In Search of High Places

New blog.

2010-08-04T09:27:00.001-06:00

Stuff is happening again elsewhere.

If anything matters, everything matters

2008-09-05T14:20:00.018-06:00

Meaning, meaning, meaning.

We've all done it (here in Minnesota at least). It starts with a fresh snow fall and an empty parking lot. You throw the car into reverse, turn the wheel as far as it will go and hit the gas. Round and round you spin. You may have noticed that even though you have the steering wheel pegged, you never end up repeating the exact same circle twice. There's always a bit of drift—just enough to keep things interesting...

Okay, maybe it's not that interesting. But anyone who's been around here for any length of time knows where I'm going with this. Matt and I have been going round on the meaning of life since the very first (with the help of many others along the way). Indeed, we may well sound like broken records at times. Still there is this "drift," subtle shifts in the direction of the conversation and an unshakable feeling that there is more to be said—that it's still a conversation worth having. Or maybe that's just me. I don't know.

Starting back in July there was a rash of "meaning of life talk" that broke out. First here. Then here. From these two conversations two theories of meaning were purposed (well, more than that actually, but these were the only two that stayed in the discussion):

Alex's Meaning Thesis {AMT} =
A thing or state of affairs is meaningful only if it holds a conceptually significant place in relation to the telos of the whole.

Existentialist Meaning Thesis {EMT} =
A thing or state of affairs is meaningful if it strikes an observer as significant or "weighty" when filtered through one’s life experience.

EMT was then later revised by Matt and became something slightly different. I would like to call the Personal Meaning Thesis:

Personal Meaning Thesis {PMT} =
Something I think is meaningful will have (a) influenced the way I see myself and the world I inhabit, and/or (b)will have been something I've considered valuable (either at the time, or later on).

To begin exploring this I would wish to make two preliminary remarks. First, we should note that there is a epistemological/metaphysical schism running between AMT and EMT/PMT. I will elaborate on this shortly. Secondly, PMT (and from here on I will speak primarily of PMT) is fully able to exist comfortably within AMT. Following from this second observation flows my primary challenge: Can PMT obtain if AMT is rejected? In other words, is talk of personal meaning coherent if we deny any telos or "ultimate purpose" to the whole (i.e. all reality)?^[1] It seems to me any serious atheist must face this question. The very credibility of all vigorous denials of nihilism are at stake.

Now, back to this talk of epistemological/metaphysical schisms. This is an important point as it uncovers the fact that our comparison is not a kind for kind, but rather we are dealing with two levels of explanation. AMT is the more ambitious of the two theories as it deals primarily with questions of metaphysical truth (e.g. is love ultimately meaningful? Is striving for justice ultimately significant?). PMT, on the other hand, is a much more modest theory as it works within a more epistemically limited domain. ^[2] PMT would say, "look, we can't know the nature of ultimate reality in the way AMT seems to desire, thus if we work from what we can know (e.g. I feel a sense of solidarity with those who suffer, etc...) then we can go on to construct a theory of meaning from these basic facts.

This is true so far as it goes and I do not wish to minimize it's legitimacy in any way. The question is, under what circumstances does this legitimacy obtain? PMT cannot answer this question. It simply does not go far enough as a theory of meaning. Allow me to here try and put my finger on the fatal flaw of all PMT type formulations. PMT ultimately ends with an emotional brute fact. The question is then not "why desire a desire," (as I was thought to be suggesting here) but "what's next in questioning this desire?" Is it really an absurd question to ask, what is desire? Is desire itself meaningful?

Here, if held at the exclusion of AMT, PMT is dashed on the rocks of its own inquiry. It's not that this desire in PMT is unable to be questioned in the same way the validity rationality is (discussed here). The validity of desires can be questioned without absurdity, the problem here is that PMT is simply too small to answer the question and thus is a myopic theory of meaning. PMT dwells long and hard on the four-color "welcome to the Rocky Mountains" brochure while refusing to step off the tour bus to witness the sun cresting over glacier crowned peaks.

In the final analysis if we accept AMT and it is true that there is a purposeful telos to the whole of reality (much as the Christian story suggests), then you get PMT as well. Yet if we deny the legitimacy of AMT by arguing that "the whole" does not have a telos, then we have yet to see how this ruptured dam of meaninglessness can be kept from surging back down the canyon of history destroying every supposed village of meaning along it's path. PMT, like everything else, is awash in the flotsam of cosmic waste.

I realize that at one point, Matt, you said that you are not necessarily denying AMT. I'm not altogether sure what you meant by that. Though I do know you had your money on PMT, at least last we talked. I'm not sure whether or not I have succeeded or not, but I have tried here to demonstrate that PMT is dependent upon AMT and the additional premise that "the whole" does indeed have a telos.

If what I have said so far is true, then one of two things can be said from our intuitions of "meaningfulness." 1. Our intuitions regarding meaning are appropriate inklings of the truth that comes both before and behind all history, or 2. these intuitions are simply the Universe making noise for no other reason than the fact that it does. Thus, to speak of "meaning" under 2. seems to entail such a heavily qualified disclaimer that we may as well speak clearly into the mic: All is meaningless.

Thoughts? Pushbacks?

^[1]
The Factory Thought Experiment
Consider a factory. It sits somewhere out in northern Saskatchewan. The factory is completely automated and no one knows where it came from or who owns it. As a matter of fact it produces absolutely no product, service or output of any kind. It is completely and totally without purpose. It even runs as if by magic, needing no energy source to sustain itself.

Now on a random vacation to the area you are passing by this very odd factory and you notice a sign offering free tours [let us here ignore the suggestion that the purpose of the factory is to provide a location for tours]. Not having anything else planned, you decide to have a look. Once inside, you notice the factory is filled with all manner of frantic, automated activity.

Happening across a particularly complicated little piece of machinery you note the many intricate tasks it seems be be performing. Getting the attention of the tour guide you ask, "What is this little gizmo up to?" (how is it contributing to the telos of the system?)

The tour guide then begins to expound on how it contributes to the larger system of which it is a part. Having provided a satisfactory answer regarding how our little device participates in this system, you ask the obvious question, "okay, but what does that system do?" And so on…

Thus, from inquiring about the one isolated gizmo, one's questions becomes ever more expansive, asking of ever larger systems within the factory. Likewise, each answer must relate the previous system to the next larger system in which it is nested, until finally there is no "next step up" except that of the entire factory itself. To ask this final question exposes the absurdity of the exercise, for, as we have stipulated, the factory itself has no telos—it "just is."

From here we must ask, does this dead end not render questionable any purpose within the previously mentioned systems and relationships? That is to say, did our little gizmo ever relate to the telos of the system of which it was a part? It does not appear that it did, for the only way this purposive relationship could be justified was by appealing to the telos of the system yet above it, and so on…. We have a regress on our hands that must stop with the telos of the factory, which, by definition, has none. Thus, if all those relationships are evacuated of any purpose, does that not also annihilate any significant meaning? It seems to me it does. And if this is true for our little gizmo, how much more so for our own lives?

^[2]
At least when taken at its best. At its worst this position is held to avoid the uncomfortable implications of AMT in relation to certain metaphysical convictions. Not pointing fingers. I'm just sayin'.

P.S. This post title is shamelessly ripped off from William P. Young's The Shack

What gives?

2008-09-05T09:12:00.000-06:00

It's been a while ay? As life rolls on I've found myself with increasingly little time for continuing ...I was going to say blogging, but, as it turns out, blogging is but one small piece of all that I have little time to keep up. School has been fantastic. I've been throwing myself into my studies and have gotten into the habit of doing upwards of four times the work actually required of me. Last quarter I wrote my term paper on theology and evolution. This quarter it was on hell conceived as universalism, eternal conscious torment and annihilationism. It's been a lot of fun having the time actually do some research.

I also took on a half-time job this spring. I'm now the "youth guy" at our church. It's been tremendously challenging, exciting and scary... but good. That combined with school and the soon to be kid #2 leaves me in a place where I really need to bracket my life in such a way that forces me to give up some things I really love: like talking to you all. Now I'm not saying I'm gone for good. It's more like "few and far between." I guess one benefit of this medium is that it's not like anyone's going anywhere (unless someone's thinking of swearing off the internet). So ya. I guess I just felt that I owed you all some explanation, especially Matt since he continues to keep the home fires burning... even if no one's home half the time. Sorry bud.

Yeshua the annointed one

2008-08-29T05:44:00.002-06:00

There's a detailed discussion on the existence of Jesus over at Stephen Law's blog, which visitors here (assuming there still are any) might want to take a look at.

Personally, I've never found the arguments for the divinity of Jesus convincing. All history is a matter of probability, and the probability of Jesus being able to perform miracles because he's an aspect of a divine being given flesh is always going to be much lower than the probability of more mundane explanations*.

(*Assuming you've had no prior contact with said divine being, which would - if itself valid - alter the probability considerably.)

Atheism, Theology and Creationism

2008-08-18T05:10:00.004-06:00

"God, today, no longer represents the same forces as in the beginning of His existence; neither does He direct human destiny with the same Iron hand as of yore. Rather does the God idea express a sort of spiritualistic stimalus to satisfy the fads and fancies of every shade of human weakness. In the course of human development the God idea has been forced to adapt itself to every phase of human affairs, which is perfectly consistent with the origin of the idea itself."

(Emma Goldman, The Philosophy of Atheism)

Watching 'The Genius of Darwin' on Channel 4, I was struck by just how futile the evolution vs creationism debate often seems to be. Dawkins (who presented the documentary) and others like him appear convinced that human beings are essentially rational beings who can be won round to a particular viewpoint because the facts support it. But the show presented plenty of evidence that this simply isn't the case.

While its true that the creationists featured in the documentary certainly displayed a fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory, it quickly became obvious that clearing up their misconceptions had no real impact on their beliefs. As one of the pupils at the school Dawkins visits in part 1 so concisely explained: It wasn't that he didn't understand evolutionary theory, it was just that his religion told him it was wrong. Through (I assume) a combination of bribes, threats and social pressure, his religious beliefs had managed to shut down a large part of his capacity for critical thought.

This is – what I'd call - “Regressive Theology”. It teaches that the Truth has already been revealed, and all knowledge which challenges it must be rejected. Failure to do so often results in the most extreme punishment conceivable: An eternity of agony and torment. (Not to mention the more immediate ostracism by friends and family).

Due to its nature, regressive theology is (once it's taken hold) generally immune to counter-argument. To doubt is to risk everything. While better education can help prevent regressive theology taking hold of an individual (by aiding the capacity to doubt before it's suppressed), it's next to useless against those already in its influence.

The irony (and hopefully Achilles heel) of such a theology however is that it's actually at war with itself – by rejecting and fighting scientific knowledge, regressive theology is in a position of worshipping the creator while rejecting and fighting the creation. It is in conflict with the very world it claims is divine.

At the other end of the spectrum, and perhaps offering the greatest challenge to is counterpart, is “Progressive Theology”. This religious view of the world is built around the idea that understand of (the) God(s) is incomplete and one of the best ways of advancing it is through increasing our knowledge and understanding of “Creation”. In its engagement with the world it welcomes and absorbs breakthroughs in science as shedding further light on the world around us and consequently its creator.

"Do we want to contemplate his power? We see it in the immensity of the creation. Do we want to contemplate his wisdom? We see it in the unchangeable order by which the incomprehensible Whole is governed. Do we want to contemplate his munificence? We see it in the abundance with which he fills the earth. Do we want to contemplate his mercy? We see it in his not withholding that abundance even from the unthankful. In fine, do we want to know what God is? Search not the book called the scripture, which any human hand might make, but the scripture called the Creation."

(Tom Paine, The Age of Reason)

For atheists such as myself, progressive theology offers not just the best hope of challenging its regressive form, but also of bringing about an erosion of religious belief – as if theology is built upon the nature of the universe, and the universe is atheistic, then atheism will surely follow, to some degree or other. (Of course, if the universe is theistic, then we can at least look forward to more convincing arguments for theism).

Presenting theology and science as diametrically opposed, as Dawkins often seems to do, risks undermining the progressive strains of the former and thereby strengthening the regressive ones. An unnuanced approach to theology may well be an own goal.

Moral Dilemma

2008-08-05T10:04:00.001-06:00

**WARNING - CONTAINS HUGE SPOILERS FOR 'THE DARK KNIGHT'**

Okay...

The Joker has wired two ferries up with explosives (that cannot be defused). He announces that in twenty minutes' time both will blow up - unless either of the ferries uses the supplied detonator to blow up the other, in which case the remaining ferry will be allowed to go free.

One ferry is full of civilians (including children). The other full of convicted criminals. They have no way of contacting each other or anyone else.

If anyone attempts to leave the ferry - both will be blown up immediately.

You're on the civilian ferry...

What do you do?

A-T-H-E-I-S-M... find out what it means to them

2008-08-01T05:42:00.004-06:00

(Look at that - you wait ages for a post and then three come along at once. They're like buses.)

There's been a bit of a debate (kicked off by the recent "Questions for atheists" meme) around the blogworld over what the term "atheist" actually denotes. John S. Wilkins of 'Evolving Thoughts' has a thought-provoking post outlining his own views on the matter - which manages to capture the distinction between positive and negative atheism (which seems to split people) quite well.

In summary, he states that:

I think there's a bit of a conundrum here for atheists. Either they have to make a positive claim and exclude agnostics and soi disant deists, or they have to accept they are defined by the religion du jour.

John thinks that atheists should go for the former - positively stating that there are no gods, as opposed to the more agnostic position of simply not accepting religious claims. I can't agree though: The absolutist claim he seems to be arguing for (as an agnostic himself) seems to me to be unsupportable - without some form of absolute knowledge it's impossible to dismiss deistic or more nebulous theistic claims about the nature of the universe. It may be that the evidence for the existence of a creator is incredibly weak, but that doesn't mean we can rule out the possibility altogether, merely that we have to pronounce it extremely unlikely - which seems to bring us closer to the second position.

And it's this position I find myself quite comfortable in: When I say that I'm an atheist, I don't intend to say anything more than that I've found religious arguments so far unconvincing (I am "non-theistic"). It is not so much a claim about the universe as a claim about how the universe appears to me now. I see no way (or need) to deny the possibility that at some point I'll encounter evidence that will change my mind.

Nor in my reading of people such as Dawkins or Hitchens do I see them as advancing much more than a similar position - neither completely rule out that possibility of God (in some form), they simply make the case that all arguments for God so far have been flawed.

Reason and preference

2008-07-31T08:12:00.002-06:00

(Note: In one of those annoying moments of (dis?)sycrhonicity I've finished up this post just as Alex has posted his piece below - make sure you don't overlook it! It's not as though I'm that desperate for attention that I need to try and overshadow other people)

According to many people in the field, modern philosophy starts with Rene Descartes, or more specifically with one of the most famous phrases in the history of philosophy: "I think, therefore I am."

Descartes hoped to establish the foundational beliefs of human understanding – to find that which could not be doubted without contradiction. To do this he set aside millennia of accumulated human knowledge and went back to (what he believed to be) the central, unquestionable, truth at the heart of all experience.

I think.
Only that which exists can think.
Therefore, I exist.

However, this is not the fundamental truth that Descartes supposed it to be – it actually presupposes two, quite crucial, things:

1) Reason

Without reason, no argument can be made – or at least no argument worth making.

2) Preference

Without preferences (with which I include desire, value, etc.) there can be no motivation for making an argument.

Descarte (and all sceptics) must assume not only the existence of these two things, but also their validity – as otherwise there are no grounds for making any argument. Without reason, we have no means to, without preference we have no grounds to. This holds regardless of our metaphysics – as metaphysics itself is impossible without them. They are fundamental aspects of our existence and as such largely beyond analysis – once we start to question them our means to and grounds for doing so are pulled from under us: If we question reason, then we cannot construct a rational argument against it. If we question preference, then we have no grounds for preferring it to be valid.

The crushing weight of silence

2008-07-31T07:14:00.004-06:00

Note: I sent this out yesterday via Facebook to a few of the regulars on this blog. Matt suggested I post it (perhaps apple will offer me millions to use it?). Seeing as I have little time to post anything else, perhaps there's nothing wrong with a little personal dramma!

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

For those of you all who may be used to seeing me on IM, MSN, FB, etc... you may have noticed a peculiar lack of my presence these last few weeks. I thought I'd offer a bit of an explanation. I do this not because I worry that you've missed me (though doubtless, you have), but because this is the sort of story that only finds its meaning in the telling.

That said, my computer is broke. But wait, there's more...

So I show up to my second day on campus two weeks ago. I calmly pull out my super sweet (almost brand spanking new) macbook pro. As I pop open the screen it becomes apparent that all is not well. There is a massive crack all the way across the screen! I figured it must have hit something while in by backpack. After a brief period of shock I decide to suck it up and order a new $300 screen.

Now, I'm staying with my brother-in-law while I'm down at classes so I give him a call to obtain his address so that I can get the screen overnighted to his place. He picks up and I explain the situation to him.... There's an slightly uncomfortable moment of silence on the other end of the phone... "So I take it you didn't get my email then, huh?", he says. Not waiting for me to answer he continues, "I think I may have drove over your computer this morning."

"What?"

"Ya, I'm pretty sure I did."

"That's impossible! The computer would be mangled had you done that!"

"I dunno, but I think I did."

