics, they argued, are neither true nor false; they are wholly devoid of significance. While I appreciate the logical positivists limitations upon metaphysics, I also would not go as far as they do and call it meaningless or devoid of significance. As a result, I think more research and discussion should continue to occur within metaphysics (i.e. God, freewill, the soul, ect…) because it is possible to speculate upon metaphysical ideas. Just because one cannot verify metaphysics empirically or assign a definitive truth value to it does not mean that one should render these entities as meaningless. However, when discerning truth, I think one should favor empirical and tautologous information over metaphysical entities.

Philosophy Lectures at UCD This Fall!

The first meeting will be Tuesday September 1st, 5:30pm in the Honi Haber Library (inside the philosophy department Plaza M 108). The philosophy department’s library is the first door on the right inside the office.

What is faith? How do people acquire faith – is it a priori or a posteriori? What beliefs are entailed in faith? What justifications do people have for faith/belief? Are faith-based arguments valid-how so? Or why not?

Andrew Winters, M.A. in Philosophy and Religion from the California Institute of Integral Studies, will be discussing “Varieties of Faith” – epistemic and religious. So please think of questions to stimulate
discussion relating to A priori/a posteriori notions of god(s) as well as your beliefs and why you hold them. And if you know anyone that might be interested, bring ‘em along! Anyone with an open mind is welcome with a UC Denver student. Refreshments provided.

Also, just a heads up – the Philosophy department is hosting a few lectures in the fall, so check them out:

Fall 2009

Wed. Sept. 2nd at 2:30pm-4:00pm.
Liz Stillwagon, SUNY Buffalo,
“Biosymbols: Symbols in Life and Mind”

Mon. Oct. 5th at 2:30pm-4:00pm
Frederic Bender, UC Colorado Springs,
“Ecocide, Peak Oil, and Deep Ecology”

Wed. Oct. 21st at 2:30pm-4:00pm
Mitzi Lee, UC Boulder,
“Justice and the Law in Aristotle’s Moral Theory”

Wed. Nov. 18th at 2:30pm-4:00pm
Candice S. Shelby, UC Denver,
“Shifting Conceptual Spaces”

Thoughts on “The Sacredness of Questioning Everything” by David Dark

The Sacredness of Questioning Everything by, David Dark attempts to usher freedom to the process of questioning God. This work takes aim at awakening those in dead religion, which discourages questions and also offers comfort to those who swim in doubt. David Dark claims that “the God of the Bible not only encourages questions; the God of the Bible demands them. If that were not so, we wouldn’t live in a world of such rich, God-given complexity in which wide-eyed wonder is part and parcel of the human condition. The possibility of redemption and revolution depends on the questions we ask of God, governments, media, and everyday economies.” While I think Dark succeeds in offering a thoughtful and revitalizing view of God, religion, skepticism, and culture, the book does not address challenging questions nor does it define sacredness. The reader is left wondering what does not fall under sacredness if it truly involves “the questioning process and all that we do in life.”

“Christianity, far from being a tradition in which doubts and questions are suppressed in favor of uncritical, blind faith, began to assume the form of a robust culture in which anything can be asked and everything can be said.  The call to worship is a call to complete candor and radical questioning.” P. 18

I agree with David Dark that Christianity must remain open to questioning, for blind faith merely yields a superficial belief system, which will not last when arduous times arrive.

“In the name of maintaining what feels like an emotional equilibrium, we lose the habit of asking ourselves hard questions about our everyday practices and the worlds we fund and perpetuate with our lives, our religion, becomes little more than a dim-witted maintenance of the status quo. We develop a resistance to anything and anyone who calls our lives into question. Our religious faith, what’s left of it, becomes difficult to distinguish from the sentimental coziness of the warm electric blanket, an anesthetizing presence in our lives.” P. 43

The attitude described here represents a majority of religious people. Ask most people why they believe their religion is the truth above all other worldviews and they will usually give you emotional reasons alone. Very few Christians know how to answer tough questions except with the mystery card. I think if Christians need follow David Dark’s advice and ask hard questions.

“Religion is the whole deal, so it is clearly an exercise in futility to locate the place where religion intersects with, say politics, as if there are a fixed number of interesting spots where religions actually interfaces with the everyday world. Instead, our world is all religion all the time. The exclusive categories of modernism—economics, politics, and so on-do not, in fact, work. They’re just different terms for the same thing, the slippery stuff of human existence. Religion is what we have, what there is. Religion is the air we breathe. It’s our immediate and demanding subject matter.” P. 39

Hmmm, “our world is religion all the time.” So, when people kill each other in the name of their God, that’s religion? When people go through their daily routine, that is religion? If religion is truly our world all the time, then it’s far from obvious whether religion stands for good or evil. It’s also interesting that the author does not want to distinguish between economics, politics, and modernism. How do these categories “not work?” I would argue that economics are the “whole deal.” Just look at the wars we participate in and whether it benefits our companies or not. Also note that the Fed, the world bank and corporations run America, not only politicians. How can economics, politics, and modernism not be exclusive categories? This is like saying, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Judaism are not exclusive categories.

