Listen to the MP3 This week I begin my review of Christopher Hitchens, “God is not Great,” the third of the big three in the current crop of atheist books. In some respects, Hitchens’ offering is much better as it seems to have a deeper understanding of religion, than Sam Harris’ The End Of Faith, or Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion”, but it is much more uneven as serious argument is suddenly marred by outbursts that are little more than cheap shots, hatred and at times bigotry. Still Hitchens arguments, while often better stated, share many of the same problems I have already discussed in my reviews of Harris’ and Dawkins’ books. For example, early on in chapter One Hitchens attempts to describe what atheism is, or at least, what it is not. “Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason… we do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning “punctuated evolution” and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication.” (pg 5) Now there are several problems is this passage. First I have to admit that I find this somewhat amusing for a rather abstract reason. At various times in the history of Christianity something referred to as negative theology has been popular. Negative theology is the attempt to describe God by saying what he is not, as in statements such as God is not a created being. One of the criticisms of negative theology is that such negations ultimately say very little if anything. Which is somewhat how I felt after reading Hitchens definition of atheism; as the more I read it, the less it seemed to say. And this goes to the heart of one of the problems with atheists’ arguments. If Hitchens’ definition above is read very strictly, it says little more than that there is no organization in atheist belief and that while they may share some things in common there really is no such thing as atheism. For example, I have had many self-proclaimed atheist say that they rely solely on science and reason. But this flatly contradicts Hitchens’ negative definition of atheism. So are these people atheists? But that is the thing about atheists, while they believe that the religious are a coherent group where anyone who is religious must defend anything ever done by anyone else who was religious, whatever their motive, or how nominal their belief, atheism on the other hand is not a group, or as Hitchens put it, not a belief or faith. They as atheists never have to defend what others atheists have done, unless of course they like what they did, then they can claim it as an expression of atheism. You can see this in his claim that a “proper statistical inquiry” would find that “the faithful” commit more crimes of greed or violence than atheists. If “the faithful” is defined broad enough, and “atheist” narrow enough, I have no doubt that this would be true, but it would only be as valid as the definitions. The recent Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey claims that 78.4% of Americans are Christians and 89.7% are religious, while only 10.3% are secular, with only 1.6% claiming to be Atheists. Given these statistics I am sure that the nearly 90% who are religious would have a higher rate of violent criminality than the 1.6% who are atheists. But, I am also sure that most pastors would be happy if just everyone who attended Church regularly, about half of those who claim to be religious, were fully committed to serving the Lord. But most atheist lump all believers from all religious beliefs together as if they were the same. As for his statement that “we do not hold our convictions dogmatically” such claims are often only in the eye of the beholder. One only has to point out one of the many problems with evolution, to an atheist to see a display of dogmatism in action. In addition, as I point out in my book, Christianity and Secularism, everyone has beliefs that ultimate must depend on faith to some extent. This includes atheists. So while atheists like to portray themselves as driven by reason and evidence while theist are driven by dogmatism and faith, such a view is not only self-serving, but false. There are quite large difference among Christians on a whole range of issues such as was the earth created in 7 literal days less than 10,000 years ago, or is the earth billions of years old? Even Christians who believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, can be found on both sides of this question, and contrary to Hitchens implications, most get along quite nicely, often worshipping together. Sure if one judges all religions and all followers as essentially the same, and focuses on the worst actions of the followers of religion, then religion comes off pretty bad. But then if you focus only on the negative, anything can be rejected. But if one looks at the larger picture, weight both the pros and cons, the picture is nowhere near as bad as Hitchens tries to paint it, and in fact Christianity come off quite well. This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

 Listen to the MP3

 

Dec 14, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  Last time I looked at the issue of Free Inquiry and the skeptic’s false claim that they were free to go wherever the evidence leads, while Christians were limited by their religious beliefs.  But there is a deeper more subtle problem with the skeptic’s claim that they are free to go wherever the evidence leads them.  This problem concerns freedom itself.