At this point you may be wondering how the devil my computer found itself in such a place as to make possible the "getting driven over" thing. Briefly: a friend was picking me up for class. He parks on one side of the drive way. I needed to get something in the house. I leave my backpack IN THE YARD next to the drive way; Brother-in-law decides to leave from work; swings wide to avoid friend's car; backs over my back pack containing my lap-top... digital camera... head phones... and ipod. (thankfully, the ipod came out unscathed)

Okay that still leaves me in the position of wondering how it could be that only the screen was cracked after being driven over by a vehicle. As I was later expressing my amazement over this fact the nice boy sitting behind me decided to bring it to my attention that I may be drawing my conclusions a bit prematurely. According to him, my entire lap-top was sort of taking on the shape of a ski jump. After taking a closer look, "according to him" turned out to be "according to reality" as well. Crazy thing is though, the machine still worked fine! For awhile I could still take notes on a three inch section of the monitor that wasn't cracked! (though that didn't last long)

All that is to say that, insurance companies being what they are, my computer is in the process of being "fixed" (even though a new one would have cost only a few hundred dollars more than the "fixing"). Should have it back late this week.

Now... shower me with pity! (or at least have a good laugh at my expense)

PZ Myers, disrespecting beliefs and shooting yourself in the foot

2008-07-26T13:41:00.002-06:00

Let's say that a friend of mine is trying to fix his computer. It runs Windows XP, but for some reason he's convinced it's running Windows Vista. This mistake is making his task even harder.

It seems fairly obvious that, as a friend, I should make him aware of this mistake as soon as I can.

Most people want their beliefs to be as true as possible. If a girlfriend is cheating on me then, as much as finding out will hurt, I'd want to know – as tackling the problem will ultimately lead to a better life than living with someone who cheats on me. The fact that I strongly believe that she is “the one” is no excuse for my friends not making me aware of my mistake – although it does mean that they should approach the issue delicately.

Respect for the individual entails disrespect for beliefs we believe to be wrong.

The same applies to religious matters – If someone believes that my atheism is a mistake then, if they care about me in any way, they should try to make me aware of this mistake as soon as possible.

Although, just as they have an obligation to make me aware of my mistake, they have an obligation (to themselves as much as to me) to do so in a productive way. Standing outside my house declaring through a megaphone that I'm going to burn in hell for my heathen ways is not only unlikely to change my mind, it will also sour my view of religious people and so make it even harder to change my mind on the subject.

Which brings me to 'Wafergate'.

My objection to PZ Myer's recent actions concerning “host desecration” is that not only will it fail to change anyone's mind on the subject, it also, by annoying and upsetting many Catholics, makes that task even harder.

If Myers is truly concerned with the threatening actions of some Catholics in response to Webster Cook taking a wafer from a Mass service then the best course of is as follows: Research the Eucharist, find arguments against its validity and then try to present these in a way that will have the most influence in Catholic circles.

As with any group, there will inevitably be some that will refuse to listen. But there are many more who will. Myers is focusing on a minority at the expense of a majority.

Most religious people want to hold true beliefs. As an atheist, I think that their current beliefs are more likely to be false. I also think that they (and ultimately everyone else) would be better off if they were aware of their mistakes. The crude mockery by Myers – and many in the comment threads of his blog – is not only going to fail in making his case, it's actually massively counter-productive.

A bit late, but still...

2008-07-10T13:12:00.004-06:00

Wee li'll Zoë Ophelia

For any who don't know already, our very own Rev. Dr. Incitatus is a daddy!

Congrats man!

Grenz on Death

2008-07-03T10:36:00.004-06:00

As you may have guessed I've been preoccupied with school, work and family life these days. Sadly, this leaves little room for the blogging. Since I can't seem to find a spare moment to pick up the several blogging projects I've left hanging, I thought I'd perhaps post random tidbits from some of the reading I'm doing now days. That way I don't have to think too hard. ;-)

P.S. for any of you Facebook friends of mine I've recently posted some pics and videos from my latest mountain adventure. Good stuff.

Our ability to reflect on our own death brings to light the deeper dimension of this phenomenon. Not only is death the cessation of biological function, it marks the end of personal life. In this way, death calls personal existence into question. As the termination of a person's life, death speaks as it were the final word. Death, so it seems, undermines all our attempts to find meaning for our own lives. In the end, we all die. Whatever significance we may have constructed for life is abruptly breached. As the psalmist declared, "What man can life and not see death, or save himself from the power of the grave?" (Ps. 89:48).

The dark shadow that death casts across personal life suggests that life is a meaningless absurdity. This was the conclusion of the Preacher: "all share a common destiny — the righteous and the wicked, the good an the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not" (Eccles. 9:2). They all "join the dead" (v. 3).

In death, therefore, we face an enigma more problematic than the cessation of the function of a biological organism. We are confronted with a crisis of meaning produced by our inevitable death. As Ernest Becker poignantly observed, "The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."

Does our Christian faith commitment shed light on the phenomenon of death: Does death carry and genuine significance, or is it indeed the ultimate absurdity?

Stanley Grenz - Theology For the Community of God

As you may remember... I love a good storm.

2008-06-22T21:14:00.003-06:00

A recent nighttime storm provided the opportunity to try my hand at photographing some lightning. Out of the thirty some odd shots I took this is the only one that turned out. As randomly composed as it is, honestly, I'm pretty happy with it.

Q&A

2008-06-17T06:25:00.005-06:00

This "13 questions for atheists" meme seems to be doing the rounds at the moment. (Although 3 of the questions seem to have vanished somewhere). No-one's tagged me as such, but I thought it might be interesting to give it ago. So...

Q1. How would you define "atheism"?

Well... the a- prefix denotes "the absence of" and theism refers to belief in a divine being, so: "the absence of belief in a divine being".

Makes sense, doesn't it?

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

My mum is more "spiritual" than religious and my dad is too pragmatic to really bother with all that stuff. I was baptised though, and assemblies at my primary school were pretty CofE in content: Hymns and parables but no real attempt to establish any serious dogma. Both my brother and I turned out more-or-less atheist.

Q3. How would you describe "Intelligent Design", using only one word?

Questionable.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

The search for life (intelligent or otherwise) on other planets.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the "atheist community", what would it be and why?

We have a community?

This might just reflect my own prejudices, but I think those atheists who engage in debate with theists tend to underestimate the intelligence of the other side. Mocking religious believers and calling them stupid is neither big, nor clever, and makes it more difficult to separate the moderates from the extremists.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said "I’m joining the clergy", what would be your first response?

I imagine: "Huh?"

Followed by various questions.

Depending on the reasons my child gave for their decision, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. We all need to find our own path through life.

Q7. What’s your favourite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Personal revelation is usually pretty interesting - although it doesn't constitute an argument and so doesn't actually need refuting.

Q8. What’s your most "controversial" (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

Not sure.

I don't see the point in arguing with deists who base their views on some form of intuition: After all, they're not causing any trouble.

Q9. Of the "Four Horsemen" (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Hmmmm...

Probably... Dawkins. Solely on the basis of his books on evolutionary theory.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

The Pope.

'Cause it'd be funny.

I'm not going to tag anyone, but people should feel free to post their answers in the comment box below. Any theists are also welcome to adapt it for their viewpoint as well.

Timmo on Plantinga

2008-06-12T12:54:00.005-06:00

ISOHP regular Timmo is currently writing a series of posts on Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology over on his own blog. I won't attempt to summarise as, frankly, it's just too difficult. So, part 1 can be found here, part 2 here and the 3rd and final part here.

As an atheist I obviously have issues with Plantinga's argument (as it seems to suggest that I'm probably either delusional, defective or lying about my - lack of - a divine sense), but it's interesting nonetheless.

Love is all you need

2008-06-09T12:32:00.003-06:00

There's a moment in the film 'Contact' (no idea whether it's in the book) where, after listening to Jodie Foster defend the scientific worldview, Matthew McConaughey asks her if she loved her father. He then asks her to prove it.

She's left stumped.

The same question is wheeled out every so often by religious believers as what they seem to think is a trump card against the empirical view of the world.

Yet, as far as I can see, it's a pretty easy question.

The only real problem with it is our definition of love: If we believe it to be a “simple” physiological state then evidence isn't too difficult to come by – we can look at the person's behaviour (do they behave in a way consistent with people who claim to be in love), check their physical reaction (heart-rate, pupil dilation, etc.), maybe even bring in some neuroscience. If, as I suspect those asking the question do, we believe it to be a “spiritual” state, above and beyond the physical, then the onus is on us to provide a way of studying this state. Neither presents that much of a challenge to the empirical view.

Of course, the question could be seen as challenging the empiricist to prove that they have subjective experiences – but then such an extreme scepticism poses a challenge to all worldviews, including the religious.

Any thoughts?

Atheism, aliens and Anglicans

2008-06-02T09:29:00.003-06:00

A little while ago, Linda flagged up this newspaper article on the Church of England using 'Doctor Who' in order to spread the good word. Now it seems that the folks at Pharyngula have got hold of the news – and aren't best pleased.

So I thought I'd use this opportunity to write a quick post on an idea that's been floating around my head for a while.

It's impossible to call yourself a real science fiction fan without being aware of Clarke's 3rd Law.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

Reading through the comments on the Pharyngula post, specifically some peoples' dislike of 'The Impossible Planet / The Satan Pit' episode of Doctor Who (essentially because of its agnostic stance towards the protagonist: Alien or Satan? Who knows?), made me realise that the law could be rephrased/expanded as follows:

“Any sufficiently advanced alien would be indistinguishable from a god.”

Science fiction, in all forms, is replete with such ideas: Egyptian/Roman/Greek gods as alien beings is pretty much cliché.

I'm not suggesting that believing what's commonly referred to as God is an advanced alien is more rational*, but I'd certainly argue that such a belief is as rational as believing god(s) to be divine beings.

(*Although I suspect some would.)

It's entirely possible to conceive of a being or beings sufficiently advanced enough to explain the so-called miraculous events of all religions in perfectly naturalistic, though alien terms: Angels, revelation, resurrection, prophecy... maybe even the creation of the universe itself.

Just a thought.

A slightly different voice

2008-06-01T09:25:00.003-06:00

A while back on my own blog I reviewed 'In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist' by BBC broadcaster and journalist John Humphreys.

Humphreys is essential someone who wants to believe in God, but finds himself unable to do so.

He's recently been interviewed by BBC radio's religious affairs programme 'All Things Considered' on the subject of his search for faith and the interview (30mins) is available on the Internet for the next week.

All Things Considered

Those of you with slightly more time on your hands might also be interested in the series of radio shows that preceded the book:

Humphreys in search of God.

(Transcripts of his interviews with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Professor Tariq Ramadan and Britain's Chief Rabbi are available on the site as well).

Knights of Cydonia

2008-05-26T05:32:00.003-06:00

Sorry for the lack of posts around here at the moment. Alex has his school work and family to take care of and I... well, I'm quite lazy.

Taking my lead from Alex, I thought I'd post a music video to keep you all amused until I get my brain into gear and post some more ramblings on the nature of life, the universe and everything.

So here's some 'Muse'.

Enjoy.

Child of Dust — Thrice

2008-05-14T08:03:00.002-06:00

Dear prodigal, you are my son and I
Supplied you not your spirit, but your shape.
All Eden's wealth arrayed before your eyes;
I fathomed not you wanted to escape.

And though I only ever gave you love,
like every child you’ve chosen to rebel;
uprooted flowers and filled the holes with blood;
ask not for whom they toll the solemn bells.

A child of dust to mother now return;
for every seed must die before it grows.
and though above the world may toil and turn,
no prying spade will find you here below.

Now safe beneath their wisdom and their feet,
Here i will teach you truly how to sleep.

Come All You Weary — Thrice

2008-05-12T06:47:00.000-06:00

123

2008-05-07T06:30:00.002-06:00

I've been tagged (by Matt) with the fifth sentence meme. (quite some time ago apparently, but I just noticed it now)

1. Pick up the nearest book
2. Open to page 123
3. Find the fifth sentence
4. Post the next three sentences
5. Tag five people and acknowledge who tagged you

So here goes:

The irreversible character of discovery suggests that no solution of a problem can be accredited as a discovery if it is achieved by a procedure following definite rules. For such a procedure would be reversible in the sense that it could be traced back stepwise to its beginning and repeated at will any number of times, like any arithmetical computation. Accordingly, any strictly formalized procedure would also be excluded as a means of achieving discovery."

Purely out of curiosity at what books people have near their computer, I'll tag Jon, Timmo, Bryan and Greg. But none of them should feel any obligation to respond.

John Polkinghorne - "Faith, Science & Understanding" Chapter 1

2008-04-28T11:13:00.006-06:00

I figured that since I haven't had time for any of my own writings these days I'd conduct a little experiment. Just two days ago I added the 18th book to my "in progress" list. (I know, I really must stop doing that.) Anyway, I've decided to try my hand a journaling on each chapter. It seems like such a practice could go a long way towards something resembling retention. Then I thought to myself, "what better way to keep myself from lazy journaling than submitting it for public review!" Now if my "in progress" list is any indication, I can't guarantee that I'll remained disciplined in this new venture. Even so, I figured it was worth a shot. That said...

Chapter 1 - Theology in the University
In chapter 1 Polkinghorne makes two basic arguments. First he argues for the rightful place of theology in the university. Secondly he argues for a second-order role of theology as theological metaphysics. Theological metaphysics, in Polkinghorne's opinion, is the only place one might expect to come to a "theory of everything." Such a theory would be far more "…all encompassing and intellectually satisfying than any Grand Unified Theory of particle physics could ever be." (25)

Polkinghorne's argument for theology's rightful place in the university begins with two assertions. First, there is the value of knowledge for its own sake, and secondly, he holds to the fundamental unity of all knowledge. From these two assertions his argument proceeds: 1. The University's primary focus ought to be the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. He feels that those who view the university as a means of pragmatically serving the human race are mistaking a desirable outcome for the purpose itself. 2. There is an essential unity to all knowledge. Therefore, any particular bit of knowledge ought to meaningfully connect with the universal complex of knowledge in general. 3. Religious experience is ubiquitous throughout humanity, which leads to his conclusion: The study of theology as an area of human knowledge deserves a rightful place at the table of scholarship.

Polkinghorne then argues for a second-order application of theology, for to speak of God is to speak of the one from whom the whole of reality flows and thus ought rightfully envelop the whole of human knowledge and understanding. He goes on to argue that when faced with the layered nature of reality, it is irresponsible to let one level swallow up the other. To do so is to commit what A.N. Whitehead calls "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness." (11) Such an approach does not do justice to the whole of our lived experience.

An example of just such a move is witnessed when one comes to grips with what the cosmologists claim regarding the inevitable end to which our universe is progressing. The Universe is winding down to either collapse or chaos. If we let this physical reality swallow up the meaning experienced in love, joy and morality we are forced into either complete despair, or a sort of "heroic atheism." (25) Instead, Polkinghorne argues that the physical reality considered here ought not swallow up the rest of our human experience. Rather, since all knowledge is one, a more satisfying conclusion is available to us. We do not experience life as strictly physical realities. There is love, there is reason, there is beauty, there is morality, there is personality. Taken together, these attributes point towards a reality that is not reducible to mere particle physics, or the second law of thermodynamics. With Polkinghorne, I would agree that a personal God is a more satisfying explanation for the whole of human experience and knowledge than the sort of impersonal power that Hume, Russell and others argue for.

Quote to ponder: "[We must] refrain from reaching easy but worthless conclusions by exalting the objective over the subjective, the repeatable over the unique, the impersonal over the personal." (24)

A couple of videos from TED

2008-04-26T05:04:00.004-06:00

"I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
- J. B. S. Haldane

Richard Dawkins: The universe is queerer than we can suppose:

Brian Greene: The universe on a string:

Materialism

2008-04-24T09:53:00.000-06:00

Not sure whether non-UKers can access this, but BBC Radio 4's 'In Our Time' series covered materialism earlier and it's a pretty interesting listen, covering both the history and implications of the position.

"If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them, and that custom, respect and tyranny support them."

It’s provocative stuff even today and certainly was in 1770 when published by Baron D’Holbach in his book The System of Nature. The baron’s boldness was underpinned by Materialism, a philosophical idea so dangerous that every copy of the book was condemned to be burnt. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, materialism dominates much of our understanding of the world today.

But what does materialism really mean, how has it developed over time and can we still have free will if we are living in a materialist world?

Contributors

Anthony Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London

Caroline Warman, Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford

Anthony O’Hear, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Buckingham

I think I like John Wesley

2008-04-13T15:07:00.002-06:00

"For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried to Abraham’s bosom. But, what if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angles."

A bit of light relief

2008-04-08T11:02:00.001-06:00

Christianity, American style

2008-03-28T06:28:00.001-06:00

Or perhaps more accurately, Texas style.

Decision-making and rationality

2008-03-25T06:53:00.001-06:00

The discussion on the post below is risking becoming a little too broad in my opinion – so I thought I'd try to focus the issue a little (for the time being).

I've stated on various occasions that the main problem I have with the concept of libertarian free will is its vagueness: Human decisions are, apparently, neither causally determined nor random. Yet quite what they are is never fully addressed. To me it seems that not only is LFW unprovable, it's not even describable either.

To this Alex has replied:

Which seems odd to me since you must assume it with every genuine deliberation you make. One would thing a persistent and ongoing experience of a certain phenomena would count for something.

But is this the case?

Does making a decision require that the decision-maker hold some form of LFW? Let's say that I'm faced with the decision of whether to have a final slice of pizza or not: The crucial factor here (all things being equal) is how hungry I am. If I'm hungry enough I will eat the pizza. If not then I won't. This decision doesn't require any grand supernatural view of human nature – it simply requires a dislike of hunger. What about deciding whether or not to buy 'The West Wing' on DVD: The crucial factors (again, all things being equal) are how much I enjoy the show and how much money I have to spare. These factors are determined by biology and environment – We don't choose whether we're hungry or not. We don't choose what we enjoy or get bored by.

The various factors that go into the decision-making process are usually quite numerous, but they all break down into a simple cost-benefit style of analysis. If the pros of joining my friends at the pub outweigh the cost then I'll join them at the pub. If it doesn't then I won't.