“It should be obvious that our sense of what is sacred is tragically deficient if it remains closed to all but the most familiar people, places, and ideas. If we aren’t reaching towards a fresh understanding of the world through the questions we ask, we remain pretty well zombified in the cold comfort of a dead religiosity. Fresh questions and new acts of imagination are our primary means to encounter love and liveliness, to discover integrity and authenticity. Without them, we’re pretty well done for. We have to exercise and exorcise our imagination with questions. “

Indeed, questions need to advance and no one should waste their mind in thoughtless, groundless absolutism. Fresh questions keep the mind sharp and often spawns new, innovative ideas that potentially change lives, and sometimes even the course of history. I fully support imagination and questions, which must include critical thinking. While The Sacredness of Questioning Everything does entail a holy task, this quest for truth should not leave behind critical thinking, which it too often does.

The Culture’s Desire For The Masses

God & The Old Testament

A friend told me today that her pastor teaches that God did not command Israel to obliterate other nations, but rather, God allowed them to think that He commanded them to do it. Or in other words, God knew the Israelites would fight other nations regardless of His commands, so God handed them over to killing others. Oy Vey! I cannot wait to ask how this pastor knows this and what Scripture verses teach this view. If God did not command the following verses, then how does one know what God actually commanded opposed to what humans think God commanded?

“When the Lord your God brings you into the land which you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Gir’gashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Per’izzites, the Hivites, and the Jeb’usites, seven nations greater and mightier than yourselves, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them; then you must utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them. (Deut. 7:1–2)

“…in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes…”(Deut. 20:16)

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” – Numbers 31:17-18

Some Thoughts on Intelligent Design

After attending the Discovery Institute seminar, I can confirm that many ID supporters believe in some form of special creation. I cannot speak for all of the Discovery Institute fellows, but out of those who presented at the seminar, all believed in creation. However, even if every ID supporter believed in creation, which I know all do not, this remains an extraneous point. Hopefully in the near future, both sides of the debate will focus more on the actual arguments for and against ID, instead of deviating in ad hominem distractions. For more on what ID really argues go here. Certainly, it is true that many ID proponents falsely jump from ID to Christian Theism, even though arguments for ID fail to support any particular God or gods. Overall, the following represent some of the stronger arguments for ID: fine-tuning, origin of life from non-life, the Kalam, and the presence of information content in DNA.

Additionally, here are some points I find most challenging for Naturalism:

1) What does it mean for a natural organism to function properly? Something can only function properly when there is a purpose that it serves. It seems that any thing devoid of intelligence cannot act from or have a purpose unless that purpose is derived from an intelligent agent or something determining its purpose.

2) The inability of naturalism to account for immaterial realities such as right & wrong, and consciousness.

3) Even if the universe is spatially infinite, I do not understand how it is possible for undirected, random natural processes to construct information content such as a computer program or DNA. It is like putting all the necessary pieces of a plane in a box and having it shake for eternity. This would not construct a plane.

Here is an interesting argument against materialism presented by Bruce Gordon:

•P1. Materialism is the view that the sum and substance of everything that exists is exhausted by physical objects and processes and whatever supervenes causally upon them.

•P2. The explanatory resources of materialism are therefore restricted to material objects, causes, events and processes.

•P3. Neither nonlocal quantum correlations nor (in light of nonlocalizability) the identity of the fundamental constituents of material reality can be explained or characterized if the explanatory constraints of materialism are preserved.

•P4. These quantum phenomena require an explanation.

______________________________________________________________

•C. Therefore, materialism/naturalism/physicalism is irremediably deficient as a worldview, and consequently should be rejected as false and inadequate.

Justification for premises 3 & 4:

•According to special relativity, no causal influence that is physical can propagate faster than the speed of light.

•This places a constraint on efficient material causality that is violated by nonlocal correlations in the quantum realm.

•The problem for the materialist is that such correlations need a causal explanation and no material cause, in principle, can explain them.

•In order for an entity to be a material individual, it must possess one or more well-defined and uniquely identifying properties.

