I seem to be answering some of the same questions about knowledge multiple times, so I thought I'd try to bring them together under one heading.
How do we know things?
We learn things (that is, come to know them) by using our senses and our brain. We observe things and draw rational conclusions based on these observations. Things that are true can be shown to be true; that is, they are confirmed by repeated observations. When we have sufficient confidence that something is consistently true, we say that know it.
This is not to say that we claim 100% certainty, however. For example, we observe that the sun rises in the east. Repeated observations confirm that this happens every morning. It's possible that the sun could rise in the west, but this would violate everything we have learned over the generations about the laws of physics. So it's extremely likely that the sun will always rise in the east; we can say this will a very high degree of confidence. Our degree of confidence is so high we are comfortable saying that we KNOW the sun will always rise in the east.
If you do not agree with my framing of knowledge and how we know things, please offer an alternative conception, along with any objection you may have. That way, we can compare the two conceptions to see which better addresses the objection, and makes the most sense in general.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Incest
I have to admit that I don't really see anything morally wrong with incest, as long as it's between consenting adults. If you want to sleep with your brother or sister, I personally find that really really icky, but whatever. Just as long as everyone is of legal age and agrees to it willingly, why not?
Just don't ask me to join you.
The Bible, by the way, appears to tacitly condone incest. If everyone on earth is descended from the same two people (Adam and Eve) or the same family (Noah's), then incest had to have happened in the first few generations. Right?
Just don't ask me to join you.
The Bible, by the way, appears to tacitly condone incest. If everyone on earth is descended from the same two people (Adam and Eve) or the same family (Noah's), then incest had to have happened in the first few generations. Right?
Bestiality
I've been asked to comment on whether I think bestiality is moral or immoral. This (like incest) came up in a conversation about homosexuality, which makes it a red herring, since the topics have absolutely nothing to do with each. Nonetheless, I thought I'd offer my views.
I believe that bestiality is wrong because animals are not consenting adults. You're raping the poor creature, which ranks up there among the worst kinds of animal abuse I can envision. That's wrong.
While I agree that such a thing should be punished, I do think the Bible takes the punishment a little too far. If I remember my Old Testament correctly, the perpetrator is to be executed; I don't necessarily think the crime warrants that.
The Old Testament also says the animal is to be killed as well. That's a bit harsh on the poor traumatized sheep, don't you think?
I believe that bestiality is wrong because animals are not consenting adults. You're raping the poor creature, which ranks up there among the worst kinds of animal abuse I can envision. That's wrong.
While I agree that such a thing should be punished, I do think the Bible takes the punishment a little too far. If I remember my Old Testament correctly, the perpetrator is to be executed; I don't necessarily think the crime warrants that.
The Old Testament also says the animal is to be killed as well. That's a bit harsh on the poor traumatized sheep, don't you think?
Why is the Bible Not Evidence?
To borrow a choice of words from Aron-Ra:
Because it's flat out wrong about damn near everything.
The Bible makes lots of factual claims about the natural world, and a great many of them can be shown to be incorrect. For example, we know that the world is not flat (Isaiah 40:22), is not encased in a firmament (Genesis 1:6-8), and does not sit immobile on a foundation (Psalm 104:5), just to name a couple of examples.
Or, to put it another way, the Bible is NOT inerrant.
So there is no reason to believe anything simply because the Bible says so. If any claim that Bible makes is true, that claim could be verified by means or sources independent of the Bible.
Because it's flat out wrong about damn near everything.
The Bible makes lots of factual claims about the natural world, and a great many of them can be shown to be incorrect. For example, we know that the world is not flat (Isaiah 40:22), is not encased in a firmament (Genesis 1:6-8), and does not sit immobile on a foundation (Psalm 104:5), just to name a couple of examples.
Or, to put it another way, the Bible is NOT inerrant.
So there is no reason to believe anything simply because the Bible says so. If any claim that Bible makes is true, that claim could be verified by means or sources independent of the Bible.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Pornography Source Analysis
Part of my job as an information science professional is to teach people how to evaluate the quality of information sources. I have a particular interest in bias, misinformation and disinformation. Which why I love Christian Post so much. Let's have a look at a recent article of theirs on pornography for a lesson in what to look for in assessing information quality.
The first thing to look for is foundational bias. That is, is the source writing from an objective point of view, or is there a going to be a fundamental bias to everything that it produces? It can be demonstrated that Christian Post has a very strong bias against issues that run counter to the conservative Christian ideology, and that Christian Post is not above being dishonest in its coverage of these issues. For example, CP has been known to manipulate numbers, cover only one side of a story and perpetuate hoaxes. So from the outset, we know that there is a bias at work; it stands to reason that the slant of this story will go against pornography and that we should be on the lookout for dishonesty. On the basis of this bias alone, we can expect that this article will not a reliable information source.
The next thing to do is ask who wrote this article and to determine if she qualifies as an expert on the subject she's writing about. Christian Post does not provide a biography for Karen Gushta, nor does she have a Wikipedia page. A search of the top one hundred academic databases shows no results for her, which means that she has no work published in any mainstream academic journals or news outlets. Her LinkedIn page shows that she has a degrees in Education and Christianity. However, this article touches on sociology, psychology and business, which are areas in which she has no formal training. Accordingly, we can count on it to be reliable only if its claims about those subject areas are well-sourced.
Now let's look at the claims themselves, as well as what sort of support is provided for each.
Claim#1: 9 out of 10 children have "been affected" by pornography.
Affected how? We're not told. The article then changes to the claim to 9 out of 10 children have seen pornography on the internet. So the article misleadingly equates seeing pornography with suffering some sort of effect because of doing so. In addition, that statistic is sourced to Donna Rice Hughes in the February issue of World; a complete citation is not given, making it difficult for the reader to track down the source to verify it. The source turns out to be this interview, in which Hughes simply makes the claim as a bald assertion with no support or source given.
So Claim#1 is both unsupported and guilty of equivocation.
Claim#2: Pornography is readily available.
Claim#3: Pornography "looks for" viewers.
Claim#4: The porn industry makes $13 billion per year.
These claims are all attributed to Doug Carlson, and we are given another incomplete citation (bpnews.net, 5/17/2012), again making the reader work harder than necessarily to verify the source. It turns out to be this opinion piece, which cites no sources in support of those claims.
So Claims#2-4 are unsupported.
Claim#5: Pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children.
We again get an incomplete source (ProtectKids.com), but the claim is lifted verbatim from this page of that website, as are the next two claims. However, there are two issues with that source:
First, the web page claims that its information comes from studies. However, look at the citations given at the bottom of the page; they are both books. So ProtectKids is not providing the sources it's claiming to use.
Second, even if the paragraphs were properly sourced, they don't support the claim being made. The first paragraph states the cause of acting out against other children to be either molestation or pornography. We have no way to know which, since we don't know which studies the data comes from. The second paragraph does not even describe acting out against other children at all.
Since the source is clearly being dishonest, claim#5 is unsupported (and, in fact, being lied about).
Claim#6: Exposure to pornography shapes attitudes and values.
This claim has the first of the two problems that the last one did; it claims to get its information from studies but instead cites a book (in fact, the same book).