Under the determinist conception of decision-making the result is (putting randomness aside for the moment) entirely dependent on the circumstances. If the level of hunger is above a certain point the pizza will be eaten, if below then not. If the temperature outside is too cold then I won't pop out to the shops, if it's not then I will. This is because the individual is rational – they will act in the way that they see as best satisfying their desires (at that moment in time).

Libertarian free will, on the other hand, seems to conflict with this idea of rationality. Let's say there is an individual (Matt) who, being quite hungry, has just spent twenty minutes making dinner. The meal is done and Matt sits down to eat. However, the universe now splits in two: In the first (deterministic) universe, Matt A eats the meal. In the second (libertarian) universe, Matt B does not. Matt A's actions require little explanation, as they're perfectly rational – he was hungry, the food was ready and therefore he ate. Matt B's actions though seem quite odd. There was no reason for him not to eat the food, he simply chose not to. We cannot talk of his decision in rational terms – It was not the case that he wasn't hungry or that he had something better to do (as the cost-benefit analysis can't explain decisions in the Libertarian universe). So his decision must be irrational (yet at the same time meaningful).

As I can't reconcile this with my own experience of decision-making (I do things for a reason) my experience of deliberation provides no support for a non-deterministic theory.

Man and the Machine

2008-03-19T09:43:00.024-06:00

There came a day when Man awoke. He was all alone with the machine. From the first day he knew he couldn’t live without it, for outside of the machine there was nothing. This isolation reminded him that, though he was free to explore, his freedom was limited. Whatever he was, he was bound to the machine. As Man pondered this he was assailed by a strange sensation — a deep longing that he couldn’t shake. “From where do I come? Where shall I go? To what shall I live?” And the most puzzling question of all, “What am I?” With these questions in hand Man entered the machine.

It was his hope that within the machine he would find the answers to his questions. With great zeal he began his work. As Man explored, he marveled at the complexity of the machine. At times he was overcome with it’s beauty. He would sit silent for hours just experiencing its wonder. “What does all this mean?” he would ask himself. But no answers were forthcoming.

As Man’s quest progressed he couldn’t help but think that the nature of the machine was such that only something like Man, only much greater, had crafted it. There was much that went on within the machine that seemed impossible if it were not by the work of such a being. For what seemed like an age, Man devoted considerable energy to pondering what such a being would be like and wondering why it created what it did.

With time Man came to see that he could manipulate the machine to achieve his own purposes. This was no small revelation, for now he was able to discover so much more than he had ever dreamed! Bit by bit he brought the machine under his control. With each new advance Man’s knowledge of the machine increased and with each discovery he was stunned by what he found. Phenomena that once seemed almost magical, now appeared to have deeper mechanisms that drove them. Man was so impressed by his discoveries that he no longer felt he needed to postulate a “super-man.” With the abandonment of a creator agency, Man returned to his task, but as he worked the questions he was seeking to answer were starting to feel strangely hollow. Or perhaps it was that the field of answers he had to choose from were now starting to feel a bit more absurd. No matter where he looked, all he found was more machine, more complexity, more noise, but no reason for their existence or workings. As wonderful as the machine seemed to be at times, he could find no point for its existence. It was just there, running on a track between an apparently pointless beginning and an ultimately meaningless end.

The more Man struggled to extract answers from the machine the more it began to lose the beauty he had once seen in it. It was as if the machine mocked him. In all its intractable mystery, it continued on its blind path with no care for the pleadings of the man within it. Frustrated with his attempts to find answers by examining the machine, he traced the long journey back to the place he had first experienced it’s beauty. In desperation he screamed with everything in him, “WHAT AM I?” All his strength gone, he fell to the ground, sobbing. His body shook as waves of anger and despair washed over him. All around him there was nothing but the whirr and click of a machine that took no notice of him.

It was at this time that something caught Man’s attention. A soft glow from deep within the machine flickered through a gap in the floor. Wiping his eyes, he peered between the metal plates. Nothing could have prepared him for what he was about to discover.

Far below him he could see a small monitor nestled deep in a tangle of wires and in it there was an image of himself. It was a birds eye view, as if a camera was positioned directly above him. He looked up, hoping to see what was watching him, but as he did he realized something that wasn’t quite right. The image of himself in the monitor turned and looked towards the ceiling a split second before he did. He turned back and looked into the monitor, then quickly, he turned away. Sure enough, the visage of himself moved before he moved his body. Every move he made the monitor displayed just prior to his enacting it! He would wave his arms or shake his head but his visage would begin it’s movements before he could get his body to react.

He was beginning to think the machine was reading his mind until the video began to gradually speed up. He watched himself peering through the crack, then lift himself off the floor and proceed to sit with his hands in his lap. Apart form a slight swaying from side to side, the image of himself simply sat motionless. This went on for quite some time until suddenly the screen flickered and went dark. Terrified, he lifted himself off the floor and sat up. With his hands lying limp in his lap, Man sat. He felt like he should run, or lift his arms, anything just to prove the video wrong. He could do that couldn’t he? He was a free creature after all... He was the originator of his actions, not the machine... Right? Long hours passed as he sat motionless; his body lost all feeling as the deepest truth he had yet discovered slowly saturated his being.

All this time, even now, this very second, his actions, his thoughts... He had never been controlling the machine; it had been controlling him. Why had he not seen it before? He had no autonomous existence. He was, and always had been, merely a part of the machine. His freedom, his experience—they were all illusory. He had never really been searching for answers to begin with—it had always been the machine. Never Man. Only the machine. In a single moment Man’s existence collapsed.

The machine devoured him, and all was silent.

The atheist's choice

2008-03-16T08:24:00.005-06:00

Humanists have a long tradition of drawing on literature, poetry and art to illustrate their arguments. Some use the works of Shakespeare, some use that of William Blake.

I'm going to use a late 90s science-fiction TV show.

'Cos that's how I roll.

For those who don't know, 'Babylon 5' was a series whose reach often exceeded its grasp – despite the low-budget and sometimes embarrassing dialogue it was never afraid to tackle philosophical and ethical issues and normally managed to say something interesting along the way.

In the following clip the main character, Sheridan, is caught between life and death (for reasons far too complicated to go into) where he's offered (again for reasons too complicated to go into) the chance to live – but only if he wants it enough.

The reason I've posted this clip is that the decision that Sheridan has to make here is, I think, based on perhaps the most important question that an atheist has to answer: Why should I live?

According to Alex, there is no good answer. We're simply complex units of matter in an indifferent universe. Whether we live or die makes no difference.

But to me this doesn't mean that there are no good answers, only that there are no good a priori ones. The atheist must confront the fact that the universe provides us no good reason to live: Kill yourself and, from the universe's point-of-view, it makes no difference whatsoever.

But that still leaves us with the possibility of good a posteriori answers. Atheists must decide for themselves whether life is worth living. We must look at what we know and how we feel and decide whether it's worth going on or not. It's a personal choice – not one that can be made by anyone else. For some of us this reason will come from our relationships with those around us, or from an appreciation of the aesthetic quality of life. For some of us no reasons will be found – though, given the only alternative, this is quite rare (and often the result of errors of thinking rather than genuine disregard for life).

Only once this choice has been made, once we've learnt to embrace life and “simply be”, can we get on with the business of living. (Although this isn't to say that once answered the question never re-appears: self-evaluation of this kind is likely to be a fairly constant feature of life on some level or other).

The Unwinding Cable Car

2008-03-12T07:45:00.001-06:00

Trying to wrap up end of quarter papers, hence the relative silence. How bout a song then?

Thought people might be interested in this...

2008-03-12T06:39:00.004-06:00

Essential reading for nonbelievers (and believers)

2008-03-08T07:16:00.001-06:00

I'm currently reading 'The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever', a collection of atheist thoughts on religion put together by Christopher Hitchens.

I say reading... this isn't really a book you sit down and read from cover to cover, it's more a book that sits on your shelf or bedside table to be dipped into every now and again in order to discover some new thinker or new insight on the topic of religious belief. The collection is certainly extensive – running all the way from Lucretius to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, with a wealth of famous (and not so famous) names between: Hobbes, Spinoza, Marx, Darwin, Lovecraft, Einstein, Russell, Sagan, Ayer, Dennett, Rushdie, Harris and many, many others. In each case a fragment of their comments on religion are presented. Not only does this book provide a neat overview of atheistic religious thought throughout the centuries, but it also provides a great springboard to all these various writers and their works.

At only £6/$12 on Amazon, it's also an incredible bargain. (Note: I've seen it on sale for almost three times that price in bookstores).

In fact, the only real criticism I can make of this book is its title, perpetuating as it does the idea that atheists have nothing better to do with their time than worry about religion. In my experience atheists break down into two main categories: Apatheists and antitheists. The former group, those who don't bother themselves with irrelevant metaphysical issues is by far the larger. It's the latter, those who regard religion as dangerous, that make up the selection in this book. As such it's better described as 'The Portable Antitheist'. Those looking in it for naturalistic and/or humanistic examinations of everyday life will be sorely disappointed.

Some thoughts on enlightened self-interest as the basis for morality

2008-02-28T11:11:00.004-06:00

(What follows is a slightly rambling expansion on some of my comments about morality in the post below. What I'm hoping to show is that enlightened self-interest can provide us with a strong reason to act in a "moral" way. It's intended as a conversation starter rather than a definite pronouncement on the subject.)

Enlightened self-interest is different from sentiment or whim – I may save someone's life because I like the look of them, but such an action does not count as truly moral.

The vast majority of human beings are bound together by certain innate desires (security, companionship, contentment, procreation, etc.) which are harder (or downright impossible) to realise outside of the social setting. These desires, as well as forming the bedrock of all civilisation, provide the foundation of secular morality.

Immoral acts constitute those which undermine the realisation of these desires.

For example: I desire safety for myself and those I care about. If I make a habit of killing those who get in my way then I not only provide no reason for others to help keep me alive, I actually provide them with a reason to kill me – as I represent a significant threat to them and their loved ones. The best way to realise my desire is to promote the safety of all in the expectation that they will, in turn, ensure my safety. If I kill, or tolerate killers, such an arrangement is impossible to maintain.

This differs from whim in that reason is employed to consider the total effect of my actions. If someone makes me angry whim may tell me to kill them while reason tells me that such an action will be counter-productive.

(Obviously, most people aren't that keen on killing in the first place, no matter how angry they get – but I'm assuming worst case scenario to show the strength of enlightened self-interest).

As another example: I'm able to provide for myself and my loved ones much easier in a social setting than on my own. Bartering services and goods allows me a much comfier lifestyle than I'd enjoy in isolation – catching and cooking your own food (not to mention building a house, dealing with illness, etc.) is much harder than turning up at work each day and sitting in front of a computer. In order for bartering to work there has to be a basic level of trust between individuals. If I go around lying about everything then people will cease to trust me and so cease to work with me. (The social aspect of my life will also be significantly reduced). So not only do I have a strong reason to be truthful but also a strong reason to promote truthfulness in society as a whole.

Etc.

An immoral individual is one at war with the rest of society – undermining their chance to realise significant desires.

Some thoughts from Salman Rushdie

2008-02-25T13:10:00.009-06:00

From Rushdie's letter to the six billionth living person:

As for mortality, the second great question - how to live? What is right action, and what wrong? - it comes down to your willingness to think for yourself. Only you can decide if you want to be handed down the law by priests, and accept that good and evil are somehow external to ourselves. To my mind religion, even at its most sophisticated, essentially infantilises our ethical selves by setting infallible moral Arbiters and irredeemably immoral Tempters above us: the eternal parents, good and bad, light and dark, of the supernatural realm.

How, then, are we to make ethical choices without a divine rulebook or judge? Is unbelief just the first step on the long slide into the brain death of cultural relativism, according to which many unbearable things - female circumcision, to name just one - can be excused on culturally specific grounds, and the universality of human rights, too, can be ignored? (This last piece of moral unmaking finds supporters in some of the world's most authoritarian regimes, and also, unnervingly, on the editorial page of the Daily Telegraph.)

Well, no, it isn't, but the reasons for saying so aren't clear-cut. Only hard-line ideology is clear-cut. Freedom, which is the word I use for the secular-ethical position, is inevitably fuzzier. Yes, freedom is that space in which contradiction can reign, it is a never-ending debate. It is not in itself the answer to the question of morals, but the conversation about that question. And it is much more than mere relativism, because it is not merely a never-ending talk show, but a place in which choices are made, values defined and defended.

A response from Alex
I whole heartedly agree with Rushdie's discomfort regarding morality being unquestioningly legislated by "religion". Even his comments on "fuzzieness" I find myself empathizing with. One insight I have come to recently is that on the level of the individual, moral truth can only be recognized through praxis. When I speak of an "absolute morality" I would want to clarify that what I am advocating is not that there are a certain set of actions that will be true for all peoples in all places. Neither would I wish to be construed as saying there's an exhaustive list of rules somewhere that if we just followed all of them we'd be "absolutely moral". Reality is more complicated (or maybe simple?) than that. To try and construct such a list only leads away from Christianity and towards moralism.

Still, I continue to disagree with any line of thinking which claims humanity ultimately has no transcendent ground yet we can still have such things as moral obligations. I would wish to reemphasize that my position does not at all claim that people who do not believe in God cannot be good, but rather if there is no God there's no such thing as good.

So where does the Christian find his guiding star when it comes to ethics? Is it because all actions have an inherent (deontological) moral bias? Perhaps that's to constricting. Would it be better to then only consider the results of our actions? (teleological) Bernard Adeney has a few helpful words here:

Deontological and teleological ethics are often treated as mutually exclusive. The polarization of means and ends, the antithesis between principals and results, this is a characteristic weakness of Western dualistic thought. It leads to war between the absolutists and the relativists. The absolutists are thought to be too narrow and rigid. The relativists are thought to be too wishy-washy.

Actually, the distinctions between deontology and teleology helpfully show two necessary and contrasting elements in moral choice. These are not contradictory, but complementary. The way they fit together cannot be determined by abstract philosophical principle. The concrete situation in which moral choices are embodied reveal the ways in which principles and results interact. [emphasis mine]

As a Christian I believe there are absolute moral principles and rules that reflect the character of God. These moral principles underlie all human behavior and are based in the fact that we live in a moral universe. Human beings were created in the image of God and have an intrinsic value. in the words of the Westminster Confession, we are created "to glorify God and to enjoy him forever." While these deontological absolutes are expressed and emphasized differently in different places and times, they are clearly affirmed by Christians in all cultures.

The central moral absolute that follows from these Christian affirmations is " 'The Lord our God , the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' ... 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these" (Mk 12:29-31).

Strange Virtues, Ethics in a Multicultural World pp.149-150

Argument from (evolved) design

2008-02-22T07:52:00.002-06:00

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. (...) There must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed [the watch] for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use. (...) Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation.

– William Paley, Natural Theology (1802)

This is the most famous expression of the “watchmaker analogy”, often used in support of the 'Intelligent Design' “theory” of evolution.

The basic idea is that as we know that certain examples of complexity around us (watches, computers, the faces on Mt. Rushmore) have been designed by intelligent minds we are justified in assuming that examples of complexity in the natural world (the eye, echolocation) were similarly designed.

However, I think that this idea is seriously flawed in its understanding of designed complexity. Concepts such as the watch or computer did not suddenly spring, fully-formed, into the mind of their designer – but are actually as much the result of mutation and natural selection as any biological system. In order to make clear what I mean, I'll provide a rough outline of how I think the modern concept of the watch evolved:

The ancestor of the modern watch was a simple Concept allowing prehistoric man to structure his day more efficiently – probably no more complex than a distinction between earlier, now and later.

The means of replication was language – Man A would express the concept, spreading it to the mind of Man B. During replication, mutations would creep in, partly through errors in communication and partly through the interaction of the Concept with the other concepts found in the mind of Man B.

Some of these mutations would make the Concept less effective, thus making them less useful and (therefore) less memorable and impeding the spread of that variant. Others would make it more effective, thus making it more memorable and useful and increasing the spread of that variant.

Thus, natural selection comes into play – with increasingly complex variants of the Concept vying for a place in the human mind.

Over time, variants of the Concept become increasingly complex and some evolved to take advantage of man's ability to manipulate his environment – leading to the development of increasingly complex timepieces, which, by increasing the exposure to that design, increase the chance of that particular variant spreading into other minds.

Thus, the watch that Paley stumbles across can be seen as a sort of extended phenotype, “designed” to promote the spread of the Concept in the minds of man, and as such would seem to support rather than challenge the concept of evolved complexity.

What do people think?

Militant Atheists

2008-02-19T18:27:00.000-06:00

Hour 1:

Hour 2:

A word from my son, Adrian

2008-02-15T18:42:00.001-06:00

Common cause

2008-02-13T09:13:00.003-06:00

In the posts on humanism below, I quoted and supported the idea expressed by Richard Norman that theists, atheists and agnostics (and others) should work together for common causes, even if they don't quite see eye to eye on everything. So it gives me great pleasure to point you all towards Greg Boyd on his vegetarianism:

Almost immediately after making this pledge I began to understand why the Lord had wanted me to make it. Scripture says a little yeast leavens all the dough (1 Cor 5:6). Well, I discovered that the little yeast of my willingness to engage in violence towards animals and other creatures for self-serving reasons (e.g. appetite, convenience) was polluting my heart and to some degree compromising my capacity to love. It felt like – and still feels like – my commitment to total non-violence has had, and is yet having, a purifying effect on my heart.

Obviously, my reasons for not eating meat are different to his, but there does seem to be a considerable overlap in our attitudes.

Worth watching

2008-02-13T09:04:00.002-06:00

Agnostic theism?

Daniel Dennett on the tricks of consciousness

Tom Wright on Heaven & Our Role in Creation

2008-02-13T08:25:00.001-06:00

On the merits of arguing and commitment

2008-02-10T22:34:00.002-06:00

Two quotes by Trevor Hart that made me smile.