Inherent in the skeptic’s belief to be free is the belief that they are free to make a decisions.  In fact much of the skeptic’s criticism of religion centers around the concept of freedom.  Skeptics believe that Christians surrender their freedom to false religious beliefs.  Christians choose certain behaviors, not because they want to, but because the Bible says so. The problem for the skeptic, however, is how they can account for this freedom in the first place. 

Now this problem can be difficult to see because the freedom to choose is something we all just take for granted.  Of course we have a freedom to choose.  Our entire view of our daily lives, our interactions with others and everything we do is dependent upon our freedom to choose.  In fact it is difficult to conceive of how we would view the world if we didn’t make the assumption that we have a freedom to choose.  For example, the entire legal system and its concept of punishment for crimes is based on the assumption that the criminal had a choice whether or not to commit the crime.

The problem for the skeptic is not so much that we have free will, but rather how can they explain that we have free will.  While the concept of free will is difficult for every one religious believers and skeptics alike, it is particularly difficult for the skeptic who has a naturalistic view of the world.  For the skeptic, the natural universe governed by natural laws is the only thing that exists.  Miracles are rejected because they would violate the laws of nature.  For the skeptic, everything is governed by the laws of nature.  There is no room for God.

What the skeptic often over looks is that free will, the freedom to choose, is inconsistent with their naturalistic view of a universe governed by natural law.  Now again, this can be difficult to see because the idea that we have free will, that we have the freedom to make some decisions, is something we just take for granted.  We don’t even think about it.  We certainly don’t spend a lot of time thinking about how it can happen.

For the skeptic, we’re simply animals, the result of a long evolutionary process.  Our origin and everything about us, just like everything else in the universe, can be explained by the laws of nature.  There is no soul.  There’s nothing beyond the material body.  Our actions are completely explained by the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain and in the rest of our body, or at least will be once science can figure everything out.  But therein lies the problem.  If everything can be explained by the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain and in our body, where is there room for freedom of choice?

Now skeptics often claim that what we call consciousness is the result of the electrochemical interactions in the brain, and it is our consciousness that makes our decisions.  But while this may be a nice explanation for the skeptic, again how does this happen.  Even if for sake of argument we assume that they are correct and consciousness is nothing more than the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain, how do those electrochemical interactions actually make the choice?

The simple fact is that the concept of choice is incompatible with a universe governed by natural laws.  A rock falling down the side of a cliff, does not make a choice to bounce right or left when it hits the side of the cliff.  Every aspect of its fall is determined by the laws of nature.  A choice, on the other hand, transcends the laws of nature.  It is not determined by the laws of nature; it is determined by something else.  If it was determined by the laws of nature it would not be a choice. 

So if choice is nothing more than the result of consciousness which is itself the result of the electrochemical interactions taking place in our brain, then at some point these electrochemical interactions that are governed by the laws of nature must somehow transcend the laws of nature so as to make a choice.

But if skeptics are correct and somehow our consciousness does transcend the laws of nature so as to make a choice, than this would violate one of their fundamental starting premise is which is that everything is governed by the laws of nature.

So the skeptic is caught in a real quandary.  They must either deny freewill, which is virtually impossible for them to account for anyway, or they must accept that there are things that are not governed by the laws of nature.  If they deny freewill, they are denying something so obvious that we simply take it for granted. Yet if they accept that there are some things not governed by the laws of nature, they deny one of their fundamental premises. Either way they have major problems.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Listen to the MP3

Dec 7, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  An issue that commonly comes up in discussions with skeptics is the role of free inquiry.  Skeptics frequently see themselves as being free to ask questions and to go wherever the answers may take them, while religious believers are bound by the teachings of their religion.  Religion then, is automatically seen as bad because it limits our ability to learn.  As with many of the criticisms of skeptics this view is not only self-serving, but false.