Since we're seeing exactly the same kind of misdirection as we did with claim#5, claim#6 is also unsupported.
Claim#7: Exposure to pornography interferes with a child's development and identity.
At least this section has the honesty to state that it's citing Dr. Victor Cline's book. However, books are not subject to the peer review process, so anyone can claim anything they want to. If Dr. Cline really had lots of evidence to support his claims, it would be available in the peer reviewed literature. However, a search of that literature turns up nothing written by him. In fact, the only article that mentions him characterizes him as a censorship advocate who lacks empirical support for this claims. [Tedford, T. L. (1978). UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS? THE REASONS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TWELVE WHO FAVOR CENSORSHIP. Free Speech Yearbook, 9156] So it's fair to say that Cline's claims should be taken with a sizable grain of salt.
Toward the very end of this section of the web page, we find an honest-to-goodness citation of a real live peer-reviewed article... from 1982! You'd think that if internet porn were as harmful as the Christian Post article implies, they'd have been able to find a single article since the rise of the internet that supports that idea.
Claim#7 is partially supported at best, by sources that are either not timely or are of questionable reliability.
Claim#8: Two boys claim to have been harmed by pornography.
...as though we can draw conclusions from a sample size of two. In addition, we have no way to verify these claims, since they are merely anonymous anecdotes. The are presumably drawn from this web page, which cites as its only source that prestigious bastion of scholarly research, People Magazine.
Claim#8 is unsupported.
Claim#9: Obscene pornography is illegal.
This claim is drawn from the same Donna Rice Hughes interview as Claim#1, and it is exactly the same sort of bald assertion, with no law cited or other support offered.
Claim#9 is unsupported.
Claim#10: The Obama administration has not filed any new charges against purveyors of adult pornography.
The source cited is this Politico article. It debunks the claim at the very end, stating that charges were in fact filed against John Stagliano, who was acquitted.
Claim#10 is false.
Claim#11: Kids can access pornography because so few adult film producers are prosecuted.
This claim is sourced to a 2010 interview the Donna Rice Hughes gave to Truth in Action Ministries. However, it cannot be verified because the interview is no longer accessible on that organization's website.
Claim#11 is unsupported.
Claim#12: Sexting is prevalent among high school students.
To its credit, the article cites a peer reviewed article to back up this claim (even though it only provides a partial citation, once again forcing the reader to hunt the source down). The cited article does say exactly what the article claims is does. While Cole Moreton's name is misspelled (reflecting CP's usual editorial standards), the Telegraph article also supports the point being made.
Claim #12 is SUPPORTED.
Claim#13: Prosecuting companies in control of pornographic websites would "clean up" the internet.
This claim is likely false, since the overwhelming majority of online pornography is legal on First Amendment grounds. However, since Patrick A Trueman, who is making the claim, offers nothing to back it up, we'll settle for saying that...
Claim #13 is unsupported.
Claim #14: Children can be protected from pornography by following the three suggestions given by Donna Rice Hughes.
No evidence is offered to back up the idea that these suggestions are effective.
Claim #14 is unsupported.
So for all of the bluster about what a scourge pornography is, the article could back up exactly one of its fourteen claims. Yes, sexting is prevalent, which is a problem. But this article is not about sexting specifically, it is? The purpose of this article is to roundly condemn all of pornography as harmful.
The article utterly fails to make even a marginally convincing case. Instead it relies on anecdotes, bald assertions, dodgy "experts," outdated studies and flat-out dishonesty to elicit an emotional "oh my, we must save the children" response from gullible Christian parents. It is an excellent study in disinformation.
But then, we would expect nothing less from the pious folks over at Christian Post, wouldn't we?
The first thing to look for is foundational bias. That is, is the source writing from an objective point of view, or is there a going to be a fundamental bias to everything that it produces? It can be demonstrated that Christian Post has a very strong bias against issues that run counter to the conservative Christian ideology, and that Christian Post is not above being dishonest in its coverage of these issues. For example, CP has been known to manipulate numbers, cover only one side of a story and perpetuate hoaxes. So from the outset, we know that there is a bias at work; it stands to reason that the slant of this story will go against pornography and that we should be on the lookout for dishonesty. On the basis of this bias alone, we can expect that this article will not a reliable information source.
The next thing to do is ask who wrote this article and to determine if she qualifies as an expert on the subject she's writing about. Christian Post does not provide a biography for Karen Gushta, nor does she have a Wikipedia page. A search of the top one hundred academic databases shows no results for her, which means that she has no work published in any mainstream academic journals or news outlets. Her LinkedIn page shows that she has a degrees in Education and Christianity. However, this article touches on sociology, psychology and business, which are areas in which she has no formal training. Accordingly, we can count on it to be reliable only if its claims about those subject areas are well-sourced.
Now let's look at the claims themselves, as well as what sort of support is provided for each.
Claim#1: 9 out of 10 children have "been affected" by pornography.
Affected how? We're not told. The article then changes to the claim to 9 out of 10 children have seen pornography on the internet. So the article misleadingly equates seeing pornography with suffering some sort of effect because of doing so. In addition, that statistic is sourced to Donna Rice Hughes in the February issue of World; a complete citation is not given, making it difficult for the reader to track down the source to verify it. The source turns out to be this interview, in which Hughes simply makes the claim as a bald assertion with no support or source given.
So Claim#1 is both unsupported and guilty of equivocation.
Claim#2: Pornography is readily available.
Claim#3: Pornography "looks for" viewers.
Claim#4: The porn industry makes $13 billion per year.
These claims are all attributed to Doug Carlson, and we are given another incomplete citation (bpnews.net, 5/17/2012), again making the reader work harder than necessarily to verify the source. It turns out to be this opinion piece, which cites no sources in support of those claims.
So Claims#2-4 are unsupported.
Claim#5: Pornography may incite children to act out sexually against other children.
We again get an incomplete source (ProtectKids.com), but the claim is lifted verbatim from this page of that website, as are the next two claims. However, there are two issues with that source:
First, the web page claims that its information comes from studies. However, look at the citations given at the bottom of the page; they are both books. So ProtectKids is not providing the sources it's claiming to use.
Second, even if the paragraphs were properly sourced, they don't support the claim being made. The first paragraph states the cause of acting out against other children to be either molestation or pornography. We have no way to know which, since we don't know which studies the data comes from. The second paragraph does not even describe acting out against other children at all.
Since the source is clearly being dishonest, claim#5 is unsupported (and, in fact, being lied about).
Claim#6: Exposure to pornography shapes attitudes and values.
This claim has the first of the two problems that the last one did; it claims to get its information from studies but instead cites a book (in fact, the same book).
Since we're seeing exactly the same kind of misdirection as we did with claim#5, claim#6 is also unsupported.
Claim#7: Exposure to pornography interferes with a child's development and identity.