Our conscience will not permit the sort of cosmopolitan wandering from one perspective to another which suggests that none is any more or less true than others. Yet to others who demand that we should justify our stance and show forth its truth we can ultimately respond only with an invitation to come and stand where we stand, to view the world through our eyes, and see whether the result does not make more sense than the one which they themselves are familiar with. We must be equally open, of course, to the risky business of being prepared to do the same.
Faith Thinking pp.67

An important part of our own commitment to one particular tradition or faith standpoint will be our desire to share this outlook with others, to testify to its truth, to express the universal intent attaching to it by exposing others to it, engaging in the humble task of persuasion not in order to suppress or curb the holding of other points of view, but in order that others might be free to consider ours and explore the possibilities inherent within it as a account of truth. As I have already suggested the condition under which such testimony or witness must be engaged in this a willingness to consider the views held by others, not because we are not confident in the truthfulness of our own perspectives, but precisely because we are, and because we are also more committed to truth than to our own accounts of it.
Faith Thinking pp.69

A new perspective on doubt (to me anyway)

2008-02-07T22:42:00.000-06:00

It has recently been brought to my attention that doubt is not properly conceived strictly as a negative position. In reality we have a two sided coin; doubt being the negative side, is balanced by positive and simultaneous belief. The one cannot exist without the other. For instance to utter a statement in the form of "I doubt P" is at the same moment affirming "I believe not P", or "I believe P is not proven". What is revealed here is that in order for us to doubt anything we must believe something else which we are not at present doubting.

As Trevor Hart puts it in his highly recommended book "Faith Thinking",

Thus every doubt has a fiduciary structure and is rooted in a set of faith commitments which for so long as they support the doubt, cannot themselves be doubted. The branch upon which every doubt sits is a belief. To insist on chopping this branch off in the misguided attempt to assume a wholly uncommitted position can only result in self-referential destruction, as the initial doubt itself falls to the floor.

The reason I find all this so fascinating is that for quite some time now I have felt that in the absence of mathematical/empirical certitude the most responsible epistemological stance to assume is that of doubt. (not just epistemological humility) As such, my Christianity, which does not at all rise to such a level, has been held in tension with this basic conviction. However after reflecting on the above perspective it becomes clear that doubt is not analogous to an uncommitted stance. The question must then be raised, what does our commitment rest on in light of the always searching tendrils of Cartesian doubt?

I'm hoping I will have something to say to this question in an upcoming post I'm working on while also responding to Matt's questions here. Apologies for the roughness of anything I post this week. Whatever I end up posting is an attempt by me to synthesize material we are being drenched with while away at "intensives". (aka two weeks of 8 hour per day lectures) It's a wonderful exercise in drinking from a fire hose. I feel like complete mush at the end of the day, but I also can't help but feel like I need to do something with what was thrown our way before crawling into bed. Otherwise I fear it will all seep out my ears as I sleep. Speaking of sleep...

On agnosticism

2008-02-04T13:12:00.000-06:00

From an interview with David Attenborough in the current edition of 'New Humanist':

Yet he had never openly declared himself to be an atheist. “That’s right. I’m an agnostic. In the strict sense that I don’t know. And I don’t know a lot. And I certainly don’t know about the existence of a supreme being or about the existence of an afterlife. The absence of evidence does not mean that there is a god. The absence of evidence means two things. It means that we don’t know but it also means scientifically that it would be interesting to find out.” There are those who accuse agnostics of hedging their bets. But this would quite unfair to Attenborough. His agnosticism is not a way of saying that there might be a god; it is rather a statement about the necessary humility and open-mindedness of the scientific attitude. It is a prescription for action rather than a refusal to enter the argument.

More on humanism

2008-02-04T11:33:00.000-06:00

In the comments to this post below, I stated that humanism shouldn't be seen as a purely atheistic standpoint. This is from an article by Richard Norman (interviewed in the second podcast) in a recent edition of 'New Humanist' magazine:

Humanism is more than atheism, it is about putting humanist beliefs and values into practice and trying to make the world a better place. And that is impossible unless we’re prepared to cooperate with others who share those values, including those for whom the values are inseparable from a religious commitment.

It goes deeper than that. For many humanists, religious believers are also friends, lovers, colleagues, neighbours, spouses and partners. The attitude that religion poisons everything is unlikely to be an auspicious basis for such relationships. We really do need something a bit more nuanced.

And this brings me to my practical conclusion. If we are serious about our humanist values, we should look for all those who share them, and work with them. If, according to Hitchens, that means that such people are really humanists after all, then call them that if you wish, but accept that they may also be committed Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists or whatever. The labels don’t matter. If Christians are happy to defend science against the idiocies of creationism, let’s work with them. When the news broke that state schools in this country were teaching creationism as science, Dawkins and Richard Harries, then Bishop of Oxford, issued a joint statement of criticism. Dawkins has been accused of inconsistency in doing so but it doesn’t matter, it was the right thing to do and it was highly effective. After the most recent attempted suicide bombings in Britain, national newspapers carried a full-page advertisement by Muslim organisations condemning the bombings and dissociating themselves from them. What are we supposed to say? “You’re just as bad”? That would be madness. They need our encouragement, and we need their help.

This pretty much sums up my own views, and hopefully shows why I see blogs such as this one as worthwhile and important.

PBS "The Question of God", Featuring Freud & Lewis

2008-01-31T08:09:00.000-06:00

Some thoughts on wold-views and ethics from Victor Reppert

2008-01-30T12:13:00.000-06:00

The sun

2008-01-29T12:35:00.000-06:00

Two podcasts worth listening to:

2008-01-27T06:32:00.000-06:00

Colin McGinn:

(Click here for MP3)

In this discussion with D.J. Grothe, Colin McGinn explores various kinds of skepticism, giving his concerns about radical fallibilism and certain post-modern critiques of knowledge. He explains how he is certain that ghosts and Gods don't exist. He details how atheistic the profession of philosophy is, and how the tolerance shown while philosophers criticize each other serves as a model for good citizenship. He tells the reasons that led to his religious skepticism and atheism. He examines William Shakespeare as a philosopher, the problem of evil in Shakespeare's plays, and other philosophical subjects found in Shakespeare such as epistemology, ethics, life after death, happiness and the meaning of life. He also explains how getting into Shakespeare as a professional philosopher impacted his philosophy.

Richard Norman:

(Click here for MP3)

Can non-believers make sense of the world? How can there be morality without God? In this episode of Philosophy Bites philosopher Richard Norman, author of On Humanism, contributor to What is Humanism? and member of the Humanist Philosophers Group, explains how it is possible to lead a good life without religion.

Links:
Point of Inquiry
Philosophy Bites

Some divisions are more important than others

2008-01-25T08:39:00.001-06:00

I don't know if you get Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' over in the US. It's a series of satirical fantasy novels (set on a flat disc of a world, travelling through space on the back of giant turtle) for those of you who don't know.

This quote is from one of the more recent ones, 'Monstrous Regime':

"The enemy wasn't men, or women, or the old, or even the dead. It was just bleedin' stupid people, who came in all varieties."

It's this sentiment that comes to mind when reading stuff like this:

These are the same people who picket the funerals of those they disagree with – shouting insults at the friends and families of the deceased.

There's a line, running through all beliefs, between those who have compassion and respect for others and those who don't.

The fights I believe to be the most important aren't about religion, or atheism, or anything like that... it's about taking a stand against stupidity, bigotry and hatred – wherever and in whoever we find them.

Our friend Jonathan Jong (aka Revvvvvvvd) on Godpod #28!!!

2008-01-24T07:00:00.000-06:00

Why Greg Boyd is the man (and is vilified by our own)

2008-01-20T07:13:00.000-06:00

Cherish the moment

2008-01-16T13:19:00.000-06:00

Just found out yesterday that my good friend Brad's brother passed away unexpectedly over the weekend. I guess it was a massive heart attack. He was only 38. Brad is understandably in a real state of shock.

Please, my friends don't take your life for granted. Entertain the big picture, keep your trials in perspective. Rejoice in the good things you have for today for there's no guarantee you'll have them tomorrow.

It would be a shame for the play to end while we were out in the lobby buying popcorn.

ISOHP takes the morality show on the road.

2008-01-05T08:40:00.001-06:00

A little change of scenery is always nice.

A pathetic attempt at light conversation

2008-01-04T10:38:00.000-06:00

As happens from time to time Matt sent me a friendly email the other day and my attempt at light hearted conversation quickly got out of hand and morphed into a post I have been meaning to write. So I figured, rather than triggering a private email debate, I'd spare Matt and just put it up as a new thread. Once finished I will make another attempt at personable conversation. Wish me luck.

Matt said:
"Who knows, maybe we'll have some answers by then." (referencing the possibility of us still swinging away at this in 09)

Begin Alex:
Heh... We have all sorts of answers. It's just that we are hesitant to put to much stock in any of them! Here's how I see it. If each of us were in a vacuum, we'd probably be fairly satisfied with our own particular world views. Problem is... we're not. We are both all to cognizant of individuals vastly exceeding our own intellect who disagree with us. As such, simply 'being happy' with our wold view becomes less tenable as it is probably false in one or more fairly important aspects. We also realize that with the fundamental "is there a God?" question, one of our views is correct while the other is not. On an intellectual level we are bright enough to entertain the possibility that it could indeed be our own person who is wrong. Thus, the search continues. If we are aware of any particular area in the others world view that we cannot dismantle to our own satisfaction, the desire to continue researching and reading will continue. While all this has been phenomenal mental exercise for me and an experience I'm quite indebted to, something seems to be missing. The sustained amount of head work we do here seems to have the potential of becoming vacuous and empty. Your "quick question" the other day hints at as much.

When it comes to the search for truth, it's not easy. You can always doubt it. There's always going to be someone smarter than you are. Someone who's more handy with logic. You can never win. The world's not that simple. So if there's a God, what does this state of affairs say about his programme? Why does he make it so impossibly difficult to find him this way? I've been pondering this quite a bit lately. As such, certain things have been jumping out at me from my readings. Allow me to explain:

In response to the question, "Why does God make us go through all this to know him?" I think what I'd like to say is this:

Maybe he doesn't.

I've ran across a few passages recently that seem to indicate a more cohesive, less inscrutable option.

"This one God is known to us not speculatively but existentially. He [Irenaeus] expresses this in saying: 'Without God, you cannot know God.' God is never an object. In all knowledge it is he who knows in us and through us. Only he can know himself; we may participate in his knowledge of himself. But he is not an object whom we can know from the outside. God is unknown according to his greatness, his absoluteness, his unconditional character. He is known in according to his love in which he comes to us. Therefore, in order to know God you must be within God; you must participate in him. You can never know him as an object outside yourself."

– Paul Tillich on Irenaeus of Lyons addressing necessary conditions for knowing God.

"...contrary to a typical human attitude, knowledge of God is not a spectator sport. It is rather part of a process of God’s thorough make-over of a person." p.17

"God refuses, for our own good, to become a mere idol of our thought or entertainment." p. 17

"Filial knowledge of God is available to every sincere seeker at God’s appointed time. Still, its realization comes via—and not in advance of—an attitude of sincere willingness to love God with the kind of love characteristic of God." p.30

"The evidence of God’s presence offered by loving character-transformation in God’s children is crucial. It goes much deeper than the comparatively superficial evidence found in entertaining signs, wonders, visions, ecstatic experiences, and fancy philosophical arguments. We could consistently dismiss any such sign, wonder, vision, ecstatic experience, or argument as illusory or indecisive, given certain alterations in our beliefs. In contrast, genuine character transformation toward God’s all-inclusive love does not admit of easy dismissal. It bears directly on who one really is, the kind of person one actually is." p.35

– Paul Moser, Why Isn't God More Obvious?

I think there's something to this. Something larger than I can put into words. Part of it is simply that though I can convince my mind through interesting thought experiments, in the end it's empty... if that's all the further it goes. I get the feeling I have been carrying somewhat of an inappropriate attitude towards knowing God all these years. I have wanted to anthropomorphize what it is to know God. I want it to be a 'feeling'. In short, I want it on my terms. Perhaps this isn't the proper road to take in response to the God of all creation?

Perhaps it's more of a response to something much more primary than I had ever thought?

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

Well friends. Classes have begun afresh, so this will probably be the last you hear of me for another few months. (aside from one other piece I've been working on which will appear in due time) I'll be digging into to my first systematic theology class this quarter which ought to be a good ride. My other class has to do with various cultural perspectives on ethics and such. I'm rather looking forward to that one as well!

Best wishes to you all this new year. And thanks for the thoughtful conversations! See you again when I can come up for air.

The danger of simplistic labels

2008-01-03T10:36:00.000-06:00

It seems that, in response to the atheist OUT campaign, a Christian version has been launched (though on a far smaller scale). Alonzo Fyfe (otherwise known as 'Atheist Ethicist') puts things much more eloquently than I could hope to manage, so I'll simply quote him:

So, now we have two sides, each wearing their own flags and wearing their own uniforms, each defining themselves by their opposition to the other.

If people are not careful - if they do not make a conscious effort to see how this develops, it is a type of situation that could get out of hand. Humans have a psychological disposition towards tribalism, with a tendency to be hostile towards opposing tribes. Saying that atheists are immune from this disposition is saying that atheists are not human.

This type of tribalism has come to be extremely destructive in different times in human history. It is something we need to be careful about.

I like to think that this blog is - or at least aims to be - the antithesis of such tribalist mentalities. While we each have our own beliefs and arguments, I hope that we manage to avoid cramming people into simplistic boxes.

Where do we begin?

2007-12-17T10:24:00.000-06:00

We have spoken often here about how the only indubitable certainty is "that I am experiencing existence". From there our epistemology exhibits a steady downhill trend. Even so, as finite men we have only one option in our search — and that is to begin with ourselves. And here I think is the dilemma that I've been trying to articulate. (with limited success.)

What justifies such a move?

What justification do we have to begin with our own experience? There is only one answer that holds any weight, and It's not atheism. Atheism destroys any justification to begin with ourself. Within atheism the foundation of all reality is an impersonal something. If you start with impersonal something, then man must be reducible to impersonal stuff. To argue otherwise is to say the stream rises above it's source.

My co-blogging friend Matt seems to realize this (at least the first bit) and thus, has accepted determinism. Man is simply part of the machine. But he can't live consistently within such a world view — none of us can. The implications are too destructive. As such, he clings to one last hope: "My life is meaningful because I find it to be meaningful". I empathize with his sentiment here – we all do – but it's an unjustified leap. It's unjustified because it destroys itself when it tries to answer the question I have asked above. "What gives us the right to start with ourselves?"

It all comes down to this word "personal". If, for the sake of argument, we presuppose atheism, then to avoid having the stream rise above it's source, "personhood" must be reducible the impersonal. Suddenly all the attributes that man has historically thought unique to himself (self-determination, the importance of love, the ability to act for 'better' or 'worse') have been destroyed by man's only option: The decent into behaviorism and determinism. Man is just a part of the machine.

One must watch closely at this juncture as all but the most hopeless of men employ some understandably slippery language in the hope of avoiding the implications. You will hear them say things like, "You are making this all sound much worse than it really is. You simply fail to comprehend the incredible potential of the material world!" and "There is no God needed, just look at all the world can do with out him!" Though I truly empathize with such statements, they are irreconcilably flawed. First off, they simply beg the question. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they make an unjustified optimistic leap. The leap is to desire one's unique personhood in-spite of what must become a reductionist programme in the absence of God. Any attempts to argue otherwise once again have our stream rising above it's source.

I hope I have made the situation clear. It's a desperate place to come to, but if the foundation is impersonal something we are left with no alternative. Now I often have those who are of the atheist persuasion become angry with me at this point. They act as though I have tricked them. There has to be another way... and indeed there is, but before we can consider it we must feel the depth of our plight. If we begin with the impersonal, man is dead. There is no other alternative.

So what other option do we have? "What right do we have to begin with ourself?". There are only two options here an I am convinced that the presupposition of atheism has utterly failed. Let us now consider that which Christianity holds to be truth — that at the center of all reality lies personality. If this proposition obtains we don't have the dilemma of the stream rising above its source. In-fact, personality becomes irreducible altogether. There is an upward rather than downward movement. In atheism we think we know what material is and what it does, thus we are reduced to it. Under Christianity we are only experiencing diffused personality. We cannot fully grasp what it is to be personal. Our ultimate starting point is not blind matter, but a personal God. Our ultimate relationship to reality is not downward, but upward. The mistake of atheism is that it tries to get to know personality by studying corpses.

In the Christian system, beginning with ourself is justified as we are created in the image of God. Like God, we posses a measure of self-determination. Thus, our search is valid because we really CAN search. Also like God, our mind operates according to reason, thus validating our search for unity within the varity. However an important distinction between man and God is that man is finite (and fallen, but that's for another time). Our finite nature makes necessary the 'search' for truth. We don't arrive programmed. We need to look for it. And so, in these ways our most basic task of beginning with ourselves is justified.

One caveat I must add is this: We must here make the distinction between validating the "starting from one's self" and validating the claims of rationalism which stipulate we can achieve final answers using ONLY man, at the exclusion of any revealed religion. This has been the enlightenment project that has died a thousand deaths, but for some reason continues to resurface in the minds of men. If we choose to reject all forms of revelation the result is predictable as the rising of the sun. Unless an unjustified leap of faith is adopted, man is dead. All is arbitrary. We are lost.

As I continue to grapple with these questions I am increasingly confronted with the fact that Christianity, as a system, answers man's fundamental questions like no other philosophy or religion can. It's coherence and correspondence continue to amaze me. Though there are plenty of peripheral questions I continue to do battle with, I am able to live in the comfort of knowing the big ones have answers that satisfy the deepest yearnings of man.