Built into our very being is the desire to seek explanations.  Parents see this desire all the time in young children and their seemingly never ending question of “Why?”  To be sure these questions can at times be very frustrating for the parent, or even teacher, who has reached the limits of their own personal knowledge, but such questions are the foundation of our quest for knowledge, of our seeking to understand.

Over time, most cultures have decided that questions can dangerous to the status quo, and this decision is not completely without reason.  All societies are based on some sort of agreement, either formal, as in the case of laws, or informal as in the rules of etiquette.   Some of these agreements are arbitrary, such as where on the road should one drive. But just imagine what would happen if tomorrow the societal agreement about driving was somehow removed from everyone’s memory. It would be chaos. And this is just driving.  Such societal norms govern virtually every aspect of our interactions with each other, often without our even realizing it. For us, the reasons are lost in antiquity and it is now just how things are done. 

Thus there is, and must be, some sort of balance between norms and questions.  Societies that stress the norms too much stagnate.  Societies that question the norms too much, loose the cohesion to remain a society and collapse. Loss of societal cohesion was one of the factors in the fall of Rome.

So whether from desire to maintain society, or just simply the frustration at not knowing the answers, at some point all societies teach their children to limit their questions in some fashion. 

One of the things that made Western Civilization different is that at during some periods in our history there have been groups that encouraged questions, beginning with the early Greek city states. Granted such freedom of thought was not unlimited, nor necessarily was it for the general public, as questions could still lead to dangerous ideas that could undermine society.  But it was allowed for a few, and still had some limits, as Socrates sadly found out.

As we saw last time, contrary to how history is commonly taught, this freedom of inquiry appeared again in the Middle Ages.  The Middle Ages were a time or great intellectual development that, rather than suppressing inquiry, actually laid the intellectual foundations for the Renaissance and modern science.  To be sure there still were some limits on inquiry, and a thinker who strayed too far beyond those limits could find themselves, like Socrates, in trouble.

Modern critics act as if these limits were some sort of aberration to be condemned.  The problem is that, at least until very recently, the norm has never been free inquiry, but rather limits on inquiry and normally quite strong limits.  What was unique about the Middle Ages was not that there were limits, but rather that those limits were loosen enough to allow for intellectual development, development that led to things like our current understanding of human rights, democracy and science. In addition these were not seen as contrary to Christianity, but were developed from it.  The origin of Human Rights for examine has its roots in the belief that we are all created in the image of God, and what God has given no one can arbitrarily take away, not even the King.

Contrary to the skeptic’s self-perception, they also have limits on inquiry.  During the Middle Ages, if one questioned church orthodoxy, one could be in trouble. Today, if one questions scientific orthodoxy, one can also be in trouble. The history of science if full of people who questioned the established science of their time, to find themselves ridiculed, rejected, denied employment, or otherwise punished. The theories of some of these people were later shown to be correct and have since become part of the established science of today. 

This limiting of inquiry continues today, as scientists who question the theory evolution a little too much, or who begin to consider the possibility of intelligent design have found out. The only thing that has really changed is where the limits are and what the societal norms for punishment should be if one challenges those limits.  Contrary to the charges of skeptics the punishment during the Middle Ages was not always burning at the stake. As with most things punishment was determined by the norms of the time. During some periods it was simply excommunication from the church.

So the skeptic’s view that religion limits inquiry while they are free, is simply false. While it is true that Christians have at time suppressed inquiry, history shows that this is the norm. It is also true that contrary to the norm, Christians played a role in expanding inquiry.  After all as Paul wrote, “Test everything, hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 4:7)

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.  

 

Listen to the MP3

 

Nov 30, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  One huge difference between Christians and their critics is the framework in which judgments are made. Often it is the differences in the framework which results in their vastly different conclusions, more than the actual evidence.  One key difference is over one’s view of history.