At least this section has the honesty to state that it's citing Dr. Victor Cline's book. However, books are not subject to the peer review process, so anyone can claim anything they want to. If Dr. Cline really had lots of evidence to support his claims, it would be available in the peer reviewed literature. However, a search of that literature turns up nothing written by him. In fact, the only article that mentions him characterizes him as a censorship advocate who lacks empirical support for this claims. [Tedford, T. L. (1978). UNPROVABLE ASSUMPTIONS? THE REASONS AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF TWELVE WHO FAVOR CENSORSHIP. Free Speech Yearbook, 9156] So it's fair to say that Cline's claims should be taken with a sizable grain of salt.
Toward the very end of this section of the web page, we find an honest-to-goodness citation of a real live peer-reviewed article... from 1982! You'd think that if internet porn were as harmful as the Christian Post article implies, they'd have been able to find a single article since the rise of the internet that supports that idea.
Claim#7 is partially supported at best, by sources that are either not timely or are of questionable reliability.
Claim#8: Two boys claim to have been harmed by pornography.
...as though we can draw conclusions from a sample size of two. In addition, we have no way to verify these claims, since they are merely anonymous anecdotes. The are presumably drawn from this web page, which cites as its only source that prestigious bastion of scholarly research, People Magazine.
Claim#8 is unsupported.
Claim#9: Obscene pornography is illegal.
This claim is drawn from the same Donna Rice Hughes interview as Claim#1, and it is exactly the same sort of bald assertion, with no law cited or other support offered.
Claim#9 is unsupported.
Claim#10: The Obama administration has not filed any new charges against purveyors of adult pornography.
The source cited is this Politico article. It debunks the claim at the very end, stating that charges were in fact filed against John Stagliano, who was acquitted.
Claim#10 is false.
Claim#11: Kids can access pornography because so few adult film producers are prosecuted.
This claim is sourced to a 2010 interview the Donna Rice Hughes gave to Truth in Action Ministries. However, it cannot be verified because the interview is no longer accessible on that organization's website.
Claim#11 is unsupported.
Claim#12: Sexting is prevalent among high school students.
To its credit, the article cites a peer reviewed article to back up this claim (even though it only provides a partial citation, once again forcing the reader to hunt the source down). The cited article does say exactly what the article claims is does. While Cole Moreton's name is misspelled (reflecting CP's usual editorial standards), the Telegraph article also supports the point being made.
Claim #12 is SUPPORTED.
Claim#13: Prosecuting companies in control of pornographic websites would "clean up" the internet.
This claim is likely false, since the overwhelming majority of online pornography is legal on First Amendment grounds. However, since Patrick A Trueman, who is making the claim, offers nothing to back it up, we'll settle for saying that...
Claim #13 is unsupported.
Claim #14: Children can be protected from pornography by following the three suggestions given by Donna Rice Hughes.
No evidence is offered to back up the idea that these suggestions are effective.
Claim #14 is unsupported.
So for all of the bluster about what a scourge pornography is, the article could back up exactly one of its fourteen claims. Yes, sexting is prevalent, which is a problem. But this article is not about sexting specifically, it is? The purpose of this article is to roundly condemn all of pornography as harmful.
The article utterly fails to make even a marginally convincing case. Instead it relies on anecdotes, bald assertions, dodgy "experts," outdated studies and flat-out dishonesty to elicit an emotional "oh my, we must save the children" response from gullible Christian parents. It is an excellent study in disinformation.
But then, we would expect nothing less from the pious folks over at Christian Post, wouldn't we?
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Morality Update
There's a question that's been eating away at me for the past few days, and it has caused me to realize that I must concede a point with regard to morality.
Is morality objective or subjective?
It has been my position that morality is objective, because it is always based on happiness and suffering. However, how people conceive of those ideas changes over time and varies by culture; those conceptions are subjective. So I had concluded that morality is itself objective, but is subjectively applied.
But the question is: Is that a useful distinction?
As you no doubt know, I believe that philosophy is useless if it cannot be empirically verified. So the question becomes: How does morality, in my understanding, manifest itself in the real world?
Since it does vary over time within a culture, and among cultures at any given time, I must concede that, for all intents and purposes, morality is subjective. Since this contradicts my previous claims, I have no option but to admit that I was incorrect on this issue.
This begs the question of whose conception of morality is the right one. Well, if morality is subjective, then there is no right one. Everyone must work out as individuals what they believe to be right and wrong, based on their own consciences. To borrow an idea from Nietsche, each individual is his or her own moral authority.
However, humans have to live in societies to survive. As a result, we have to work out rules for what individuals are and are not allowed to do; these take the form of laws. So while individuals are free to do as they please according to their own sense of right and wrong, they are completely responsible for the consequences of their actions, including any societal or legal repercussions.
So that's what I've come to on this. It's never easy to revise one's beliefs based on new information, but it's important to continue to examine and understand why we believe what we do.
A personal aside to Thoughts For Young Men:
If you're inclined to consider this a victory, please do. It was your line of questioning that caused me to re-examine how I felt on this issue, ultimately resulting in my changing my tune.
Well played, sir, and thank you for that.
Is morality objective or subjective?
It has been my position that morality is objective, because it is always based on happiness and suffering. However, how people conceive of those ideas changes over time and varies by culture; those conceptions are subjective. So I had concluded that morality is itself objective, but is subjectively applied.
But the question is: Is that a useful distinction?
As you no doubt know, I believe that philosophy is useless if it cannot be empirically verified. So the question becomes: How does morality, in my understanding, manifest itself in the real world?
Since it does vary over time within a culture, and among cultures at any given time, I must concede that, for all intents and purposes, morality is subjective. Since this contradicts my previous claims, I have no option but to admit that I was incorrect on this issue.
This begs the question of whose conception of morality is the right one. Well, if morality is subjective, then there is no right one. Everyone must work out as individuals what they believe to be right and wrong, based on their own consciences. To borrow an idea from Nietsche, each individual is his or her own moral authority.
However, humans have to live in societies to survive. As a result, we have to work out rules for what individuals are and are not allowed to do; these take the form of laws. So while individuals are free to do as they please according to their own sense of right and wrong, they are completely responsible for the consequences of their actions, including any societal or legal repercussions.
So that's what I've come to on this. It's never easy to revise one's beliefs based on new information, but it's important to continue to examine and understand why we believe what we do.
A personal aside to Thoughts For Young Men:
If you're inclined to consider this a victory, please do. It was your line of questioning that caused me to re-examine how I felt on this issue, ultimately resulting in my changing my tune.
Well played, sir, and thank you for that.
Friday, February 22, 2013
More Atheism Misunderanalyzed
The liars for Jesus over at Atheism Analyzed have outdone themselves in terms of rambling nonsense in their latest post. It starts off with the usual already-refuted claims about atheism and morality, then throws in a couple of non sequiturs about elitism and totalitarianism.
But then it really rambles. See if you can count the completely unsupported claims about atheists and hate speech; I mean, really, not a single concrete example.
We then conclude with a list of bullet points ranting about liberals that have absolutely no connection to anything about atheists. The only atheist even mentioned is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a victim of threats far worse than whatever hate speech they're talking about.
I mean seriously, what the hell? Just when I thought these dishonest boneheads couldn't get any less coherent.
But then it really rambles. See if you can count the completely unsupported claims about atheists and hate speech; I mean, really, not a single concrete example.