•The prime example of such a property is spatio-temporal location: in order for something to exist as an individual material object, it must occupy a well-defined space-time volume. If it does not, then whatever it is – if it’s anything at all – it’s not a material object.

The problem for the materialist is that the particles of relativistic quantum mechanics are not localizable in this way:

•In order for an entity to be a material individual it must be numerically distinct from other members of its kind.

•The problem for the materialist is that quantum entities do not satisfy this criterion: both Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics violate this identity condition.

•Furthermore, in quantum field theory the field quanta can exist in numerically indefinite states (superpositions of “particle number”), a metaphysical impossibility for material individuals.

Other issues I’m learning more about:

1) Claims pointing to inconsistency of Necessitarianism and Quantum Theory.

2) Regularity Theory

3) The question of whether there is an indeterministic material explanation for non-locality.

4) How creationists point to the Cambrian Explosion as a challenge to Darwinian evolution.

5) Richard Sternberg’s writings on how “junk DNA” is not junk. I have never heard this before and want to get a better handle on his claims.

6) The use of abduction to support ID as a scientific theory.

God and Freewill

I am posting a thoughtful post from the Debunking Christianity blog (www.debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com): What are your thoughts? 

____________________________________________________________

If rejecting God is a grave mistake, then why would God not wish to help nonbelievers see the error of their decision? Why would he let them perish in hell for all eternity (or simply perish) without any hope of redemption? The reason, Christians tell us, is one of respect: Godrespects the decision to reject him, and therefore will not devalue this “free choice”—however irrational—by interfering. Below, I show why this answer is problematic.

First, the answer assumes that the “free” decision to reject God is worthy of respect, since without this assumption, it is impossible to explain why God would respect it. It makes no sense to say God will respect decisions unworthy of respect. So what is it about the decision to reject God that is worthy of respect? I see only two possibilities: the decision is either (1) intrinsically respectable or (2) worthy of respect because it is made by a free being who is itself worthy of respect. No will argue the first possibility. As for the second, the Christian needs to demonstrate the connection between a free agent being worthy of respect and the (irrational) choices she makes being worthy of respect. What is this connection? If I see my friend ready to jump into a volcano, should I “respect” his choice, or attempt to prevent him from making a grave error? The latter, clearly. Thus, I can respect my friend’s worth without having to respect his irrational choices. As the example illustrates, I can even respect my friend’s worth while interfering with his free will. 

Christians will undoubtedly argue that God cannot interfere with the nonbeliever’s free will, despite how she chooses to exercise it. For if God were to not accept the nonbeliever’s irrational choice, he would be devaluing her humanity or intrinsic moral worth. I’d like to see some justification for this claim, but even supposing the Christian could provide a satisfactory answer, there lies a deeper problem: why would God wish to give up on the nonbeliever? According to Christians, the decision to reject God is indicative of a deep defect in the nonbeliever’s moral and rational faculties. So it is utterly incomprehensible why God would wish to give up on trying to correct this defect. If God thinks the nonbeliever is making the biggest mistake one can possibly make, then it is far more plausible to suppose he would do everything in his power to help her realize her error—reach out to her until she ‘gets it’, no matter how long it takes. Hence, the obvious answer to the question of when God should give up is ‘never.’ It is what a fully compassionate and loving being would do, and therefore what God would do, if he exists.

Signature In The Cell

Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature In The Cell released this month. I look forward to reading it and wrestling with the arguments in support of and against the claims proposed. To see information on this book:  www.signatureinthecell.com. Below is an excerpt from his website about the book. 

 

Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, by Stephen C. Meyer

 The foundations of scientific materialism are in the process of crumbling. In Signature in the Cell, philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer shows how the digital code in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence behind the origin of life. The book will be published on June 23 by HarperOne.

Unlike previous arguments for intelligent design, Signature in the Cell presents a radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information. That evidence has been mounting exponentially in recent years, known to scientists in specialized fields but largely hidden from public view. A Cambridge University-trained theorist and researcher, director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, Dr. Meyer is the first to bring the relevant data together into a powerful demonstration of the intelligence that stands outside nature and directs the path life has taken.

The universe is comprised of matter, energy, and the information that gives order to matter and energy, thereby bringing life into being. In the cell, information is carried by DNA, which functions like a software program. The signature in the cell is that of the master programmer of life.

In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin never sought to unravel the mystery of where biological information comes from. For him, the origins of life remained shrouded in impenetrable obscurity. While the digital code in DNA first came to light in the 1950s, it wasn’t until later that scientists began to sense the implications behind the exquisitely complex technical system for processing and storing information in the cell. The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency.