Critics often see religion in general, and Christianity in specific, as a vastly negative force in history.  For example, they see the Middle Ages as the “Dark Ages” where the former brilliance of Rome was suppressed by the Church. When the iron grip of the Church weakened, this former brilliance broke free again in the Renaissance.  In fact for them the Western History of the last 1500 years has been marked by a struggle to break free of the Church and its flat earth view of the world, so as to embrace a more rational view based on science. 

Despite the popularity of such thinking is it nevertheless false and misleading.  For example, it never was church doctrine that the earth was flat, nor did even a large number of Christians believe in a flat earth.  This is a myth that originated among the critics of Christianity in the 18^th century.  As for the so-called Dark Ages, historians have long since realized that this was a somewhat self-serving view of history spawned by those in the Renaissance who saw themselves as restoring the glories of Rome, and not an accurate depiction of the  period historians now refer to as the Middle Ages.  

In reality the Middle Ages were a time or great intellectual development that, rather than suppressing inquiry, actually laid the intellectual foundations for the Renaissance and modern science.  It was from the so-called Dark Ages of Church repression that we see the origin of Universities, the beginning of experimental science, and many discoveries and innovations like the incorporation of things like the decimal system and gunpowder. It is from this period we see the invention of eyeglasses, pendulum clocks and the compass. Magna Carta comes from this period, as does the jury system and habeas corpus, along with the beginnings of representative government in the English Parliament, and the French Estates-General.   

As the historian Will Durant summarized it “It would be unwise to look down with hybritic pride upon a period that produced so many great men and women.” Durant went on to add “we shall never do justice to the Middle Ages until we see the Italian Renaissance not as their repudiation but as their fulfillment.” (Age of Faith, pg  1082, 1085)

To be sure, not everything was rosy. Like any period in history the complete picture was far more mixed. When compared with today’s standards, the Middle Ages often fall short.   But judging the Middle Ages by today’s standards about as valid as saying that Newton, Galileo, or other early scientist, didn’t even know what would now be called High School science, and therefore were stupid.  

A more accurate standard would be to judge based on the historical norm up to the period in question.  This is why Newton and Galileo are seen as great. While they may not have passed a High School science test of today, they made discoveries and scientific advances unknown until then.  

Unfortunately, history is so badly taught, and poorly understood, that the average person has little understanding of even recent history (or in some cases even current events outside of sports or music).  This lack of any historical understanding is why Britain and America are frequently condemned for having slaves.  Until recently, slavery was an almost universal institution, and one that still exists in some areas even today. Thus what was aberrational about Britain and America was not that they had slaves, but that they led the way in abolishing the slave trade and then slavery itself. 

Significantly other notable exceptions to the historical norm of slavery were Ancient Israel, and the Middle Ages.  While the Bible allowed slavery, it regulated it to the point that slavery virtually disappeared from Ancient Israel. Likewise, during the Middle Ages, under the influence of the Church slavery disappeared from most of Western Europe, only to be reintroduced after the Middle Ages.

Another example would be that, while we frequently hear of the atrocities committed by the early settlers of the Americas on the native inhabitants, one of the reasons we are able to do this is that the atrocities were documented by early churchmen seeking help in stopping them. Until then such atrocities were the norm, what was aberrational was the attempt to prevent them.

 So when judging the actions of those in the past, we must be careful to factor in what was historically the norm for their time.  What if in a couple of centuries from now, standards have change such that eating meat, driving your own car, watching football, or anything number of things we current do without a second thought, is then seen as barbaric and/or immoral? Would we consider ourselves fairly condemned for our failure to follow such future standards? 

Instead of focusing on condemning those who followed the norm of their time, would it not be better to focus on those who broke from the norm to help bring us our modern understanding? But to do this would in many cases, be to acknowledge the positive impact of Christians, such as those in the forefront of the anti-Slavery movement.   