Quick Question

2007-12-13T08:12:00.000-06:00

To anyone who believes in the validity of any of the ontological, cosmological or design arguments for a deity: If such a being wanted us to believe in its existence, why would it only provide evidence that a) can only be properly understood by a small segment of the population, and b) generally only leads to endless debate?

(I realise this might sound a bit glib, but I've been chewing the question over myself for a while now and I'm yet to come up with a decent answer).

More on 'The Golden Compass'

2007-12-09T07:08:00.000-06:00

Following my deist reading of the films in the post below, I thought I'd offer up two differing interpretations.

First, a Protestant take:

The irony, though, is that because the film never attacks religion eo ipso, its supposedly atheistic critique of the Magisterium is indistinguishable from a very traditional (also several centuries' worth) Protestant critique of Catholicism. If anything, Lyra's position as a savior figure, foretold in the witches' prophecies, implies the existence of an alternative religious structure--not the opposition of religion to no religion at all. And the film condemns the Magisterium's attempt to legislate behavior from above on the same grounds as Protestants have condemned the Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation: such external control promotes both legalism (that is, it emphasizes obedience to a law imposed from without, instead of spiritual rebirth from within) and denies the importance of the conscience. Effectively, we have "tradition" opposed to a kind of private judgment, represented in both Lyra's apparently inspired ability to interpret the alethiometer and Lord Asriel's quest for scientific truth. For that matter, Asriel's interest in alternate universes takes on a distinctly Galileo-esque tinge. All of this overlaps with a secular or skeptical critique of religion, of course, but is hardly confined to it. Even the Master's demand for "free inquiry" has solid religious roots, as well as secular ones.

Second, a Catholic one:

These books are deeply theological, and deeply Christian in their theology. The universe of "His Dark Materials" is permeated by a God in love with creation, who watches out for the meekest of all beings - the poor, the marginalized, and the lost. It is a God who yearns to be loved through our respect for the body, the earth, and through our lives in the here and now. This is a rejection of the more classical notion of a detached, transcendent God, but I am a Catholic theologian, and reading this fantasy trilogy enhanced my sense of the divine, of virtue, of the soul, of my faith in God.
The book's concept of God, in fact, is what makes Pullman's work so threatening. His trilogy is not filled with attacks on Christianity, but with attacks on authorities who claim access to one true interpretation of a religion. Pullman's work is filled with the feminist and liberation strands of Catholic theology that have sustained my own faith, and which threaten the power structure of the church. Pullman's work is not anti-Christian, but anti-orthodox.

I've yet to find a convincing atheist one.

UPDATE: I think the final word should go to Jean Kazez over at 'Talking Philosophy', who (in my opinion) manages to sum up the "message" of the film quite nicely:

A moviegoer could come away thinking Pullman is for witches and demons and multiple universes, talking polar bears and mysterious dust. The movie’s real theme, though, is truth. Good in the movie is lined up with free inquiry and the unimpeded search for the truth. Evil is the monstrous institution of the magisterium, which battles against the truth- seekers.

But wait, if the movie is pro-truth, why shouldn’t it be construed as pro-God, or even pro-Jesus. (Wasn’t it Jesus who said “I am the way and the truth”?) It will take any moviegoer a moment of honest reflection to admit the power of the movie’s message. All religions claim contact with truth, but they don’t empower members of the religion to be truth-seekers themselves.

'His Dark Materials': deist, not atheist

2007-12-07T05:53:00.000-06:00

I'm on a break from blogging at the moment, so I'll keep this brief.

'The Golden Compass' (based on book 1 of Phillip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' trilogy) has just been released in cinemas worldwide, attended by considerable controversy about its alleged "anti-religion" / "pro-atheist" arguments.

As someone who has (unlike, it seems, most commentators on the subject) actually read the books, I thought I'd add my tuppence worth on the subject. While they're far from perfect (I have some issues with the third one), much of the criticism (and some of the praise) has been seriously misguided.

(NOTE: Although I've tried to keep the following free of any major plot details, it does go into the background mythology of the books, which isn't really developed until the second and third).

The most important point to make is that the mythology of the books is deist rather than atheist in nature: God (in the traditional sense) created the universe(s) and then retired for some unknown reason, though I rather suspect it has something to do with the concept of free will.

The target of criticism in the books is not this being, but rather the "Authority", an angel (self-formed) who has set himself up as overlord of the universe(s) through lies and tyranny (sound familiar?). The allies of this being are the power-hungry and the close-minded - who seek to maintain their power through shutting down individual inquiry into the nature of the universe(s).

The fact that so many describe the above as "anti-religious" is quite telling.

The concept of the soul also features heavily in the books - though whether it is material or non-material is questionable. It is, however, quite capable of surviving the death of the physical body, and the characters of the books enjoy an afterlife which (arguably) is quite compatible with Christian notions (the world of the dead = purgatory, oneness with the universe = the traditional idea of heaven?) if a certain amount of poetic license is allowed.

There are, though, two (that I can remember) specific mentions of traditional Christianity that are quite negative: The first is in the recasting of the fall of man in more positive tones - Pullman argues that knowledge of good and evil is an integral part of what makes us human, and that life pre-fall was of a lesser kind. What most Christians will make of this I can't say, though I suspect that there are some (perhaps many) that would agree with it. The second is the description of Christianity as a "mistake" by the character of Mary Malone, a former nun. For me, this is simply the opinion of one person in the books, and given that her Christianity (which denied basic human pleasures, such as love) was of a particular repressive kind, it's arguable that her problem was only with the debased version of religious belief rejected by a large number of believers. Neither, it seems to me, should be particularly troublesome for liberal Christians.

In summary: The books aren't so much anti-religious as they are pro- freedom of thought and freedom of religion.

(They also have talking, armour-plated polar bears. One of which, in the film, is voiced by the great Ian McKellen. How cool is that?)

For he's a jolly good fellow...

2007-12-05T10:32:00.000-06:00

Hmmm, quiet around here isn't? Maybe too quiet, if you ask me.

Anyway, just thought I'd take this opportunity to wish friend of the blog Rev. Dr. Incitatus happy birthday for yesterday. I won't tell you how old he's become, but I will point you in the direction of this post. Go. Point and laugh or offer commiserations, it's up to you.

Heresy, ay?

2007-11-09T08:11:00.000-06:00

Life is full of ups and downs at the moment. On the up side I am loving my studies and have been enjoying some incredibly refreshing conversations with a few of my professors. On the down side, I really haven't had the time for blogging. I really miss our conversations! I'll be back though. We have much yet to kick around. In the mean time, here's a recent post by my man Greg Boyd. Enjoy.

This one's for the kids

2007-11-02T09:22:00.000-06:00

The Almost - Amazing because it is.

Priorities

2007-10-26T09:38:00.000-06:00

Pickled Politics has another post on the anti-theistic tone of the British 'National Secular Society', who I've also complained about in the past.

I'm an atheist, and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon. But it's pretty obvious that religious belief, in its many forms, isn't going to just disappear off the face of the Earth in the near future. What groups like the NSS need to do is look at and promote ways in which everyone, regardless of their metaphysical beliefs can live with minimal conflict. The fact that key figures in the organisation seem to prefer pissing off non-atheists at any opportunity seriously damages their credibility in doing that.

Secularism, like humanism, isn't an exclusively atheist position: many religious believers also want to see freedom of thought defended against authoritarian and intolerant organisations. The NSS only weakens its position by pushing them away.

QUICK UPDATE:

Just spotted this on the 'Atheist Ethicist' blog and thought it was appropriate:

Bigotry consists, in essence, in creating a ‘group’ category and condemning or praising individuals in the virtue of their membership in that group, regardless of individual contributions.

Read the rest.

International Philosophy Championship

2007-10-24T07:38:00.000-06:00

The Ontological Argument

2007-10-11T08:02:00.000-06:00

(This is hopefully the first in a series of posts going "back to basics")

One of the many “proofs” of God's existence put forward through the years has been the 'Ontological Argument' – an attempt to demonstrate the existence of the divine through logic alone.

Although there have been many versions of the argument, I believe the gist of it can be summarised as:

God is the most perfect being in the universe

The most perfect being in the universe must exist

Therefore, God exists

(This is, admittedly, a rather simplified take on the many versions of the argument put forward by the likes of Anslem and Descartes.)

A number of objections have been put forward against the ontological argument – the strongest being that it's an essentially analytic argument and can therefore provide no empirical facts about the world.

The above argument can be summarised as: The most perfect thing in the universe exists. While this is clearly true (being a tautology) it says nothing about the nature of that thing, which remains an open definition: In a universe consisting of only three beings (Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, for example) the argument will still hold, as one of those three will be the most perfect being in existence.

Discuss.

A Thought Experiment

2007-10-04T06:43:00.000-06:00

Meet the Bernards:

Bernard A wanted to murder his Aunt Agatha in order to inherit her fortune. Sadly – for him – the opportunity never arose in which he was able to do so safely, and therefore he had to wait until she died of natural causes.

Bernard B exists in a parallel reality which is identical to Bernard A's in almost every respect, except that an opportunity arose in which he was able to murder Aunt Agatha and inherit her fortune.

The Day of Judgement comes... should Bernard A be judged more harshly than Bernard B?

Cynicism vs. Joy

2007-10-03T10:21:00.000-06:00

For me it is amazing to experience daily the radical difference between cynicism and joy. Cynics seek darkness wherever they go. They point always to approaching dangers, impure motives, and hidden schemes. They call trust naive, care romantic, and forgiveness sentimental. They sneer and enthusiasm, ridicule spiritual fervor, and despise charismatic behavior. They consider themselves realists who see reality for what it truly is and who are not deceived by "escapist emotions." But in belittling God's joy, their darkness only calls forth more darkness.

People who have come to know the joy of God do not deny the darkness, but they choose not to live in it. They claim the light that shines in the darkness can be trusted more than the darkness itself and that a little bit of light can dispel a lot of darkness They point each other to flashes of light here and there, and remind each other that they reveal the hidden but real presence of God. They discover that there are people who heal each other's wounds, forgive each other's offenses, share their possessions, foster the spirit of community, celebrate the gifts they have received, and live in constant anticipation of the full manifestation of God's glory.

Henri J.M. Nouwen The return of the prodigal son

I see much of myself in the cynic. Especially in religious scenarios. It is interesting to note that the joy Nouwen speaks of is not something that just "happens". It's chosen. I can see how, much like love, this joy is transformative to those who experience it. (an those who manifest it as well) It is my greatest hope that my life may in some small way be a "light" that might disperse much darkness. It is my greatest hope for you as well.

Speaking of which, what are we to make of the implied consideration that one must be a religious person in order to experience this joy? To this I would simply like to say that (at least in my view) the implication is misplaced. For those who don't assent to the intellectual proposition "there is a God" yet who's life displays a faith in love beyond self, I maintain they know more than they realize.

Tom once said to me he gets the feeling I believe in love more than I do in God. I'm not so sure there's much of a difference. I don't see how we could have one without the other.

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him."
1 John 4:16

Choose joy. Choose love.

Our trip to Glacier 2007

2007-09-26T09:36:00.000-06:00

In the interest of not clogging up the posting space, click here to read the whole story.

More rambling thoughs: the limitations of knowledge

2007-09-24T08:37:00.000-06:00

A contributor to the 'Friendly Christian' blog recently made the following comment:

Christians claim to know what happens after they die, even though they haven’t been dead yet. Atheists claim to know nothing happens even though they haven’t been dead yet. Christians can spend hours explaining why they just know there’s a God, Atheists can spend hours explaining why they know there isn’t.

Now... it's possible to spend hours – if not days – debating what exactly we mean by “know”, but I think it fair to say that the above strongly hints at a certain absolutism in the views of both theists and atheists: It's not just that we can justify our beliefs, we're almost (if not completely) positive that they reflect the way the world is.

Such absolutism is rife: How many times have you seen people dismiss opposing views not because they disagree with the arguments put forward, but simply because they disagree? It's a familiar scenario – a contrary view is offered and rather than consider it honest we simply try to prove the other person wrong.

As the US economist John Kenneth Galbraith once eloquently put it:

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof.

But for me, atheism has to be almost synonymous with uncertainty: Without access to an omnipotent being what could ever be the basis for absolute claims?

(Not that theism necessarily entails absolutism either – humility is a universal virtue)

Though I believe that the mind deteriorates along with the brain, I ultimately don't know what happens when we die.

Though I consider the evidence for the supernatural to be lacking, my knowledge of the universe probably extends to no more than a minute percentage.

In the last few thousand years – a mere cosmological blink of the eye – our knowledge and understanding of the universe has changed dramatically. The world we live in is vastly different to one our ancestors inhabited. The world our descendants live in will most likely be equally unrecognisable.

The beginning of wisdom, as the saying goes, is the admission of ignorance.

"What did she ever do to me?"

2007-09-20T10:20:00.000-06:00

I don't want to draw attention away from the debates on Just Thinking's post below, but I'd like to point people towards this article (found via Friendly Christian) on remembering that at the heart of all contentious issues are human beings just like us:

I enjoyed the attention I was getting. The newsletter of a local cult awareness expert described me as a ‘heroine of the faith’. I felt like I was doing something worthwhile by warning people about this heretical leader. I hoped she would repent and realize her beliefs were wrong. However she entrenched and sent out newsletters about how she was being persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

Around the beginning of December I made the mistake of thinking about the leader as another human being. I realized “Wow, I am being so mean – what did she ever do to me?” I had taken her workshop some time before this and it actually had some tips in it I found helpful. I also realized that holding up one particular measuring stick against her gave very distorted results – it was unfair. If I was honest, I knew from the workshops that she had great trust in God and great faith in him. He was her loving Father – there was no doubt about that.

Once I realized how mean I was being I couldn’t continue. I took down my Trinity website page and posted an apology to the leader in place of it. I sent her a written apology in the mail. I received a response back from her with a photo of her family. That response meant more to me – and still does – than all the acclaim I received for my stint in the doctrine police.

I don't want to come across as all Kumbaya on you, but one of the things I've learnt through debating both off- and on-line is that a little humility goes a long way...

Now how about a group hug? ;-)

Atheism and Religion

2007-09-19T06:06:00.000-06:00

(This is a guest post by Just Thinking)

In one of the comments (at The Agnostic Monk) I posted, I said:

“Sometimes I think the atheists’ arguments AGAINST the belief in God is closer to God’s truth than the Christians’ arguments FOR our belief in God.”

To which Matt asked me to elaborate and come up with something to post here. At first, I declined in fear of being seen as a complete nutcase. But then, my daughter challenged me further by saying, “If you do really believe what you believe to be the truth, what are you afraid of?” So here I am.

My hat’s off to Alex and Matt for letting a nobody like me have a voice on their blog. Please feel free to challenge my views and enlighten me.

WHY I CHALLENGE RELIGION

I am a follower of Christ. And yet I oddly find myself frequently challenging the Christian perspective rather than the Atheist. And I may even go as far as siding with the atheist’s argument. This may be because I understand why the Atheist says what he says. I’ve been there and done that. At least the atheists, for the most part, are consistent in their unbelief.

What I find to be puzzling is when Christianity repeatedly talks about unconditional love that is somehow conditional, Grace that is somehow determined by works, and freedom that is somehow attached to shackles.

ABOUT CHOOSING THE TRUTH

Alex said somewhere that “There is undoubtedly a spiritual dimension were God seeks to interact directly with our heart... the very core of our being. From what I have seen God is seeking to reveal himself to all mankind, yet being the free agents I believe we are, we often do not respond to him.”

First of all, I don’t think being free agents is what prevents us from responding to God. If, as we claim, God in fact is the Truth, then what prevents us from seeing the Truth? I believe it’s the Lie that deceives us. The choice, in actuality, is the choice to believe in the lie. The truth is not a choice. Truth just IS. It is the lie that poses as the truth that makes us think the choice is in our hands.

THE LIE WE’VE BEEN TOLD

I also asked him, "When the child hears the loving voice of the parent and recognizes that love as unconditional, wouldn’t the child merely react to it rather than make a conscious choice?”

To which he replied, “In the beginning yes it is more of a reaction than a choice, but as we mature we come to see that true love is a choice much more than it is a reaction.”

Alex, you know I love and respect you, but let me challenge your response here: Don’t you find it ironic that you chose the words “in the beginning,” to start your reply? Please don’t hate me for making this analogy, but your very statement brings this picture to mind:

In the beginning, we were created and were in perfect relationship with God. We trusted God as the be all and end all to our existence. Then the serpent asked, “Did God REALLY say?” which prompted us to start questioning why He says what He says. The serpent pointed us to the fruit which offered the knowledge to be able to decide for ourselves who God is and the choice to decide our own destiny. What would be better than that? We chose the fruit. And we became blind to the truth.

In my belief, God is not a god of action but He just simply is. He is the I Am. He is the Truth. How do you choose truth? Truth just is. The choice is only in rejecting the lie. When you reject the lie, all that remains is the truth.

In each of us, at the inner most core of our being, there lives a child who wants to be loved, accepted, and validated for who we already are, not who we can strive to become. That is why we rebel against anything that tells us that we’re not good enough. And yet we spend our lifetime trying to perfect ourselves to become worthy. Worthy of whom? In the end, as King Solomon stated, all of it is vanity. It truly is all for nothing if we cannot understand the true meaning of grace.

ABOUT RELIGION:

I responded to a post over at Agnostic Monk by Dr. Incitatus, where he posted a video of an interview with Daniel C. Dennett. I agree with him especially on the following points:

Dennett talks about how it’s unacceptable in today’s society to be frank or rude when it comes to questioning what people hold sacred. I don’t believe that we should go as far as being rude, but I definitely think we would be able to talk openly, honestly, and frankly about the differences in beliefs. Questions should be raised and discussions should ensue. How else are we going to see the truth? That’s why I love it here – here, where the words can flow fairly freely.