We then conclude with a list of bullet points ranting about liberals that have absolutely no connection to anything about atheists. The only atheist even mentioned is Ayaan Hirsi Ali, herself a victim of threats far worse than whatever hate speech they're talking about.
I mean seriously, what the hell? Just when I thought these dishonest boneheads couldn't get any less coherent.
Absence of evidence
Let's say, hypothetically, that I presented you with the following story:
I have a dragon. He lives in my garage. He is invisible and is completely undetectable by any means. However, I can attest to the fact that he exists because I have had personal interactions with him. I am just not able to demonstrate his existence to you.
Do you believe that my dragon exists? Why or why not?
I have a dragon. He lives in my garage. He is invisible and is completely undetectable by any means. However, I can attest to the fact that he exists because I have had personal interactions with him. I am just not able to demonstrate his existence to you.
Do you believe that my dragon exists? Why or why not?
Latest Gay Marriage Lies from Christian Post
We haven't had a good CP article full of falsehoods about gay marriage for a while; thank goodness for this piece from Jennifer Thieme!
"True conservatives support limited government, and they understand that there are other institutions which serve to limit government power. Two of these institutions are the natural family..."
False. The government subsidizes both straight marriage and having children with a wide range of legal and financial benefits.
"...and religion."
False. The separation of church and state prevents religion and government from influencing each other. Or at least, it would, if Christian activists weren't constantly pushing for special treatment under the law for their own religion.
"In order to accommodate gay couples into the institution of marriage, all gendered words are removed from the law, words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father. These are replaced with gender-neutral words such as partner, party, applicant, and parent."
This is the beginning of an extended three-paragraph tautology. The argument is basically that if we allow gay people to get married, gay people will be allowed to get married. Well, yeah... That's the idea.
"Some on the left will ask: "How does gay marriage harm YOUR marriage?" The answer is quite simple: traditional marriage will cease to exist as a public policy."
Does that mean the government will no longer allow straight people to get married, or no longer subsidize straight marriages? No? Then it still doesn't affect YOUR marriage at all.
"Does marriage exist without sex?"
Plenty do.
"Do we really believe that it will be a good thing to eliminate traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Why not, since that won't harm anyone's marriages?
"What will society look like after a generation has passed without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Better. More people will be allowed to get married and raise children in that environment, and the law will finally treat gay and straight couples equally.
"True conservatives support limited government, and they understand that there are other institutions which serve to limit government power. Two of these institutions are the natural family..."
False. The government subsidizes both straight marriage and having children with a wide range of legal and financial benefits.
"...and religion."
False. The separation of church and state prevents religion and government from influencing each other. Or at least, it would, if Christian activists weren't constantly pushing for special treatment under the law for their own religion.
"In order to accommodate gay couples into the institution of marriage, all gendered words are removed from the law, words such as bride, groom, husband, wife, mother, father. These are replaced with gender-neutral words such as partner, party, applicant, and parent."
This is the beginning of an extended three-paragraph tautology. The argument is basically that if we allow gay people to get married, gay people will be allowed to get married. Well, yeah... That's the idea.
"Some on the left will ask: "How does gay marriage harm YOUR marriage?" The answer is quite simple: traditional marriage will cease to exist as a public policy."
Does that mean the government will no longer allow straight people to get married, or no longer subsidize straight marriages? No? Then it still doesn't affect YOUR marriage at all.
"Does marriage exist without sex?"
Plenty do.
"Do we really believe that it will be a good thing to eliminate traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Why not, since that won't harm anyone's marriages?
"What will society look like after a generation has passed without traditional marriage as a distinct policy?"
Better. More people will be allowed to get married and raise children in that environment, and the law will finally treat gay and straight couples equally.
Questions for Atheists
I went through recently and answered a few more of those "questions for atheists" lists, if anyone's interested in commenting:
http://emach.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/10-questions-every-intelligent-atheist-must-answer/
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2012/06/20-questions-atheists-struggle-to.html
http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/10-questions-for-atheists/
http://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/questions-to-ask-an-atheist/
http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/the-atheist-challenge/
http://emach.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/10-questions-every-intelligent-atheist-must-answer/
http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/2012/06/20-questions-atheists-struggle-to.html
http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/10-questions-for-atheists/
http://creationsciencestudy.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/questions-to-ask-an-atheist/
http://bittersweetend.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/the-atheist-challenge/
The Problem of Evil Isn't the Problem
One of the central issues that Christian theologians have been wrestling with since the Middle Ages is the Problem of Evil. It is based on three assumptions about God:
1) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2) God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
3) God is omnibenevolent (all-good).
If all three of these assumptions are true, why does evil exist in the world?
However, I don't think this is the central issue with those three assumptions. The Bible itself suggests that they can't all be true, regardless of the place of evil in the world.
Let's assume for the moment that God exists, and that the Bible presents an accurate representation of his character.
The only way to heaven is through faith. This implies that the most important thing in the world to God is that you believe in him and believe that Jesus is divine. If you do not, you are condemned to eternal punishment.
The conflict with the three assumptions comes not in the existence of evil, but in the existence of non-believers.
Does God not know how to convince them he exists? Then he's not omniscient.
Is God incapable of convincing them he exists? Then he's not omnipotent.
Is God unwilling to convince them he exists? Then he's not omnibenevolent.
I think the Bible provides a clear answer to at least one of those questions. Regardless of omniscience or omnipotence, God is clearly not good. In the Old Testament, he sanctions slavery, genocide and the abuse of women and children. In the New Testament, he offers vicarious redemption, the truly twisted idea that I can wrong you and SOMEONE ELSE can forgive me for that, whether you do or not.
There is no problem of evil; there is no problem of non-believers. The Bible resolves the issue quite clearly.
1) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2) God is omnipotent (all-powerful).
3) God is omnibenevolent (all-good).
If all three of these assumptions are true, why does evil exist in the world?
However, I don't think this is the central issue with those three assumptions. The Bible itself suggests that they can't all be true, regardless of the place of evil in the world.
Let's assume for the moment that God exists, and that the Bible presents an accurate representation of his character.
The only way to heaven is through faith. This implies that the most important thing in the world to God is that you believe in him and believe that Jesus is divine. If you do not, you are condemned to eternal punishment.
The conflict with the three assumptions comes not in the existence of evil, but in the existence of non-believers.
Does God not know how to convince them he exists? Then he's not omniscient.
Is God incapable of convincing them he exists? Then he's not omnipotent.
Is God unwilling to convince them he exists? Then he's not omnibenevolent.
I think the Bible provides a clear answer to at least one of those questions. Regardless of omniscience or omnipotence, God is clearly not good. In the Old Testament, he sanctions slavery, genocide and the abuse of women and children. In the New Testament, he offers vicarious redemption, the truly twisted idea that I can wrong you and SOMEONE ELSE can forgive me for that, whether you do or not.
There is no problem of evil; there is no problem of non-believers. The Bible resolves the issue quite clearly.
Today's Liar for Jesus, Bryan Taylor
I had to share this comment thread as a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as the Chewbacca Defense. Basically, you make as much noise as you can and pretend that you're having a conversation. Here are the elements of this fallacy illustrated by Bryan Taylor on that thread:
Tell everyone they're wrong while making no coherent arguments of your own.