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

The recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton by Carole Simpson, formally of ABC News, has one again fanned the seemingly eternal embers of debate about press bias.  For conservatives there was hardly anything new or surprising that a former reporter, now college president would endorse Clinton.  That is about as dog-bites-man as you can get. The only surprise would have been if she had endorsed a conservative, but given the bias of her past reporting, that was not going to happen. 

But, while this was yet another piece of evidence for the liberal bias of the mainstream media, as if any more was actually needed, the utter denial of bias by liberals is yet another example of their near complete refusal or inability to deal with any facts that do not fit their view of reality.   Now we all do this to some degree, and in fact we are trained to do so.  We all have a mental picture of the reality around us. As we encounter something new it either fits our mental framework or is simply ignored as irrelevant.  This is how we form our perception of the world around us.

But perception is not always reality.  When I would train teachers on how to teach critical thinking, one of the things I would do is ask questions about some slides I would show.  The teachers knew we were talking about perception, and they knew the slides were to show how they missed things. So they were on their guard.   And yet almost all still failed to see what was obvious once it was pointed out and were puzzled as to how they could have missed it.

So that Liberals miss the overwhelmingly liberal bias of the news is not all that surprising. What is surprising is their steadfast denials; denials that are nearly complete immunity to contrary evidence no matter how much or how clear.  In the example above, while the teachers were amazed at what they had overlooked, none tried to maintain that it did not exist once it was pointed out.  And yet liberals continue to maintain the objectivity of the press despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

This is because not only does liberal bias conflict with their world view, in many respects so does the evidence for it.   Liberalism is a form of existential narcissism.  It is existential in that it is primarily concerned with the here and now.  Previous failures are in the past, and thus do not matter.  Any consequences are in the future, and thus do not exist. The only thing that matter is the here and now.  It is narcissistic in that it focuses on the self and in particular one’s feelings.

Thus for global warming, the fact that such environmental scares have been a consistent feature of the left for the last 50 years and have all turned out to be wrong is not relevant to the current scare, that ‘s the past.  That the future consequences of their proposed actions would cause tremendous suffering and harm without actually do much to solve the problem, is not a factor.  We can’t really know the future. The only thing that matters is the current threat, and what “I” can do about it. “I” can change my light-blubs; “I”  can drive a hybrid;  “I” can by carbon credits; “I” can support  environmental  groups and candidates.  Even if this actually doesn’t really help the problem, “I” am at least trying to do something, and “I” can feel good about that. 

The narcissistic nature of liberalism also explains the emphasis on intentions for liberal.  What actually happened is not really under their control, but what they can control is their intentions.  For many intentions become primary, such as in hate-crime legislation.  

This emphasis on intentions, combined with the general narcissistic nature of liberalism, means that everything is judged by the self.  “I” want what is good, and if you do not want what “I” want, then you must not be good.  This is why, while most conservatives tend to think that liberals are mistaken in their policies and ideas, liberals tend to think that conservatives are bad people, greedy, selfish, etc.  In its extreme form this is currently expressed as Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Since everything is judged by the self, how could a liberal be biased? Their views just are.  They are not really even liberal, they are just expression of reality.  Thus were conservatives see tremendous bias in the major news media, liberals see simply reporting that agrees with their view, and since their view is not really liberal, but rather an expression of reality, the reporting is therefore just reporting reality, and how can that be biased?  Reporting that differs from their view of reality, does not correct their view, but is dismissed as bias.  Thus Fox news is bias because it presents both sides.

This also explains the very strange belief among reporters that they are objective as long as they don’t tell you what they support. Bias is saying you biased.   If “I” don’t tell you, then you cannot know “I” have bias and therefore it does not exist.  The idea that bias might actually exist in the way they write the story, regardless of what they say, does not seem to even be within the realm of possibility. After all they are just reporting reality.