I absolutely agree with him when he says most people do not actually believe in God; they believe in the belief in God. And I believe it is a true statement regarding the majority of the people who follow religion. Religion has a way of having a hold on people, because they believe God is synonymous with religion. But I hold the view that religion is a huge part of the Lie that I spoke of earlier.

RELIGION AS THE OPPRESSOR

In response to the Dennett interview, I commented and asked Dr. Incitatus if he had ever been a victim of religious oppression. He answered with this:

“ It (religion) is certainly sometimes used as an excuse for oppression, but not to an extent that I would consider to outweigh it's stabilising effect on social groups….” About oppression, he said, “No. That's not to say that I might not do so in the future, but I think there's a certain level of hysteria among secularists right now. There seems to be a battle between specific Christian denominations and secular Americans for who gets to hold the apparently much lauded title of "The Persecuted".("We're oppressed!" "No you're not! WE ARE!")…”
“As it is, us godless heathens run a close second with the Baptists as one of the largest groups in the US (15%). With the exception of abortion and the fact that God is rather important, the Baptists and the Catholics can't agree on anything, including evolution. So I don't fear a ruthless Christian hegemony in the US anytime soon.”

I don’t think we’re looking at oppression in the same light.
I’m speaking of the kind of oppression where the fear of God’s wrath, God’s rejection, or even the fear of being unworthy of His love that is so deeply imbedded in your brain that failing to do what is believed to be “the right thing” results in self-condemnation and self-loathing. The kind where you always feel short of being good enough and always striving to do more for God with no end in sight. The kind of oppression where you know deep in your heart what is true and yet the very religion that taught you where to look for Him is also preventing you from being completely in His embrace. The kind of oppression where you feel more at home in the company of who they call their enemies than the very people that are supposed to be your brothers and sisters.

I mean, have you felt that kind of oppression? In saying “stabilizing effect on social groups,” is that what you mean? And who’s stabilizing the “godless heathens” you refer to?

I apologize for getting emotional...but that’s what I mean when I say that religion has power over us.

GOD AND RELIGION

I read this quote on Timmo’s blog, Thalesian Fools, in which James Cone states that “theology ceases to be a theology of the gospel when it fails to arise out of the community of the oppressed.”

It is a brilliant quote. Cone may not have been referring to the religion itself when he talked of oppression; but to me, there isn’t a more powerful oppressor than religion. I wish Timmo would have expounded more with his thoughts on this, as well spoken as he is. The irony, in my view, is that the desire for freedom cannot exist without the feeling of oppression. I have to wonder if it is possible for us to sustain a relationship with Christ without an oppressor. Perhaps God and religion must coexist…

IN CONCLUSION

I should have some sort of a grand conclusion here where I tie everything together. But I don’t. To me, there is no conclusion to this ongoing dilemma. One side continues to falsely represent God, and the other side continues to reject the idea. All I’m saying is that the one who continues to search for an answer is closer to the truth than the one who thinks he already has the answer.

In closing, let me just clarify myself so you know where I stand: I am a Christian yet I do not subscribe to Christianity as the force that dictates how I live my life. I believe in the unconditional love of God, and yet I don’t see it as a choice. I believe in the freedom that Christ offers us, yet I remain a part of the religion that chokes the hell out of me. I rebel against everything, yet I love all those people that I challenge and confront. Sometimes, I even catch myself saying something totally out of line with what I really believe. Do we not need to constantly question ourselves and be questioned by others so we can together get closer to the truth?

Some rambling thoughts on religion and education

2007-09-17T11:38:00.000-06:00

Friendly Christian highlights what seems to me to be a slight over-reaction to a proposed Bible-reading in a school:

Wesley Busch is a kindergarten student at Culbertson Elementary School in Newton Square, Pennsylvania — and all he wanted to do was have his mother read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible. The book reading was part of a classroom assignment called “All About Me,” the purpose of which was to provide students an opportunity to identify individual interests and learn about each other through the use of items such as stuffed animals, posters, books and other mediums.

Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the school district had a big problem with Wesley’s favorite book. “When Wesley told his mom ‘I want you to read the Bible, that’s my favorite book,’ the school said no — even though they let every other book reading go forward… [they said] but here, read this book on witches and Halloween instead.”

Separation of church and state is something that I think is incredibly important. I believe that every individual has to arrive at their view of the world on their own terms – without pressure from outside forces.

It's not the job of the state to do the church's work for them. But I also don't think that it should try to pretend that religious beliefs don't exist.

The relationship between the church and state in the UK is a fairly complex one: There's no formal separation (the government funds religious schools, religious figures are guaranteed places in the House of Lords, the monarch is head of both the state and the church of England – though the roles are largely ceremonial), but it's generally agreed that too much religious influence over politics is a bad thing. His PR advisers went to great lengths to downplay Tony Blair's Christianity as it was felt it might alienate a significant part the public.

At primary school we sang Christian hymns in assembly and I can vaguely recall the headmaster reading out certain parables (such as the Good Samaritan). I can also (just about) remember a group giving a little talk and then handing out copies of the New Testament.

Yet at the same time my school was pretty secular. The point of the hymns and parables wasn't to make us believe in what they described (I don't know anyone I was at school with who actually holds to the Biblical view of the world) but more to instil in us a particular set of values: be good people, respect others, enjoy beauty in the world around you, etc. When it came to specific classes, religion never entered into it (with the obvious exception of Religion Education).

By the time I moved up to secondary school I – like most people - had a pretty decent understanding of Christianity alongside the awareness that it was just one view of the world amongst many.

I've always been quite glad of that knowledge. Although I don't believe the Christian view of the world, I can at least understand the people that do. I think I'd be a lot poorer without that. The only thing I regret is that I can't say the same for other religions: Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

If it was up to me all primary school children would be made aware of the diverse range of beliefs out there – through singing their hymns, hearing their stories and immersing themselves in the different cultures. Not only would it encourage tolerance (we fear less the more we know) but it would also put people in a far better position to decide which path was the right one for them.

This for me is the point of education: not just to provide us with the tools for understanding the world, but making us aware just how rich and diverse a place it is.

Why I'm here

2007-09-14T10:50:00.000-06:00

With Alex off to commune with nature, I thought I'd step back from all the technical issues flying back and forth at the moment and take things down to a more personal, slightly self-indulgent level.

Why I'm an atheist:

It's been an interesting and enlightening experience for me to read through the accounts of how some people came to atheism over at 'The Friendly Atheist' and 'Friendly Christian' blogs. For many of them, the transition from religious to atheist was an apparently traumatic event which put them at odds with their family and sometimes their community.

The reason I find these accounts so interesting is that they bear little resemblance to my own experience.

Like most children in the UK I grew up believing that God had created the world and could apparently still be a force upon it. I sang hymns at school assembly, knew roughly what had happened in the Bible and went on school trips to the local church a few times.

Like most people though, I began to develop my own outlook and views as I grew older and started to learn more and more about the world. Between them, science and RE lessons caused me to question the Biblical explanation of the world – the fact that dinosaurs were more interesting than the Bible probably also played a part – and shifted me towards a more deist position: I believed that God created the world, but that the Bible (like most religious texts) was simply a metaphorical, poetic text rather than a reliable guide to the universe.

Actually reading the Bible, however, shifted my position to more of a deist-agnosticism. While it has some nice sentiments, nothing about it struck me as divinely inspired. Whatever wisdom may lie in it, there doesn't seem to be anything in the Bible that can't be found in other, man-made, texts: The 'Meditations' of Marcus Aurelius spring to mind, along with some of the teachings of Confucius, etc.

With nothing to firmly anchor it, the deist aspect of my outlook gradually drifted away, leading to the atheist-agnosticism I have now. Throughout, I've tried to approach the big questions as honestly and openly as possible. Doing so has led me to a provisionally naturalistic view of the world, devoid of absolute certainties and full of questions – some fascinating and some troubling.

None of this has caused any friction with the people I know, people who run the entire spectrum from church-going Christians to outspoken atheists. All of them hold to the opinion that what's important is how you treat others, metaphysics comes much later.

Being inclined towards scepticism, I like to challenge my beliefs as much as possible – so I deliberately seek out arguments for positions different to my own (on most subjects: political, religious, etc.), which is why I'm here.

I have nothing against religious belief in itself. I simply don't share it. My hope is for a secular world in which each individual enjoys the freedom to choose whichever outlook seems right for them, without having to worry about social or political pressure. I enjoy these discussions with those who see things differently to me – it makes me optimistic about the possibility of humanity overcoming its divisions and becoming more tolerant and democratic.

Greg Boyd, ISOHP & Free Will Part 2

2007-09-11T09:33:00.000-06:00

A Preliminary Note: Some may be wondering (and Matt has been asking) about the validity of a theory that does not explain how it's central concept works. This should really be no stumbling block however, as we postulate all sorts of theories in this way while attempting to explain observable data. Many of these theories involve mechanisms we are unable to exhaustively explain. So then, if the data we are trying to explain requires the postulation of self-deterining freedom, that is grounds for accepting the theory.

A brief review
In part one we dealt with the scientific objection to Self-determining freedom which asserted that modern science refutes such a notion. What resulted was the exploration of five challenges to the scientific objection. The combined weight of which I see to be severely damaging to the scientific objection.

The scientific data is inconclusive.
The alternative of determinism destroys any real concept of moral responsibility.
The one who proclaims determinism as truth refutes themselves, for their assertion would also need to be determined, thus invalidating their own truth claim.
Determinism, fails to explain our phenomenological experience as free, morally responsible agents. In-fact, determinism dismisses the phenomenon as illusory.
Practically speaking, determinism is unlivable as an internalized concept. It is unclear how would could genuinely conduct their life under the impression they the had no say in how they reacted to unfolding experiences.

Having dealt with the scientific objection we will now turn our attention to the more challenging objection that self-determining freedom is incoherent.

Caused, or not caused. What's it gonna be?
Perhaps the most potent philosophical argument against self-determining freedom goes a little something like this:

Either a person's decisions are caused or not. If they are caused, then they are determined and thus are not free in an incompatibilist sense. If they are uncaused, however, they still are not free, for, as Kant taught us, an uncaused event is inconceivable. Even if uncaused decisions were conceivable, however, they still would not be free. They would rather be random and capricious. Uncaused decisions could be no more "free" and could possess no more moral quality to them than the involuntary twitching of an eyelash.
Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil pp.68

This seems to set up a strong dilemma for self-determining freedom. As Matt has argued in the past, "either our choices are caused, or they are random". Either choice you pick seems to be a death blow to the position I am arguing for.

a logical analysis
The way Boyd approaches this dilemma is to question the notion that causation is analogous to determination. The above argument only works if, x caused y is equal to x determines y. Logically, it is not clear that this is the case. Boyd argues that our choices do indeed have causes, but this not the same as saying they are determined. All that is needed is retroactive continuity for such an an assertion to hold. Consider the following example:

Imagine you drop a glass bottle onto a concrete sidewalk. Now imagine that God reveals to you a possible world identical ours in every way, yet the bottle, when dropped, does not break.

here we see that, at least logically, we can conceive of a scenario where an action causes an effect, without exhaustively determining the outcome. Keep in mind that all we have shown so far is that there is no logical contradiction in saying that a caused event is not determined. The next question is, can such a situation really be possible in this world?

an evidential analysis
When it comes to "what we are made of" the smallest measurable unites we can observe exist at what is called the quantum level. For the purposes of our discussion, it is interesting to note that a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics deals with the way quantum particles cannot be deterministically predicted. "The only concept of causation that has consistently proven useful at the quantum level is statistical, probabilistic and non-determinative in nature"1. The way a particle may react, given a specific causal conditions can be predicted within a certain range of possibilities, but these reactions have not been shown to be deterministic in nature.

The question must then be asked, if this "openness" at the foundational level of our existence is deemed to be coherent, how is it that the concept of nondeterministic causality becomes incoherent at the anthropological level? This question gains even more force when we remember (as argued above) that we do, in-fact, experience ourselves as free agents. I would argue that the evidence of our own experience, combined with that of the quantum openness we have just discussed, builds a strong case that determinism is false and that the world is better viewed as a, at least partially, open experience in which we do in-fact have some say in the reality that transpires.

Conclusion
Today we have explored the possibility that there is logical and evidential support for the notion that, (at least within a certain range of possible actions) there can indeed exist a certain "openness" where the reality that is brought fourth can indeed, be up to us. It has been argued that the charge, "our actions are either caused or random" need not render self-determining freedom incoherent, for our actions are indeed still "caused", yet they can reasonably be understood to be one option out of a range of possibilities, each of which could have been retroactively coherent.

And so, we conclude this exploration of causality as it relates to free will and determinism. Next up... determinism the concept of sufficient reason. In other words, why one action over another.

1. Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil pp.68

Greg Boyd, ISOHP & Free Will Part 1

2007-09-07T11:36:00.000-06:00

For ages now we have been kicking around the notion of "Free Will". I'm not sure where everyone stands on this issue other than Matt and myself. (...well, on second thought, I think I do recall Revvvvvd leaning in the compatibilist direction as well. At any rate...) Matt has decided that he feels the compatibilist stance best coheres with reality as he experiences it. I, on the other hand, have always felt that determinism does violence to the way we experience the world. Still I had never really read much on either side of the debate to have whole lot of confidence in my hunch. Thus, for a time I was left in limbo. I knew that compatibilism seemed untenable, but I had not come across any other concepts that adequately dealt with the free will problem.

I've recently begun reading Greg Boyd's Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil. In usual Boydian fashion Greg picks apart the various positions on this topic in a way that actually made some sense. The following exploration constitutes the beginning of my exploration of this topic. You will see a familiar vein of my own thinking, but I will also be borrowing heavily from Boyd's book. (which is honestly the only serious interaction with the material I have engaged with.)

You will notice that this exploration will be more about deconstructing compatibilism, than it is about describing self-determining freedom. I think this mostly owes to the fact that no one really knows how self-determining freedom works. In much the same way, no one really knows what "matter" is. We only know what it is by what it does. That said, I say we define our terms and dig in!

Self-Determining Freedom

Self-Determining Freedom states that the reason one action is performed verses another is ultimately determined by the agent. This sentiment is captured in the oft heard statement that in order for us to be free we must genuinely possess the ability to have done other than we did in-fact do.

Compatibilistic Freedom

Agents need not be self-determining to be genuinely free. Agents are free if there is nothing that constrains them from doing what they want. But they need not be—and, most would argue, cannot be—free to determine what they want.
Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil pp.58

According to compatibilism, determinism is considered to be compatible with free will. Hence the name. But can this stance be sustained if we are not the originators of the actions in question? Robert Kane argues that unless the agent possesses the power to be the final cause or explanation for their actions, any attempt at rendering them free becomes unintelligible. He goes on to say:

When we trace the causal or explanatory chains of action back to their sources in the purposes of free agents, these causal chains must come to an end or terminate in the willings (choices, decisions, or efforts) of the agents, which cause or bring about their purpose.
Significance of Free will pp.4

"Simply being able to do what one wants does not render one free or morally responsible if the want itself is outside of one's control"1. Boyd uses an illustration that I will paraphrase to illustrate this point.

Imagine I had developed a chip that I could insert into the head of another person thereby controlling their mind. Imagine I put this chip into some random stranger then willed them to carry out a murder. Now, we both get caught and all this evidence comes to light. What judge in their right mind would convict the random stranger who was acting on an impulse that was ultimately my own? Any person viewing this data must conclude that the individual was not free to commit the murder. It is simply absurd to conclude that we can be held morally responsible when the ultimacy of our actions can be traced beyond us to uncontrollable external factors.

It is because of this, that the determinist must declare that moral responsibility has become an illusion. Rather than explaining our experience as morally accountable agents, the compatibilist has simply rendered the phenomenon illusory. It is for this reason that I see the compatibilist attempt at dealing with free will and moral responsibility to be a failure. It set out to demonstrate the compatible nature of determinism and moral responsibility, but in the end it has merely rendered the terms "moral responsibility" and "free will" either neutered of any desirable meaning or illusory altogether.

Compatibilist objections to Self-determining Freedom
Thus far, I hope I have made it clear that the compatibilist position does not seem to be reasonable. Still, many prefer to go this route then to consider self-determining freedom which they see as being either implausible at best, or incoherent at worst. We will now consider two of the main objections to self-determining freedom.

A scientific objection
Many would argue that recent advances in modern science have rendered the concept of self-determining freedom incoherent. Some feel that studies involving the role of genetics and environment on our personality and behavior indicate that personal actions are exhaustively determined by factors antecedent to the agents themselves. In keeping with this line of thinking, they argue that if we had exhaustive knowledge of what made up any given individual as well as exhaustive knowledge of the environment in which the individual was placed, we would then be able flawlessly predict the future actions of the individual. Here again, freedom of the will is considered pure illusion.

Galen Strawson crystalizes this argument:

(1)It is undeniable that one is the way one is as a result of one's heredity and experience. (2) One cannot somehow accede to true responsibility for oneself by trying to change the way one is as a result of heredity and experience. For (3), both the particular way in which one is moved to try to change oneself, and the degree of one's success in the attempt at change, will be determined by how one already is as a result of heredity and experience.

It seems unavoidable that if premise (1) is accepted the logic flows unavoidably from there. Boyd rejects premise (1) then goes on to offer six arguments against it, five of which we will briefly consider.

Inconclusive evidence
"...the evidence supporting genetic or environmental determinism is simply not conclusive ... While empirical evidence proves that genes and environment strongly influence human behavior, this evidence fails to prove that these factors determine our behavior."2.