Refuse to define any of your terms, so that you can make up their meanings as you go.
Demand and challenge sources from others, but for God's sake, don't provide any.
It really is the height of dishonesty. It's the intellectual equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears and running around in circle yelling.
Luckily, Bryan Taylor will never get far enough in any academic discipline to hold any sort of intellectual influence. Except maybe theology, where the standards are lower.
Tell everyone they're wrong while making no coherent arguments of your own.
Refuse to define any of your terms, so that you can make up their meanings as you go.
Demand and challenge sources from others, but for God's sake, don't provide any.
It really is the height of dishonesty. It's the intellectual equivalent of a child putting his fingers in his ears and running around in circle yelling.
Luckily, Bryan Taylor will never get far enough in any academic discipline to hold any sort of intellectual influence. Except maybe theology, where the standards are lower.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Morality Recap
Okay, so there's been some confusion as to what exactly my concept of morality would be. I had initially accused a few people of being dishonest in misrepresenting me on this, but I have to concede that maybe just didn't understand it. So I apologize for being hasty in that accusation. Allow me to lay it out; I will then be happy to take questions:
In my view, morality as objectively defined according to whether or not it brings about happiness or causes suffering. That action is moral which increases happiness; that action is immoral which causes suffering. This is an objective definition.
Of course, there will be some subjectivity in how happiness and suffering are determined. In some situations, they will directly conflict with each other. For example, if I shoot a home invader who was going to rape my wife, I have prevented her suffering but caused suffering to the the home invader. In these situations, a moral dilemma results.
In some cases, happiness or suffering will conflict with other ideals. For example, if I am a shiftless bum who refuses to get a job, I suffer from lack of money to buy food or pay rent. So others might volunteer to give me money to ease that suffering. However, compelling someone to give me money conflicts with other ideals, such as our right as individuals to do as we please with our money (that is, the ideal of private property), or the idea that individuals should take responsibility for themselves and get a job (that is, the ideal of personal responsibility). These situations also result in a moral dilemma.
When a person faces a moral dilemma, it is up to that person to resolve it on their own. There are no hard-and-fast rules to dictate what should be done in each situation. The individual must decide on his or her own and must be prepared to face the consequences of whatever they decided. For example, if a home invader were going to rape my wife, I'd shoot him without hesitation; I would rather face the legal consequences of doing so than face the consequences of what happens to my wife if I don't.
There are also situations in which society as a whole faces moral dilemmas. When this happens, people work together as a society to provide rules for how to resolve them. For example, the shiftless bum could apply for welfare, and society's rules would determine if he or she meets the criteria to get it.
In some cases, our personal senses of morality conflict with society's rules. For example, I believe that people should be allowed to smoke pot for fun if they want to. However, as a society, we have decided that this is against the rules (in all but two states). I have two options: follow the rules in the name of deferring to society, or break the rules in accordance with my own sense of morality. In either case, I am responsible for the consequences, and whichever I decide, I am also within my rights to work with others in society to get those rules changed.
So the bottom line is that I believe morality to be objectively defined but subjectively applied. I would never claim that my personal sense of right and wrong should be imposed on everyone, and I apologize if I ever implied as much. Ultimately, the need to live together in society forces people to work together to set rules for what is right and wrong, and these rules necessarily change over time with the desires and needs of the society. Such is the beauty of living in a society with a representative government; individuals get to participate in shaping the morality of the society as a whole.
I hope that makes more sense than how I've explained it up to this point. I'd like to thank everyone who has challenged me on various points of this, as it forces me to make sure that my ideas are well-examined and clearly-expressed.
I welcome your feedback.
In my view, morality as objectively defined according to whether or not it brings about happiness or causes suffering. That action is moral which increases happiness; that action is immoral which causes suffering. This is an objective definition.
Of course, there will be some subjectivity in how happiness and suffering are determined. In some situations, they will directly conflict with each other. For example, if I shoot a home invader who was going to rape my wife, I have prevented her suffering but caused suffering to the the home invader. In these situations, a moral dilemma results.
In some cases, happiness or suffering will conflict with other ideals. For example, if I am a shiftless bum who refuses to get a job, I suffer from lack of money to buy food or pay rent. So others might volunteer to give me money to ease that suffering. However, compelling someone to give me money conflicts with other ideals, such as our right as individuals to do as we please with our money (that is, the ideal of private property), or the idea that individuals should take responsibility for themselves and get a job (that is, the ideal of personal responsibility). These situations also result in a moral dilemma.
When a person faces a moral dilemma, it is up to that person to resolve it on their own. There are no hard-and-fast rules to dictate what should be done in each situation. The individual must decide on his or her own and must be prepared to face the consequences of whatever they decided. For example, if a home invader were going to rape my wife, I'd shoot him without hesitation; I would rather face the legal consequences of doing so than face the consequences of what happens to my wife if I don't.
There are also situations in which society as a whole faces moral dilemmas. When this happens, people work together as a society to provide rules for how to resolve them. For example, the shiftless bum could apply for welfare, and society's rules would determine if he or she meets the criteria to get it.
In some cases, our personal senses of morality conflict with society's rules. For example, I believe that people should be allowed to smoke pot for fun if they want to. However, as a society, we have decided that this is against the rules (in all but two states). I have two options: follow the rules in the name of deferring to society, or break the rules in accordance with my own sense of morality. In either case, I am responsible for the consequences, and whichever I decide, I am also within my rights to work with others in society to get those rules changed.
So the bottom line is that I believe morality to be objectively defined but subjectively applied. I would never claim that my personal sense of right and wrong should be imposed on everyone, and I apologize if I ever implied as much. Ultimately, the need to live together in society forces people to work together to set rules for what is right and wrong, and these rules necessarily change over time with the desires and needs of the society. Such is the beauty of living in a society with a representative government; individuals get to participate in shaping the morality of the society as a whole.
I hope that makes more sense than how I've explained it up to this point. I'd like to thank everyone who has challenged me on various points of this, as it forces me to make sure that my ideas are well-examined and clearly-expressed.
I welcome your feedback.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The OK Kind of Slavery
There's a slice of a conversation between myself and Thoughts For Young Men that I'd like to preserve for posterity, should he decide to challenge my view of morality in the future. This is excerpted unedited from the comments thread on this blog post. We're discussing slavery as described in Leviticus 25 and the taking of human beings as spoils of war as described in Numbers 31.
-
Do you think it is wrong for one person to own another human being if they voluntarily agree to it? There are many reasons why someone would do so, as I have explained above. As for one person owning another human being involuntarily, I believe that is wrong as I have also explained above.
Would you even be interested in an explanation of Numbers 31? Maybe not, but I'll give one for the benefit of anyone else who may read this exchange.
Consider Man #1 who kills children to offer them as sacrifices as part of his religious worship. Now, suppose Man #2 comes across him while he is about to kill a young girl out in the wilderness. Man #2 puts a stop to it by killing Man #1. There is no one else around and they are in the middle of nowhere. Should Man #1 just leave the young girl alone to fend for herself?