So that Simpson now is publically supporting Clinton, for the liberals, says nothing about her past reporting. In fact, it would seem that her biggest crime was that she said it.  But even here there is no big problem, for as one Liberal said in Simpson’s defense, supporting Clinton is not really an expression of liberalism.  I guess not, after all isn’t that what any objective person not tainted by greed or selfishness would do?

There is a common perception, particularly among those who see themselves as independent thinkers, that the so called ideologues on both sides are the real problem because they put their ideology ahead of the good of the country.  Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly recently expressed a version of this perception when he said that he didn’t care which side won, he just wanted people who would be “problem solvers” who would come in and fix things.

There are a couple of things wrong with such a view.  One problem is that it is uncritically self-serving.   It tends to be uncritical in that it dismisses those on the right and the left as biased towards their ideology while it sees the “independent thinker” as better because they are above the fray.  The independent thinker does not get involved in fights between the various sides as they see this as little more than partisan bickering aimed more at winning than at getting things done.  

Now there is certainly some truth in all this, as there are those on both sides of the spectrum for whom winning trumps all. But I do not believe this is an accurate generalization for this perception fails to realize is that there is in reality no such thing as just solving a problem.  To solve a problem one must,

1)      Realize that there is a problem.

2)      Understand the scope and reasons for the problem.

3)      Come up with a basic approach for a solution.

4)      Work out the details of the solution to be implemented.

5)      Implement the solution

6)      Test the solution to see if it works. 

Only if the last step gives a positive result can there said to be a solution.  The problem is that many independent thinkers tend to act as if they are the only ones interested in reaching a solution, while the Ideologues are just too busy with defeating the other side.

 In reality most people, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum want a positive result to step 6.  For the most part, what the independent thinkers regards as partisan bickering are really disagreements over steps 1-4, and as a result of these disagreements, we never reach steps 5 or 6 on a whole range of issues.

One good example of this can be seen in the debate over Social Security.  Now there is general agreement among most that there is a problem particularly the farther into the future you go. However this is not universal. When we come to point two, there is a major difference between Right and Left, for the Left sees Social Security as basically a sound programs that has a funding problem, whereas the Right sees it as inherently structurally flawed.  This leads to little agreement over step 3, the basic approach to a solution, which means that we never even get to the rest of the steps required for a solution. 

The Left wants to basically keep Social Security as it is, and change the benefits and/or taxes to bring it back into balance.  The Right wants to fundamentally change how the program works so as to be closer to individual retirement accounts.  These basic approaches for a solution are mutually exclusive.  You cannot keep Social Security basically as it is, and radically change it at the same time. The reason neither side has solved this problem is that there is not enough of a consensus on either side to pass a bill.

Asking for a “problems solver” in this case makes little sense and it is counterproductive.  It does not make sense because the basic dispute is not over should we solve the problem, with the independent thinkers coming down decisively on the side of solving it, but rather the dispute is over the scope and nature of the problem, a dispute which then leads the respective sides to propose fundamentally different approaches. 

Nor can the independent thinker realistically say that it does not make a difference, either way is fine, because proposals of each side are mutually exclusive.  If the Left is correct, and the basic system is sound, then the Right’s proposals could end up causing more problems, by replacing a sound system with one that is unsound.  On the other hand, if the Right is correct, and the basic system is unsound, then the Left’s proposals would at best only delay fixing the problem. The time lost to discover this error would only allow the problem to get worst and even harder to solve. 

While many bills can be passed by splitting the difference, for such a difference there is really no such thing, you either keep the basic system or you change it.  To sort of change it is akin to being sort of pregnant, there really is no middle ground, and political compromises that allow politicians to claim a solution for the next election tend to result in the worst of both world rather than any solution.

Thus asking for a “problem solver” is counterproductive as it not only diverts attention away from the real problem, but it diverts it onto the very people that are at least actively trying to solve it.  Thus we are currently at a stalemate, not only on Social Security reform, but on a whole range of other issues, such as Public education, Health Care, etc.  The only way to break the stalemate is if enough of a consensus forms around one of the options so that effective legislation can become law.   Yet this requires that the independent thinker pick a side. While to do so would make them a partisan, at least it would be for the good of the country.