Determinism and moral responsibility
This argument has already been made above. Essentially, if we are mechanically determined by our genetics and environment then holding people morally accountable for their actions is analogous to punishing someone for the color of their hair or the size of their spleen. It is clear that we do believe people ought to be held responsible for their actions. Thus, this universal belief, ought to constitute one very strong bit of evidence that we do indeed possess self-determining freedom.

Physical determinism is self-refuting
If all known reality is physically determined then the belief "all known reality is physically determined" is also physically determined. The problem here is that it is not at all clear that physically determined conditions are capable of possessing truth values. They simply are. If indeed physical determinism rules the day, all our discussion on this topic is, and always has been, incapable of possessing either truth or falsehood. I think this is what I was trying to get at here, albeit in my typical rather ham fisted way.

Failure to explain the phenomenon of freedom and moral conviction
Also noted above, "if the goal of any philosophical or scientific theory is to render puzzling phenomenon intelligible, then compatibilism must be judged to be a poor theory. Not only does it fail to explain our basic sense of morality, it also fails to explain our phenomenological experience of ourselves as self-determining personal agents. Indeed compatibilism dismisses this as illusory."3. Though it is true that we also experience ourselves as significantly affected by variables outside of our control, (place of birth, biological factors, etc...) it can be equally affirmed that within these externally determined parameters we uniformly experience ourselves as self-determining agents.

Determinism and the pragmatic criterion for truth
This final response the the scientific objection deals with the fact that it is impossible for us to live as though we believe our choices are exhaustively settled prior to our consideration. We can only deliberate about what we genuinely believe to be within our own power. For instance, I cannot genuinely deliberate about whether or not I might spend the afternoon as a chipmunk with x-ray vision. I rightly realize that it's not much of an option for me. On the other hand, I find my day filled with innumerable choices that I genuinely believe to be within my power to deliberate on. It is unclear how a determinist might conduct one's life under the impression that every move they make, every thought they think, has been exhaustively determine for them before they ever entered the scene. This strongly suggests that deterministic views are false, if not meaningless.

In summation
For the sake of making this exploration somewhat bearable to write, let alone to read through, I will now bring part one of this post to a close. So far, I have sought to put forth working definitions for self-determining and compatibilist freedom while voicing my objection to the supposed solution compatibilism brings to the problem of moral responsibility and determinism. I have also reviewed several responses to scientific objections to self-determining freedom. My conclusion, thus far, is that self-determining freedom is not jeopardized, at least as it relates to the supposed scientific objections. Stay tuned for part two when we will be tackling the more difficult philosophical objection that self-determining freedom is incoherent.

1. Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil pp.60
2. Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil pp.63
3. Satan and the Problem of Good and Evil pp.65

Dawkins and McGrath

2007-08-31T08:58:00.000-06:00

As Alex is busy with his studies and I'm busy debating the merits of drinking urine, I thought I'd post this video of Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath debating the existence and nature of God:

Enjoy.

Making me a theist

2007-08-25T08:21:00.000-06:00

What would it take to convince me of God's existence?

Ebonmuse – for those of you who don't know – is one of the more informed bloggers on the subject of atheism and religion: his knowledge of both certainly outstrips mine*.

(*I realise this is damning with faint praise)

Through this recent post I stumbled across his 'Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists', which got me thinking about the level of evidence needed for me to change my mind on the subject. Ironically, given that Ebonmuse's atheism seems far more solid than my own (which often borders on a lazy agnosticism), it looks as though I'd actually require more evidence than he would.

For example, in the first category of evidence (things that would convert him on the spot) he lists:

Verified, specific prophecies that couldn't have been contrived.
If the Bible, for example, said, "On the first day of the first month in the year two thousand and ten, the pillars of the earth will shake and a great part of the New World will be lost to the sea," and then January 1, 2010 comes and a tremendous earthquake sends California to the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, I would become a believer.

I wouldn't.

If an individual could consistently predict – with significant accuracy – future events, then it would certainly prove that prophecy was possible, but it would leave completely open the reason why: It could be a divine being with knowledge of the future, or some yet undiscovered law of physics, or aliens, etc. Just because someone claims that X is the reason they can see the future is no evidence that it really is X.

He also suggests:

Scientific knowledge in holy books that wasn't available at the time.
If the Bible (or any other religious text) contained some piece of knowledge that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known but that is now known to be true, that would be highly convincing to me. A passage about the atomic theory of matter or the heliocentric solar system would be interesting, but not conclusive, since the Greeks, for example, proposed those ideas long ago independent of any claim to divine revelation. A mention of the theory of evolution would have been impressive. A reference to the germ theory of disease, or the laws of electromagnetics, would have been compelling. But what would be indisputable proof would be an elucidation of a truly modern theory of physics, such as relativity or quantum mechanics - not just something that the people of the time couldn't possibly have known of, but something so counter-intuitive that the odds against guessing at it correctly would be staggering.

This would certainly be impressive – but far from conclusive (or near conclusive) evidence of the divine.

The only valid response to detailed scientific knowledge in a ancient religious text would be a) scepticism and b) curiosity. The most reasonable explanation would be that it's a hoax and that the details were added at a later date – when it was more readily available. Ruling out this possibility would bring us no closer to explaining how such knowledge was present, but leave a mystery with numerous possible answers: a divine being, time-travel, aliens, etc. Just as with prophecy, on its own a reference to information about the universe far ahead of its time does not logically lead to a specific explanation.

The same objection can be made to his third suggestion:

Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about through prayer.
If cities condemned as sinful by preachers tended to explode in flames for no apparent reason, if glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or if atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, this would be compelling proof. But it wouldn't have to be so dramatic; even minor but objectively verifiable miracles would do, especially if they could be invoked by prayer. If a hospital did a double-blind study to determine if intercessory prayer helps the sick, and it was discovered that only the patients prayed for by members of a certain religion experienced a dramatic, statistically significant increase in recovery rate, and this result could be repeated and confirmed, I would convert. This one shouldn't be so hard, especially for the Christians - after all, Jesus told them that they would be able to work miracles through prayer!

If prayer works then all it proves is that prayer works – the how and why remain unexplained, the only rational response is to suspend judgement until further evidence has been acquired. The same goes for any miraculous event.

While:

Aliens who believed in the exact same religion.
And one more, though this one is just a bit off the wall. If humanity was to contact an extraterrestrial civilization, and if said extraterrestrials had a religion that was exactly like some religion on Earth, I would become a believer. (Though it would raise some interesting theological problems for Christians. Does Jesus have to travel to every planet in the universe individually, dying and being resurrected on each one?)

...though compelling is similarly open to scepticism: evolutionary 'forced moves', extraterrestrial influence, etc.

Any one of these raises fascinating questions about the universe and the current theories we have about it, but would fail to convince me of the divine. If all were true – if we lived in a universe in which prophecies came true, religious texts presented knowledge of the universe far beyond their time, miracles happened regularly and we'd encountered aliens who believed in the same God – then what we'd have is a large amount of circumstantial evidence which made a powerful argument for the existence of the divine yet failed to provide direct evidence of it.

So what would convince me?

This:

Any direct manifestation of the divine.
I'm not that hard to convert; I'll be happy to believe in God if he tells me to in person, as long as he does it in such a way that I could be sure that it was not a hallucination (for example, in the presence of multiple reliable witnesses, none of which are in a highly emotional or otherwise altered state). Where are the voices speaking out of burning bushes, or out of thin air when people get baptised? In Old Testament times, Moses saw God so often that he knew him on a first-name basis. Why doesn't this happen any more today?

Although as well as ruling out the possibility of hallucination, God would also have to convince me that I hadn't gone insane – which, given He's the most powerful being in the universe shouldn't be too difficult.

That's all I'd need.

Angry Sky

2007-08-14T06:31:00.000-06:00

It seems as though we haven't had a drop of rain here in central Minnesota since the middle of June. That all changed this last week. We've found ourselves in the midst of a "storm belt". Four out of the last five days have produced severe weather that has been surging through our area. The photo above is of a storm that just missed us last night. It dumped so much hail onto the town just north of us that they had to call out the plows to clear the streets!

This photo is from my brother-in-law who lives about an hour south of us. The same storm was still dropping large hail and producing 70 mph winds by the time it reached them.

It's hard for me to express how much I look forward to these summer storms. There is this strange combination of awesome beauty and the ominous threat of potential tornadic activity. (which I also MUST see before I die. (hopefully not as I die))

It seems we are all drawn to the fantastic. We'd all love to see a "miracle" — something that just blows you away. I find myself ever drawn to this sense of awe. I love to be in the presence of great power. I like to feel small. I long to stand before something much greater than myself. I guess that's why I love the mountains as much as I do. It's also why I love gazing off into the universe on a moonless night. (note to self: buy a telescope.) And I think it's also why I enjoy watching such an awful manifestation of power go angrily growling past my neighborhood.

These storms have the potential to destroy my home and kill my cherished trees. (let alone myself along with my family!) Still I eagerly await their arrival. Each summer that goes by without at least one severe storm feels like a waste of a perfectly good season.

Omnipotence and the impossible

2007-07-30T09:02:00.000-06:00

(Look at that: you wait ages for a post and then two come along at once. I'd only just knocked this one into shape when I noticed that Alex had posted. Mine suffers from a lack of cute pictures though.)

The most common answer from theists to the problem of evil is the ‘Free Will Defence’, which maintains that it’s logically impossible for God to remove evil and provide free will to humans at the same time – therefore the presence of evil is necessary to achieve a greater good.

On the face of it, this is a perfectly good answer – assuming you accept the libertarian concept of free will*. However, I’d argue that serious problems arise when, as many seem to do, you use the FWD alongside claims of God’s omnipotence. A being cannot be all-powerful and yet unable to do something: an omnipotent being would have to be able to create a world in which we had free will yet in which evil did not exist.

Over on his own blog, Revvvvvvvd argued that asking God to do something illogical was to ask a meaningless question: a 4-sided triangle is just as meaningless as tugimahy a hufquest bubaluyte.

But, in order to worthy of the term omnipotent, I’d say that such a being couldn’t be bound by meaning either: I may not be capable of understanding what I’m arguing, but an omnipotent being would have to – I’d ask it to tugimahy a hufquest bubaluyte, it’d tugimahy a hufquest bubaluyte and in that moment I’d understand. In the same way, although I’m incapable of conceiving a 4-sided triangle (for example), or who libertarian free will could co-exist with the complete absence of evil, an omnipotent being would have to be capable of it. To say that X cannot do Y (whatever Y is) is incompatible with X is omnipotent.

Therefore, while the presence of evil is compatible with a loving God, it surely rules out a loving, omnipotent God?

(*I don’t, but that’s another argument)

Grammar, inerrancy, and sleepless nights

2007-07-30T07:32:00.000-06:00

Dear friends,
As you may have noticed posting has been rather slow as of late. Given that, I'm sure many of you have been wringing your hands in distress wondering what has become of me. Let me just assure you that all is well. I'm still right here in Rice, MN. Still, all is not now as it once was.

As you may remember, I started a masters program a few months ago. The last two weeks I have been away at my first set of on campus intenives. Let's just say the name is aptly given. Because of this, Alex's mind has been feeling a bit tuckered out these days. During week two they sprung grammar on me! Apparently they feel you need at least cursory understanding of the topic in order to participate in graduate level exegetical studies. So at the moment I'm trying to relearn what a prepositional phrase is along with adverbs, infinitives, conjunctions, logical connectors and all the rest. I suppose I don't blame them, but being forced to dig around in an area that I once prided myself for being completely ignorant feels much like trying to put together a puzzle in the dark.

Aside from that, there is a certain theological issue raised by one of my professors that seems to have some pretty deep implications depending on which side of the fence you fall on the topic. It's an area that I have conveniently ignored, but now I'm being forced to deal with it. It's this idea of the inerrancy of scripture. My hermeneutics professor held this position. While he acknowledged not all of us would agree with him, he did not take the time to defend his presupposition. He simply stood there holding it. I cannot fault him though, as a reasoned defense of various doctrinal positions was simply beyond the scope of the class. Still, for a guy like me, this is absolute torture! To raise a contentious presupposition then just carry on with another topic that is in some ways directly influenced by one's stance on the aforementioned presupposition is like finger nails on a chalk board to me.

The reason I find this presupposition so disturbing is this:
My professor defined "inerrancy" as: being completely true and without error in everything the author intended to communicate. and also: being the exact words that God wanted wanted communicated to his people.

But then, within the course of my studies, I read through the entire chapter of Genesis in a single sitting. Then I sit back and think to myself... "These are the EXACT words that God wanted communicated?" Furthermore, it is generally recognized that later editors placed some finishing touches on the story after it's original composition. What does that say about the inerrancy position? Now I'd like to simply brush this aside and take a position that does not require this thorny word "inerrant", but the evangelical position tries to force the issue by saying that Jesus and the early church viewed the Pentateuch as inerrant. If one accepts this position, then if it can be shown that the pentateuch is not inerrant (which I would not be surprised at all to see happen) then Jesus himself was wrong and we all know where that goes. Is this a false dilemma? Are the evangelicals creating a problem where none need exist? I'm not sure yet, but that's what I aim to find out. I will be ordering N.t. Wright's The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture this morning.

So at the moment I feel rather adrift. This is nothing new for me. It happens every time I run into an area that I don't know how to process. I'll float around in my cognitive dissonance until I can finally come to some sort of peace on the issue. At the moment I'm taking comfort in the fact that I'm far from the first to have dealt with this issue. I expect to find a reasonable position I can accept, but at the moment I'm having trouble sleeping at night.

How are all of you faring? Are all my British friends keeping dry?

P.S. Here's Adrian with a puppy. He likes the puppies. The kitties? Not so much. They bite.

Faust, Midas and Myself — Switchfoot

2007-06-29T08:52:00.000-06:00

A haunting little tune by Switchfoot with an interesting stoy-like progression. When I filter this song through the grid of my life experience, the line that jumps out at me is where he points to what he sees as the "beginning of life"...

What direction?
What direction?
Life begins at the intersection

essentially, "what are you living for?"

Anything jump out at you?

My response to Tom Freeman's The moral of the story

2007-06-20T10:17:00.000-06:00

This posting is in response to Tom Freeman's recent post on our continuing discussion of morality. We've been at this topic for about six months now and it would seem that we've made some progress. Much as been said (and will continue to be said) on the topic of objectivity. We both agree that such a state of affairs is desirable, however we still seem to be a ways off from agreeing that it really is he case.

First off, I'd like to offer my heart felt thanks to Tom. Over these last six months he has continued to put some serious thought into our conversations. I really admire the conviction with which he approaches our conversations. Keep it up bud!

I'd like to start by giving a quick overview of how I maintain the Christian world view allows for an 'objective' (read: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts") moral framework.

According to Christianity all moral assertions are either true or false as they relate to the unchanging eternal character of God. Now, it is easy for the skeptic to feel a slight bewilderment that the Christian should claim moral facts are dependent upon some being hiding far far away in some remote corner of the universe. But this only serves to illustrate how hard it is for us to conceive of a being who is not merely 'a part' of reality, but is, in-fact, the 'source of' reality.

On a micro level it would be somewhat like a three year old nudging his brother and asking: "who does Dad think he is telling us what's right or wrong?"

In many ways, the three year old is dependent upon the family system that the father is the head of. In this way, the child is subject to the moral system that the father puts in place. Likewise, switching to a macro focus, we are contingent beings who depend on God for our very existence. Because of this, we are rightly under His authority.

Having said all that, I would like to address a question I have seen Tom raise on a few separate occasions. He seems willing to accept that the Christian God would indeed provide a singular, consistent and eternal standard, but he has difficulty calling such a standard 'moral'. I'm assuming he is basically asking: "how do we know this standard is good?"

In response I'll have to ask, would it ever be possible for the absolute Fact of all reality to act in such a way that could be deemed evil?

I'm not suggesting that this is possible, I am simply asking, who's standard would God have to violate to be evil? If God's character is eternal and unchanging, is it possible for God to violate His own standard? It would seem not. Thus, as I have argued in the past, God simply "IS" and therefore, we can only speak of 'objective' morals as they relate to Him.

A second point I would like to make on the topic of "why God's character matters to us", would be to point out that "morality" is, in a very important sense, simply a descriptor used to evaluate the state of a relationship between personal beings. To say the morality is simply "rules" or a "code of conduct" negates the more fundamental reality that underneath it all morals ultimately hinge on relationships. When one of the teachers of the law brought Jesus the question:

"Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"

Jesus replied:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

The point is not simply to obey rules. The Pharisees strove to follow rules, even to the degree of tithing a tenth of their spices (grain by grain) in order to follow the 'rules'!

The key to morality lies in love. Love for each other and love for God. I would even venture to assert that without first loving God (or should I say accepting His love for us) we will always be incapable of loving each-other.

Tom, to the degree that you experience love and to the degree that you act in love your atheistic world-view is being contradicted. Do you realize that?

Now this concept of love (like morality) is difficult to put into words, but we sure know it when we experience it. The next time you find yourself experiencing a moment of profound love from, or, for another, pull the atheist card out of your pocket and look at it. What does it say?

"Tom, this experience is meaningless. It is simply the result of a chance happening of various material affecting each-other in a simple cause and effect sort of way. No need to get all worked up... not that you can help it"

Your friend, No one

What if you looked through life using a different lens? What if love actually had some meaning over and above a supervenient quality of "stuff"? You admit yourself that you wish to build your moral code around "compassion". Can you see a way that compassion is even available to us if there is no God? Mindless, determined matter cannot have 'compassion' on mindless, determined matter. If you agree with me here, then you must affirm that you are 'more than' mindless matter. (even really really complex mindless matter.) But now you are left with a problem. What are you?

Lastly, I'd like to just quickly address your assessment of the following comment:

Tom says: This ties in to one of the most telling throwaway comments Alex has made in our months of chewing things over. It came when he was rejecting the idea of there being real meaning and morality without god existing:

Alex says: If it [Christianity] is not true, to whom would I turn? Dualism? What's that? There's no name or face associated with a term such as that.