That is just like what happened in Numbers 31, except on a smaller scale. Taking in the young girls was an act of mercy and compassion. You are so committed to rejecting Christianity that you mistake compassion for cruelty.
Now, back to your view of morality...
Assuming you somehow find a way to resolve the issue of who decides/defines what happiness and suffering are, and how to weigh them in a given situation (which I don't believe you can), how do you know that is even the right way to determine morality? Why are happiness and suffering the defining issues? Why not something else? Your worldview is based on nothing.
-
-
Right, so you've described not one but two circumstances under which slavery is okay. I disagree with both. I think that owning another human being as property is reprehensible under any circumstances, and I believe that makes my conception of morality superior to yours. I don't really care if you believe that your morals come from God and mine come from "nothing."ReplyDelete
I invite anyone reading this to consider our two positions:
You: Slavery is sometimes okay.
Me: Slavery is never okay.
And decide for themselves who's right.
Just a couple of quick notes on your explanation of Numbers 31:
1) The only reason the girls are all alone in the wilderness is that their whole families were slaughtered by the very people about to take them as slaves.
2) Nowhere does Numbers claim that any of the girls were going to be sacrificed by the Midianites.
3) The girls are specifically described as "plunder," and 32 of them were "offered as tribute to the Lord." -
Yes, anyone can read our comments and see what we are saying. Let me summarize our positions, since your summary is misleading.Reply
Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay (just as taking a job is okay). Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt is okay (if this law were in effect in modern culture it would have minimized the recent mortgage crisis, because not as many people would have foolishly taken on debt they could not afford, and the bankers who defrauded people would be "slaves" now instead of getting million dollar bonuses).
You: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong. Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is also wrong. Someone having to work for someone else involuntarily in order to pay off a debt (or for any other reason) is also wrong.
Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? I understand that the terms of your employment may be more restricted. Your hours and responsibilities are more limited than if you sold yourself as a slave, but that is just a matter of degree, not a different kind of transaction.
Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right? That is a logical implication from what you have argued. I know that bankruptcy is allowed as part of our legal system, but is it morally right?
FYI, Biblical law allows for cancellation of debts every seven years. That would also help to minimize the debt/credit problems we have been experiencing, since lenders would know that they might not be able to collect their loan.
As for Numbers 31, my example was greatly simplified, but the basic premise is the same. Maybe I overdramatized it by saying that Man #1 was about to sacrifice the young girl. In any case, the principle is still the same. The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness, and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in.
As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds. This is typical Biblical language. The priests and Levites devoted their time to the service of the Lord, so the rest of the people were required to give them a portion. -
"Me: Slavery (kidnapping) is wrong."
Which is what I said; you have to specify the kind of slavery that you oppose, because some kinds are okay.
"Someone voluntarily selling themselves to someone else is okay"
Again, I disagree. If someone offered to sell themselves to me, to own for life and to be passed on to my children, I would say no and ask what's wrong with them.
"Do you have a job? How is that different from selling yourself? "
My employer does not own me as property.
"Do you believe that people shouldn't have to pay off their debts? Do you believe that bankruptcy is morally right?"
Irrelevant; we're talking about slavery.
"The Israelites put to death the Midianites who were condemned to death by God because of their wickedness,"
Which verses of the Bible list their specific crimes? All I can see is that they worshiped a different god, which is hardly worthy of slaughter.
"and showed compassion to their young orphaned girls by taking them in."
After murdering everyone they know. Some compassion...
"As for the fact that some of the young girls were "offered as tribute to the Lord," that simply means that the priests and Levites got some of them to raise in their househoulds."
And to do with them whatever they pleased.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Today's Liar for Jesus, Rebecca Hamilton
Check out this blog post from Catholic blogger Rebecca Hamilton.
Now have a look at the comments section. See anything that offers any more than a cursory challenge to her claims? No? That's because she's censoring them.
I submitted a comment for moderation in which I directly took on a number of the points she made, but she has thus far refused to approve it. Several other comments have been approved since then, just as long as they didn't challenge her. Hardly surprising that she would do this, given that she admits in the post that she sees any criticism of Christian views as an "attack."
But here's the kicker: The whole point of the post is to criticize atheists for mistreating people who aren't part of their own in-group. I imagine the irony is probably lost on her.
Now have a look at the comments section. See anything that offers any more than a cursory challenge to her claims? No? That's because she's censoring them.
I submitted a comment for moderation in which I directly took on a number of the points she made, but she has thus far refused to approve it. Several other comments have been approved since then, just as long as they didn't challenge her. Hardly surprising that she would do this, given that she admits in the post that she sees any criticism of Christian views as an "attack."
But here's the kicker: The whole point of the post is to criticize atheists for mistreating people who aren't part of their own in-group. I imagine the irony is probably lost on her.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Today's Liar for Jesus, Thoughts for Young Men
I've recently had a series of online exchanges with a Christian activist whom I hadn't encountered before, the disturbingly-named Thoughts for Young Men. In our first exchange, I refuted a great many false claims that he was making, to which he responded, in effect, "nuh-uh." That is, he has yet to provide coherent responses to my refutations.
However, he has begun showing up other places that I've commented and trotting out the exact same refuted claims, dishonestly implying that I have failed to address them. Accordingly, I thought I would catalog those claims, along with my responses, so that I can simply direct him here rather than rehash the same things every time I see him.
If Thoughts for Young Men is seeing this list, he is welcome to post any responses to the comments section; I would be happy to modify the list if he can support his arguments.
Atheism is a religion.
False. Atheism is a single belief, that there are no gods. It lacks any of religion's defining characteristics, including belief in the supernatural, belief in a soul separate from the body, belief in an afterlife, and so on.
Atheism necessitates belief in evolution, or vice versa.
Strawman. Atheism makes no claim about biology, and evolution makes no claim about any gods.
A variant of the preceding claim is: Someone cannot believe in both evolution and God.
False dichotomy, for the same reason as the preceding claim.
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists have no morals.
or
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists cannot make moral judgments.
Non sequitur. Because atheism makes no claims about morality, one can draw no conclusions about a person's views on morality solely on the basis of his or her being an atheist.
Atheists "steal from the Christian worldview."
Unsupported, since no explanation is given for what this means.
The Bible's factual claims are true.
False. While some of the Bible's claims can be shown to be true (for example, Jerusalem exists), a great many are demonstrably false (for example, the earth is not flat, sitting on a foundation or surrounded by a firmament). If any given factual claim made in the Bible is true, it could be verified by means other than the Bible.
There is no evidence that there is no God.
Shifting the burden of proof. Atheism is not the claim that there is no God; it is the conclusion that there is no God, based on an examination of the evidence put forth by those claiming there is one.
The Bible's morality is logical and consistent.
False. The Bible contains wildly contradictory moral imperatives. For example, we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, but it is also okay to own another human being as property.
We know the universe has a creator because the universe is a creation.
Assumed conclusion. Should be pretty self-explanatory.
Believing in evidence requires faith.
False, by definition. Faith is the belief in something regardless of whether or not evidence supports it.
Evaluation of evidence is entirely subjective.
False. While there is some subjectivity involved, there are objective considerations in determining whether any information source is credible, reliable and authoritative.
