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?
Friday, February 22, 2013
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.
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.