Tom says:He has a fair and I think widely shared view: a person, with a name and a face, can be far more inspiring than an abstract theory, however well argued. You can relate to a person; you can rally round them; you can ask yourself what they’d say. This is part of human nature (and why politics can favour personality over policy).

Role models are fine; fictional role models are fine; role models of dubious and contested reality are fine. They illustrate virtues that strike us as, well, virtuous.

One one level, this is a classic "Bulverism". But on another, perhaps more important, level you are acknowledging a fudamental truth. We need personal beings in order to even talk about "virtue". What does this do for the case of Platonic moral forms, or other such "properties"?

Would it not be reasonable to assume that since moral concepts only have weight as they relate to personal beings, that perhaps our longing for an objective moral framework is evidence that we are indeed — beyond all hope — products of a perfectly loving personal God? All I meant to illustrate, is that mindless platonic forms, or some other sort of property dualism, leave our spirits unfulfilled.

It would be much like while anxiously awaiting your spouses' return home from a long trip you find yourself in the position of slowly waking up from a mid-day nap. As your eyes adjust you see her! She's standing right there! Just inside the door you see, her arms outstretched to take you in a warm embrace! You jump up, ready to run towards her, but as your head clears and your eyes adjust, your heart sinks. You suddenly realize the object you thought was your beloved is nothing more than her old coat propped up on a broom handle. Sure you could go and give it a hug and talk to it, but it's not her. She's not there.

In the same way Tom, if we try to accept some moral foundation based off of impersonal "qualities" or "forms" we will come to a disheartening end. As I've tried to demonstrate in this post, morality is relational. It's basis is love. You can't have a love relationship with an impersonal quality. Therefore, it seems right to conclude that unless the foundation of our morality is personal and perfectly loving, then we have no foundation at all. I don't accept that, and you don't seem to want to.

I see Jesus as the visitation of this perfectly loving moral standard into His creation. The length He went to bring us back to him shows a depth of love that I can't even begin to comprehend. He didn't come to call us to a system of rules. He came to bring us into a relationship with Him. All that's left for us to do is accept the invitation.

I pray someday you see that the deepest longings of your heart really do have an answer and it's better than you could have ever hoped!

Last Day (to my friends at Agency 128)

2007-06-15T07:41:00.000-06:00

Today is my last day at the shop. It's weird. I've spend more time in this office than I have in my own house these last 4.5 years. Much has changed in me since I walked into this place for the first time. My eyes were wide with wonder as I entered what I had always thought to be "the real world". In many ways it was everything I had hoped it would be and more. But in another sense I slowly came to realize that though this job was better than anything I could have hoped for right out of college, it wasn't me.

I took some things home last night. Walls that once held my personal art are now bare. The ledge below my window that once held an assortment of various knickknacks I've collected over the years is now empty.

That's the thing about life, you know. You live in the now. You remember the past. You can see how it influenced who you who you are today, but you can never go back. The trick is to embrace all the good that came out of those times and use what you learned to help shape your future. There's no need to stare longingly back into the mists of time wishing you could be there again. It's like grabbing at smoke; the moment you try and grasp it, you destroy it's beauty.

I guess the way I see it, good memories are not just good times that you'd like to relive, but they are opportunities to learn about the core of who you are. As I look back upon these last 4.5 yrs I can see the parts of this job that brought me the greatest fulfillment were not actually the job at all: Lunch with Jen, a walk with Brad, a road-trip with Gina, a counseling session with Connie, some life lessons from Ross, shootin' stuff with Tim, talking about Silver Bay with Sandy, a bit of encouragement from Carrie, a friendly visit from Doc and basically the times where I was able to sit down with someone and kick around thoughts on why we are here.

This life is bigger than we often see it. It's easy to be rocked to sleep by the lullaby of a busy life and making ends meet. Slowly, our eyes close and be begin to lose sight of the inexplicable wonder of our own existence. However, for me it seems the opposite has happened. When I look at each of you I see beauty. I see joy. I see wisdom. I can see how the creator of all existence would see fit to pay such a price for you. Realizing that not everyone here agrees my assessment of the larger reality we inhabit, I hope you can feel my sentiment through any objections you might have.

This has been a great chapter in my life, but it's time to move on. I see this step less as a change in who I am, as it is more of an acceptance of who I've always been. Thank you for the part you have played in my life. I always cherish the time we shared.

Thank you.

Tom Freeman on the quest for morality

2007-06-10T05:45:00.000-06:00

Life trajectory

2007-06-06T10:31:00.001-06:00

Well folks here's the deal. Over the past three years I have witnessed a steady shift in myself. My desire to continue in the world of advertising (at least in the corporate sense) has continued to wane, while a new fire has been kindled within me. I have become increasingly passionate about existential/metaphysical/theological questions and ponderings. My mind has been turned on and I can't seem to find the off button. A fair amount of this can be attributed to the bright people I talk with on this very blog. I think it will be a couple years yet before I'm able to decide whether to thank you or curse your name for this influence. ;-)

That said, I've made two drastic shifts in direction these last two weeks. Firstly, I applied and was accepted into a Masters program at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul. (No, I'm not looking to become a pastor. This is a different sort of degree.) Starting this month I will begin working towards my M.A. in "Christian Thought". In their own words:

"Those looking for a systemic understanding of the Christian worldview may choose the Master of Arts in Christian Thought. The heart of this degree program is significant work in philosophy of religion. The program integrates this with related study in theology and Bible to enhance the study of philosophy. The class work in this program addresses worldview issues from a distinctively Christian point of view. It will include opportunities to study both with resident faculty and with outstanding visiting scholars."

From what I've heard of people who are in this program, it's basically a rigorous version of this blog with a fancy degree awarded upon completion. (an obvious understatement) I'm really fired up!

The second major life change came yesterday when I realized that I simply cannot, with any integrity, continue to my profession in an agency setting. The mental demands placed upon me here, combined with the equally rigorous thought life I am about to embark on simply do not add up to a good professional setting. It is not fair to my employers to be so mentally divided when they are counting on me to deliver. As of yesterday, I have submitted my resignation. I agreed to stay on until they have found a replacement, then I'm outta here.

So the question hangs... What now?

At the moment I'm fluid. Ideally, I'm hoping to find a part time job for stability purposes, then ramp up my seat business. This move would give me the flexibility I need for my studies/family life as well as the stability of a steady income. I have a couple options on the table already for part-time work. One of which would involve torching apart train wrecks at a local scrap yard! Honestly, that sounds quite appealing when taken in context of where I'm at. At the moment, though, I don't know what I'm going to do. I have a couple weeks yet to figure it out.

For you praying types out there, please feel free to bring my situation before our Father. For the non-believing folk, any words of encouragement would be appreciated. This is scary, crazy and wonderfully exciting all at once. I can hardly wait to see what lies ahead.

Oh! Gravity

2007-06-04T07:42:00.000-06:00

I was planning on posting my most favoritest song from the latest Switchfoot album, but then I saw the video for "Oh! Gravity" (also good) and I couldn't resist giving it a little exposure. I'll follow up later with the song I actually intended to post. Enjoy!

An open invitation for self-exploration

2007-06-01T14:06:00.000-06:00

For anyone who reads this blog who feels inclined to share:

What's the deepest ache of your soul? What do you hope to find in this life? Who do you hope to be? What do you hope to accomplish?

Why?

What do you fear?

Why?

What frustrates you? What gives you hope?

Incitatus, this one's for you bud

2007-05-31T11:17:00.000-06:00

This link is to a 40 Meg, three hour presentation/discussion involving William Lane Craig, Bruce Winter and some other guy I've never heard of. The entire focus of this piece is the resurrection of Jesus.

I realize I have been reticent on this particular topic, mainly because I don't feel I have a firm enough understanding of all the factors in play. Hope you don't mind if I let some others speak who have been able to invest quite a bit more time into this topic than myself.

The points I've been picking out so far (I'm only half way through at the moment):

Modern scholarship agrees that:

Jesus did in-fact exist

Jesus was crucified

His tomb was indeed found empty

That the disciples did in-fact see something they believed to be the risen Christ

That they were able to convince large numbers of people that Jesus bodily rose from the dead.

P.S. If the mp3 download does not work for you they have this in several other formats here.

Response to Daniel Nairn's "Little Rock Creek"

2007-05-31T08:48:00.000-06:00

Let's call this one: "North of Logan's Pass"

...I don't belong in Central Minnesota. Why am I so drawn to large outcroppings of rock and slag?

A little much, don't you think?

2007-05-30T13:40:00.000-06:00

I just have to ask: Who's the person from the U.K. that has been on this blog for two and a half hours so far and has viewed over 42 pages. Is your head about ready to explode yet?

Just curious.

The Paradox of the Resurrection

2007-05-30T04:51:00.000-06:00

I’ve just finished reading Simon Blackburn’s ‘Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed’ (highly recommended), which at one point looks at Hume’s argument on miracles. This argument is succinctly expressed in the maxim that:

‘…no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish…'

Mulling this over in the shower earlier, I think that this claim exposes what I see as a paradox when it comes to texts such as the Gospels:

The more outlandish a claim, the more it undermines the credibility of the witness – so miraculous events can’t be established on the basis of hearsay alone.

For example:

You answer the door to find A stood there. A is someone who lives in your area, you know of him but have never really spoken before. He says: “Just thought you should know, me and my friends just saw a group of kids messing about near your car.”

Most of us, assuming we have a car, would thank A and probably go check that our car is okay. His claim is reasonable and we have no real reason to doubt him – this holds even if, when we reach the car, there’s no sign of the kids or any damage.

However, now imagine that instead he says: “Just thought you should know, me and my friends just saw a flying elephant hovering about near your car.”

I doubt that nay but the most credulous of us would react with much more than a “wuh?” if this happened.

Even if we discovered a dent near the top of our car afterwards, the concept of a flying elephant would be so outlandish as to make alternative explanations seem the more likely: We’d assume that A was either joking, lying or deluded in some way.

The same holds true for texts like the Gospels. Unless the validity of the ‘God hypothesis’ is established some other way, eyewitness testimony will never be sufficient to support miraculous claims such as the resurrection.

Blogging is not easy...

2007-05-29T06:56:00.000-06:00

Trying to squeeze in a "quick" response over the Memorial Day weekend. We spent the weekend at my mothers place a couple hours north of where we live. Between her little dog Harry and my 1yr old son I never did get to finish. Ah well. Life goes on!

Same questions... Different places

2007-05-23T12:44:00.000-06:00

While doing my morning blog review I ran across a short question asked by a blogger who goes by exapologist. Looks like an interesting fellow. He asks: "I'm still waiting to see a plausible *theistic* account of morality."

I couldn't resist...

So if anyone wants to follow a familiar debate in a new location stop on in and see what pops up.

- Insert cliched shakespeare quote here -

2007-05-22T10:01:00.000-06:00

In the interview a couple of posts below, Denys Turner makes the claim that in order to be a “proper, card carrying, atheist” you need to find a way of avoiding a certain question: Why is there something, rather than nothing?

It’s an interesting, and extremely important question. However, I don’t think that it really poses a great difficulty for an atheist such as myself, as there’s an extremely simply, but perfectly valid answer:

I don’t know.

That’s it. In some of the discussions I’ve had, both here and elsewhere, the theism/naturalism debate is treated almost as if it’s a zero-sum game – if naturalism doesn’t have the answers, then theism must be onto something. But for me that just doesn’t flow. It’s quite possible to completely demolish the naturalistic conception of the universe without providing any validation of the ‘God Hypothesis’, as they’re merely two separate attempts to explain why things are the way they are.

The theistic argument can’t just be a case of: “If naturalism can’t explain it then there must be a God”. Like any theory, it has to be built up independently.

In the same way, dualism is quite distinct from theism. It's quite possible - though I don't personally believe it - that morality is dependent on an aspect of the universe that we've yet to discover. Saying this merely suggests that there's still something for us to learn about what we call reality. It says nothing about possible deities. To say that there is “something” more than the material universe out there is to say nothing about the nature of that something – it’s worth bearing in mind that the discoveries we make about the universe in the next millennia or so are more than likely to be beyond anything that we can currently conceive.

The universe is a mysterious place, and we’re far from having all the answers. But that in itself is absolutely no argument for God.

The Atheism Tapes II - Jonathan Miller and Colin McGinn

2007-05-18T10:14:00.000-06:00

Thanks to Matt for turning me onto The Atheist Tapes. I swear I could sit around and listen to these kinds of discussions all day! In todays installment, Jonathan Miller is speaking with antitheist philosopher Colin McGinn. I was particularly interested in the second part of this three part discussion where McGinn is addressing the Euthyphro eilemma. (a dilemma that I see only problematic because of it's first principals) McGinn goes on to mention the fear many theists have about the loss of an objective morality, but then continues to speak at length about a real 'moral quality'.

In fact, it would seem his prime motivating factor for being an antitheist is because he views 'religion' in general to be immoral. I see this as yet another confirmation of what I was getting at in my last posting.

I was hoping he would describe what foundation he is anchoring his moral claims to, as he seemed to genuinely believe that he was speaking truth while asserting moral claims. Unfortunately for me, he simply attacked the Euthyphro dilemma and moved on. Ah well.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

The Atheism Tapes - Jonathan Miller and Denys Turner

2007-05-17T06:25:00.000-06:00

As I’ve not been in a position to offer any real debate myself recently, I thought I’d do the next best thing and show some other people debating the issue of religion.

The clips below are from a BBC series called ‘The Atheism Tapes’, in which Jonathan Miller interviewed various individuals about atheism. One of the most interesting, and most relevant to this blog, was the interview he conducted with Cambridge theologian Denys Turner.

I find Turner’s theological arguments incredibly shaky, and I also disagree with his characterisation of atheism, but as a model of how to conduct a debate on religion (on any subject, come to that) it’s hard to fault either man.

Part One:

Part Two

Part Three:

Enjoy.

The ground we stand on

2007-05-16T10:49:00.000-06:00

As usual Tom Freeman has been asking some good questions and making me think much harder than I would on my own. Thanks for that bro! Recently, in the context of one of our back and fourth sessions, he brought up a thought that I'd really like to explore a little further.

Allow me to set the stage. Tom fashions himself as an atheist. He has a very acute sense of right and wrong. Not wanting his sense of right and wrong to be based on mindless chemicals (read feelings), Tom has come to see the concept of moral realism as an appealing option. The problem is, at the moment Tom is flying his atheist kite and that model doesn't come equipped with a personal God who's character gives a foundation for moral realism. When faced with this Tom has been sort of half-heartedly toying with the dualist idea. But as most atheists realize, there's no answers in a theoretical dualism... just a hope.

So the question that has been coming to my mind is this: If some who consider themselves atheists can begin toying with notions such as dualism, what keeps them from belief in God? More specifically what keeps them from faith in Jesus?

It would seem that many atheists reject the God of the Bible, because they view Him as immoral...

Tom says this in response to my claiming that all morality is rooted in a posture of the heart:

"The code of behaviour is to adopt a certain posture of the heart, so that you’re then inclined to obey commandments. Never mind whether you think they’re good or bad commandments, just use your freedom of conscience to surrender your own freedom of conscience, and give up your right to ask questions of they guy in charge. “I am the way, the truth and the life” – or, as Judge Dredd puts it, “I am the law”. I’m not sold on this!"

He makes several moral objections in this comment.

1. It is wrong to go along with something you believe is morally evil
2. It is wrong to surrender your freedom to choose to the will of another isn’t a moral outlook
3. It is wrong to have someone tell you to shut your mouth and just go along with X
4. It is wrong for God to claim that He alone is the standard by which all will be measured
Tom adds: 'An outlook that involves surrendering your freedom to choose to the will of another isn’t a moral outlook'

But here's the problem. He's using a standard to say these things. Tom is not ready to say that this standard is purely subjective and only reflects the matter thats clanking around in his head. So where is this standard coming from? How can we use this moral standard to shoot down the only One from whom it could possibly be derived? The more we pursue this end, we are essentially digging out the ground we are standing on. On what then do we stand?... or do we stand at all?

So here then is my proposition. Could it be that our allegations towards towards the God of the Bible might be seen in a different light if we were open to look? Tom made a number of objections earlier, I don't find any of them to be particularly troubling. All they require to be dealt with (and they do need to be dealt with) is a little perspective. If Tom wishes to maintain that his moral objections have any weight at all, there must be a personal God from whom this standard flows. If he cannot accept that due to some kind of materialistic prejudice, then he cannot appeal to dualism either. If, however, his reluctance to acknowledge the God of the Bible is due to some real moral objection, then we have some work to do to discover where this moral standard is coming from.

As for me, I continue to maintain that God as revealed in these ancient texts (and all of creation) gives us our best shot at sustaining a objective, or 'real' moral framework.

Lastly, one could always take the position that there is a God, but He is not properly revealed in any major religion. That is indeed a valid move, but I would caution about being to quick to leap in that puddle. Let's at least hold off until we've given a proper exploration of our motives.

Hope you don't mind me picking on you a little Tom. ;-) Just know that I do this only as a means for us to discover the truth of our existence. You know I love you bud!

Drawing the fire

2007-05-02T09:29:00.000-06:00

Recently I tossed out one of my token objections to atheism in the comments section of one of Stephen Laws posts. His post had basically nothing to do with the comment I made, but I touched a nerve as I always seem to do and basically I ended up hijacking the entire comments section responding to objections to my objection. So, in the interest of drawing the fire in a different direction, I decided to move the debate over here. That way the good folks over at Stephen's blog can focus on the actual issues he raised. I will start where we left off by posting a thoughtful comment by Tom Freeman in the comments section, followed by my response. If you happen to be new to this blog, thanks for stopping in!