The scientific process is biased.
True, but not in the sense that is intended. The process of science is designed to produce objectively-verifiable knowledge, and in fact has an outstanding track record of doing exactly that. In that sense, it is biased against things that are false or untestable.
Atheists have no basis for believing in logic, because logic is universal, immaterial and unchanging.
False premise and non sequitur. Logic has developed over history, and even if it hadn't, that doesn't preclude someone from concluding that a god doesn't exist.
Human beings as we know them today were either created by God or happened by chance.
False dichotomy. Natural selection is not a random process.
Evolution is impossible because one "kind" of animal cannot develop into another "kind."
Presently unsupported, since no definition for "kind" has been given.
I think that about covers it. If I need to modify the list, I'll do so in the form of new blog posts, so that this one can be referred to.
However, he has begun showing up other places that I've commented and trotting out the exact same refuted claims, dishonestly implying that I have failed to address them. Accordingly, I thought I would catalog those claims, along with my responses, so that I can simply direct him here rather than rehash the same things every time I see him.
If Thoughts for Young Men is seeing this list, he is welcome to post any responses to the comments section; I would be happy to modify the list if he can support his arguments.
Atheism is a religion.
False. Atheism is a single belief, that there are no gods. It lacks any of religion's defining characteristics, including belief in the supernatural, belief in a soul separate from the body, belief in an afterlife, and so on.
Atheism necessitates belief in evolution, or vice versa.
Strawman. Atheism makes no claim about biology, and evolution makes no claim about any gods.
A variant of the preceding claim is: Someone cannot believe in both evolution and God.
False dichotomy, for the same reason as the preceding claim.
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists have no morals.
or
Because atheism makes no claims about morality, atheists cannot make moral judgments.
Non sequitur. Because atheism makes no claims about morality, one can draw no conclusions about a person's views on morality solely on the basis of his or her being an atheist.
Atheists "steal from the Christian worldview."
Unsupported, since no explanation is given for what this means.
The Bible's factual claims are true.
False. While some of the Bible's claims can be shown to be true (for example, Jerusalem exists), a great many are demonstrably false (for example, the earth is not flat, sitting on a foundation or surrounded by a firmament). If any given factual claim made in the Bible is true, it could be verified by means other than the Bible.
There is no evidence that there is no God.
Shifting the burden of proof. Atheism is not the claim that there is no God; it is the conclusion that there is no God, based on an examination of the evidence put forth by those claiming there is one.
The Bible's morality is logical and consistent.
False. The Bible contains wildly contradictory moral imperatives. For example, we are to treat others as we wish to be treated, but it is also okay to own another human being as property.
We know the universe has a creator because the universe is a creation.
Assumed conclusion. Should be pretty self-explanatory.
Believing in evidence requires faith.
False, by definition. Faith is the belief in something regardless of whether or not evidence supports it.
Evaluation of evidence is entirely subjective.
False. While there is some subjectivity involved, there are objective considerations in determining whether any information source is credible, reliable and authoritative.
The scientific process is biased.
True, but not in the sense that is intended. The process of science is designed to produce objectively-verifiable knowledge, and in fact has an outstanding track record of doing exactly that. In that sense, it is biased against things that are false or untestable.
Atheists have no basis for believing in logic, because logic is universal, immaterial and unchanging.
False premise and non sequitur. Logic has developed over history, and even if it hadn't, that doesn't preclude someone from concluding that a god doesn't exist.
Human beings as we know them today were either created by God or happened by chance.
False dichotomy. Natural selection is not a random process.
Evolution is impossible because one "kind" of animal cannot develop into another "kind."
Presently unsupported, since no definition for "kind" has been given.
I think that about covers it. If I need to modify the list, I'll do so in the form of new blog posts, so that this one can be referred to.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Gay Marriage and Children
Here is the latest sky-is-falling alarmism about same-sex marriage from Christian Post. Allow me to debunk:
The argument that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation is a strawman; there is no requirement that straight couples do so. I'm actually unable to have children, but when I got married last year, no one asked myself or my wife anything about that. The clear double-standard is strong evidence that Christian activists seek only to regulate the behavior of gay people, not to treat everyone equally.
Here's an interesting claim from the article:
"Such a shift in its meaning would remove marriage as society's foremost (and perhaps only) means for promoting the gold standard for children-a household headed by a child's own mother and father."
This is false. There is a far more effective way that society could make sure that a child's own mother and father raise the child: mandate it by law. Outlaw divorce and force couples with children below a certain age to live and raise the children together. Once again, however, it is only the behavior of gay people that they are trying to regulate.
The article then makes the point that "in a genderless marriage society, all child-rearing settings are perceived as indistinguishable." However, that's a strawman, because it includes single-parent child-rearing settings, which are not at issue. A more accurate conclusion would be to say that all two-parent child-rearing situations are perceived as indistinguishable. This is a conclusion that is well-supported by research; studies show no difference in achievement or quality of life between children raised by two straight parents and those raised by two same-gender parents. Ironically, the article points out that the courts noted this fact in the decision striking down California's Proposition 8.
The article concludes with what it admits is a slippery-slope fallacy:
"Although the ultimate outcome of redefining marriage cannot be fully foreseen from our current vantage point, the signs point to danger ahead." In fact, this outcome is readily observable in states that have already legally-recognized same-sex marriages: Gay people and straight people enjoy equal protection under the law, and the sky hasn't fallen on any of them.
The argument that marriage exists for the purpose of procreation is a strawman; there is no requirement that straight couples do so. I'm actually unable to have children, but when I got married last year, no one asked myself or my wife anything about that. The clear double-standard is strong evidence that Christian activists seek only to regulate the behavior of gay people, not to treat everyone equally.
Here's an interesting claim from the article:
"Such a shift in its meaning would remove marriage as society's foremost (and perhaps only) means for promoting the gold standard for children-a household headed by a child's own mother and father."
This is false. There is a far more effective way that society could make sure that a child's own mother and father raise the child: mandate it by law. Outlaw divorce and force couples with children below a certain age to live and raise the children together. Once again, however, it is only the behavior of gay people that they are trying to regulate.
The article then makes the point that "in a genderless marriage society, all child-rearing settings are perceived as indistinguishable." However, that's a strawman, because it includes single-parent child-rearing settings, which are not at issue. A more accurate conclusion would be to say that all two-parent child-rearing situations are perceived as indistinguishable. This is a conclusion that is well-supported by research; studies show no difference in achievement or quality of life between children raised by two straight parents and those raised by two same-gender parents. Ironically, the article points out that the courts noted this fact in the decision striking down California's Proposition 8.
The article concludes with what it admits is a slippery-slope fallacy:
"Although the ultimate outcome of redefining marriage cannot be fully foreseen from our current vantage point, the signs point to danger ahead." In fact, this outcome is readily observable in states that have already legally-recognized same-sex marriages: Gay people and straight people enjoy equal protection under the law, and the sky hasn't fallen on any of them.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Atheism Analyzed, or How to Lie for Jesus
I'd like to take a closer look at the central fallacy of the Atheism Analyzed blog.