Drawing on data from many scientific fields, Stephen Meyer formulates a rigorous argument employing the same method of inferential reasoning that Darwin used. In a thrilling narrative with elements of a detective story as well as a personal quest for truth, Meyer illuminates the mystery that surrounds the origins of DNA. He demonstrates that previous scientific efforts to explain the origins of biological information have all failed, and argues convincingly for intelligent design as the best explanation of life’s beginning. In final chapters, he defends ID theory against a range of objections and shows how intelligent design offers fruitful approaches for future scientific research.

Appearing in this year of Darwin anniversaries—Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his Origin of Species—Signature in the Cell could only have been written now that the data of biology’s dawning information age has started to come in. Meyer shares with readers the excitement of the most recent discoveries, as the digital technology at work in the cell has been progressively revealed. The operating system embedded in the genome includes nested coding, digital processing, distributive retrieval and storage systems. It is very extraordinary—the terminology is all recognizable from computer science.

The appearance of Meyer’s book is timely in two other ways. First, bestselling atheist writers like biologist Richard Dawkins have insisted that because Darwin buried the traditional argument for design in nature, religious belief has been shown to be irrational in our modern scientific age. Meyer reveals that, on the contrary, it is precisely our modern scientific age that is in the process of burying materialist theories of life’s development.

Second, since a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, ruled in 2005 that intelligent design may not rightfully claim the designation of “science,” Judge John E. Jones has become the hero of Darwinian activists and their supporters in academia and the media. The Dover decision has been hailed as the death knell of intelligent design. Hardly so! Speaking from the more relevant perspective of the philosophy of science, Meyer responds that federal judges were never given the job of defining what is scientific and what is not.

As a philosopher and a scientist himself, having worked in the field of geophysics for Atlantic Richfield, Meyer is able to step back from the fray of competing views about Darwinian theory and offer a searching, compelling investigation of life’s beginning.

Best Richard Carrier Quote….

I most resonate with Carrier’s quote in Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism. I think this is my main problem with church, and despite this I still go sometimes….

“Every Sunday, believers go to be preached to in silence, not to actively discuss and debate the important issues of philosophy or policy. No one is being given the tools to think analytically about life and morality, or to critically examine and make an informed choice about spiritual direction, and no one is being encouraged to practice these skills.” -Richard Carrier

Is Atheism the Most Rational Worldview?

It is a well-documented fact that Jesus existed and taught much wisdom. Indeed, the historical reliability of Jesus’ resurrection may easily be doubted, however, I just cannot seem to move completely away from thinking that Christianity best explains the following: 1) the human condition, 2) makes the most sense out of meaning since all humans are deemed as valuable creations, and 3) seems to make the most sense out of objective morality. Without God as a moral lawgiver, I do not know how the meaning of life would not be reduced to a hedonistic existence embedded with subjective ethics. These are irrational world-views because they cannot backup any objective morality.  If subjective ethics are true, then what one person deems as “right” is groundless. Meaning, they have no claim to any standard that distinguishes “right” from “wrong.” So, assuming morals may be given an ontological status, how do personal realities such as morals arise from impersonal brute facts? 

So, Atheists,  I am curious what keeps you believing that you embrace the most coherent worldview? If it’s because of evil in the world, I wonder how Atheism can hold onto objective “right” or “wrong” in order to claim that something is evil in the first place. By what standard does Atheism use to determine what represents “good” or “bad?” While I do not deny that evil is a problem for an infinitely, perfect God, I don’t know how it’s not a problem for every worldview. My lingering question is, which worldview best answers the existence of evil?

While intellectually, I find philosophical skepticism most attractive, I struggle with its practical application. As you can see, I have way more questions than answers, so input is welcome! 

Ethics and Atheism

I am wondering how Atheists ground their ethical claims. Also, how can an Atheist deem anyone to have human rights since the founding fathers of America (yes, many were deist and a variety of other non-religious views) equated human rights with a “Creator?”

For the Atheist, who is the authority to determine what is “right” or “wrong” outside of mere personal opinion? How does Atheism not only afford the hedonistic lifestyle, which offers an irrational subjective ethic? Under a naturalist worldview, humans are merely animals with no higher purpose than to pursue self-preservation and pleasure. Does this really make the most sense out of human existence? 

Why have any moral obligation to not steal, lie, cheat, or be unfaithful to your spouse if one can make up their own rules as they go along in life? Since there are no eternal consequences, according to the Atheist, who cares about the finite consequences because one may get away with all kinds of injustice?

Wes Morriston’s Reply to Bill Craig on the Kalam

Here’s a reply to Bill Craig’s defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Reply2BillCraig