The argument that appears over and over in the blog posts is this:
Atheism makes no claims about morality
therefore
Atheists have no morals.
However, this is a non sequitur; the conclusion does not follow from the premise. If a belief makes no claim about morality, then no conclusions can be drawn about the morals of anyone based solely on that belief. Let's apply the same logic to a different belief:
The belief that the earth goes around the sun makes no claims about morality
therefore
People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no morals.
The non sequitur becomes a bit more obvious when the context is changed.
If the author of the blog were interested in an honest discussion of morality, he would focus on what source of morality IS rather than continue to harp on a belief that he admits ISN'T.
I have personally pointed out this fallacy to the blog's author more than once; he responded by banning me. So the author is well aware that this reasoning is flawed, yet he continues to present it. This is the definition of dishonesty. He is a liar for Jesus.
And that is really the irony in all of this. Religions DO make claims about morality. If a moral system permits such blatant dishonesty and suppression of dissent, can we really say that it has anything useful to offer the world?
He banned me with the parting words that I will no longer comment on his blog. On the contrary, I look forward to continuing to do so. Watch this space for future updates.
The argument that appears over and over in the blog posts is this:
Atheism makes no claims about morality
therefore
Atheists have no morals.
However, this is a non sequitur; the conclusion does not follow from the premise. If a belief makes no claim about morality, then no conclusions can be drawn about the morals of anyone based solely on that belief. Let's apply the same logic to a different belief:
The belief that the earth goes around the sun makes no claims about morality
therefore
People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no morals.
The non sequitur becomes a bit more obvious when the context is changed.
If the author of the blog were interested in an honest discussion of morality, he would focus on what source of morality IS rather than continue to harp on a belief that he admits ISN'T.
I have personally pointed out this fallacy to the blog's author more than once; he responded by banning me. So the author is well aware that this reasoning is flawed, yet he continues to present it. This is the definition of dishonesty. He is a liar for Jesus.
And that is really the irony in all of this. Religions DO make claims about morality. If a moral system permits such blatant dishonesty and suppression of dissent, can we really say that it has anything useful to offer the world?
He banned me with the parting words that I will no longer comment on his blog. On the contrary, I look forward to continuing to do so. Watch this space for future updates.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Holy Alarmism, Christian Post!
Check out the hyperbole on this headline!
The Constitution Repealed in Ten States
The whole Consitution got repealed! Er, wait, none of it did at all; this is a story about Fourth Amendment concerns with laws in some states.
Who's responsible for this outrage? President Obama! Er, wait, the article admits that these are Bush Administration policies but blames Obama for them anyway.
One glance at the story shows the headline to be a load of crap.
But here's the thing: the concerns raised in the story are legitimate. So rather than undermining their credibility with falsehood and sensationalism, why wouldn't Christian Post just report the facts?
Oh yeah, because Christian Post is not a legitimate news source. It's propaganda; its intention is to provoke outrage, not disseminate information.
Seriously, CP readers, why do you go to a site that treats you like children? Just goes to prove you can sell anything to Christian extremists, just as long as you make it sound like you're doing it for God!
The Constitution Repealed in Ten States
The whole Consitution got repealed! Er, wait, none of it did at all; this is a story about Fourth Amendment concerns with laws in some states.
Who's responsible for this outrage? President Obama! Er, wait, the article admits that these are Bush Administration policies but blames Obama for them anyway.
One glance at the story shows the headline to be a load of crap.
But here's the thing: the concerns raised in the story are legitimate. So rather than undermining their credibility with falsehood and sensationalism, why wouldn't Christian Post just report the facts?
Oh yeah, because Christian Post is not a legitimate news source. It's propaganda; its intention is to provoke outrage, not disseminate information.
Seriously, CP readers, why do you go to a site that treats you like children? Just goes to prove you can sell anything to Christian extremists, just as long as you make it sound like you're doing it for God!
And the award goes to...
I would like to congratulate Brian Rush on being the single biggest wuss I have ever run across. Have a look at our exchange in the comments section of this post on his blog.
Not only is he unwilling to stand by the comments he made about atheists, he refuses to commit to and support any beliefs or assertions at all. At one point, he even claims not to have beliefs!
Check out the exchange and see if you can count the number of times he contradicts himself.
Seriously dude, grow a pair. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Not only is he unwilling to stand by the comments he made about atheists, he refuses to commit to and support any beliefs or assertions at all. At one point, he even claims not to have beliefs!
Check out the exchange and see if you can count the number of times he contradicts himself.
Seriously dude, grow a pair. If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Thought
I might have a go at CARM's questions for atheists. Here ya go:
“How
would you define atheism?”
Atheism is defined as the belief that
there are no gods.
“Do
you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I act
according to what I believe.
“Do
you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to
work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I don't think
it's inconsistent.
“How
sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I am quite
convinced.
“How
sure are you that your atheism is correct?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I am quite
convinced.
“How
would you define what truth is?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I would define
something as true if it can be objectively demonstrated to others.
“Why
do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I believe it
is because those claiming that a god exists have failed to provide any evidence
for their existence.
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I don't
consider myself either.
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I deny that it
is a worldview; it is the single belief that there are no gods.
“Not
all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are,
why the antagonism?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, it is because
Christian activists are making a concerted effort to gain special treatment
under the law for their beliefs.
“If
you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny
his existence?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have never
believed in the Christian god.
“Do
you believe the world would be better off without religion?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have no
opinion on the subject.
“Do
you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have no
opinion on the subject.
“Do
you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have no
opinion on the subject.
Atheism makes no claim about how god
must or must not be known.
“If
you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an
immaterial God?”
Not applicable.
“Do
we have any purpose as human beings?”
Atheism makes no claim about purpose.
“If
we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is
determined?”
Not applicable.
“Where
does morality come from?”
Atheism makes no claim about morality.
“Are
there moral absolutes?”
Atheism makes no claim about morality.
“If
there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?”
Not applicable.
“Do
you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I believe that
actions that cause grievous harm to lots of people could be described as evil.
“If
you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard
do you judge that he is bad?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I judge the
god of the Old Testament to be morally bad because his actions caused lots of
harm to lots of people.
“What
would it take for you to believe in God?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, it would take
sufficient evidence.
“What
would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I'm not sure.
But an omniscient god would know.
“Must
this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or
what?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I'm not sure.
But an omniscient god would know.
“Do
you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be
safer? Why?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I think it
depends on how dogmatic the atheists are.
“Do
you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices
without coersion).”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, yes.
“If
you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea that
the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of
the brain, can still produce free will choices?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, yes.
“If
you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever,
then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to
the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the
physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and not be
restricted by space and time? If not, why not?”
Since this question is addressed to me
personally, I do not answer it on behalf of atheism. Personally, I have opinion
on the subject.
“If
you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying
that it is probable that some sort of God exists?”
Not applicable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
I also invite anyone to read Numbers 31, in which God's followers take virgin girls as spoils of war. So this whole nonsense about it not reeeeeally being slavery is simply false.
Unless you are willing to take a stand right here and condemn to practice of owning another human as property, under any circumstances, then I don't really care whether your morality is objective or subjective; either way, it's worthless in any civilized society.