Listen to the MP3

Nov 16, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  Interest and discussion concerning Zeitgeist, The Movie and my three part review continues to grow, so this week I thought I would address a point that recently came up in a couple of relies to my review. These replies started out by agreeing with my review.  One began, “this movie is based on incorrect facts.”  Another said, “I am a Christian and I realize Zeitgeist part one was a complete total lie.”

But after agreeing, they went on to claim other grand conspiracies.  The first writer went on to claim that while Zeitgeist was based on incorrect facts, the same could be said for the Bible, and religion was simply a means to control the masses and enslave them.  The other writer said, “I believe the rest of the movie is true and that the US government had everything to do with [911]” and that “most Christians now believe 911 was an inside job, Satan is in control of our government.”

Both of these replies demonstrate in their own way the persistence of these grand conspiracy theories.  Part of this is simply the flawed and often dishonest way in which they presented.  We have a general, and somewhat necessary, view that people are honest.  Even people who claim not to trust anyone still do a lot of trusting in their day to day lives. So when we hear someone telling something, there is a tendency to accept it unless we have a reason not to.

For example, one of the reasons the Christian writer gave that Parts II and III of Zeitgeist should believed even though part one was flawed is that there is a “video of Larry Silverstein admitting he demoed building 7.” Now a video of the building’s owner admitting that he was the one responsible for bringing down the building, rather than the terrorist would be pretty powerful evidence.  But the actual situation is a good example of how these grand conspiracy theories work.

Now there is video of the owner, but what he says is “pull it.”  The conspiracy theorists claim “pull it” is jargon which refers to bringing down a building by explosives, and thus their claim that the owner ordered the building brought down.  So even when those who do check out this claim see the video, they will see just what the theorist have led them to see, Silverstein given the command to “pull it.”  While this is conclusive evidence for the conspiracy theorists, and at first blush seems at least plausible, the problem is that there are other, and better, understandings of Silverstein’s statement.

Frankly given that he was talking to the Fire Department commander and his stated purpose in the video was to not to risk further loss of life,  I find Silverstein’s own explanation that this referred to stopping the effort to put out the fires to be far more likely.  After all if the building were to be demolished by explosives, it is extremely unlikely that the NYFD would have been in on any such conspiracy, given the number of firefighters who heroically gave their lives that day.

This is just one piece of evidence, and conspiracy theories are built upon a seaming endless stream of such claims. When people do take the time to refute them, they are often simply rejected, a part of the conspiracy.  Thus when I pointed out some of the refutations of the 911 conspiracy to the Christian writer defending them I was told that they were done by organizations that were “all run by a secret society called FREE MASONS.” Not only do these theory slant evidence to support them, they have a built in way of rejecting any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.  

Paul tells us that in the last days, people “will gather around them a great number of teachers, to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (2 tim 4:3-4)   

There is a very simply principle: truth cannot be grounded in error. As we try to reach the world with the truth of the Gospel, we must be doubly careful not mix it with error.  This is not a new problem. There is always a great temptation to having secret knowledge, to know what others do not; to be in on the secret.  During the time of the early church, this desire expressed itself in the form of Gnosticism, a religious movement based on secret knowledge that competed with Christianity in the second century. 

The conspiracy theorists of today are the modern Gnostics. Laura Curtis summarized this nicely in her blog Suspending Disbelief, when she wrote “Like Gnostics, they are the Chosen Ones, privy to information the rest of us can’t comprehend. They’re special. Part of an elite few. We can’t handle the truth! They are the messiah, here to save us from our own dangerous ignorance.”

One of the worst aspects of these conspiracy theories is that there is real evil in the world and these theories only divert our attention away from it. One does not need to be a Bush supporter to believe that Islamic terrorism is both real and evil. It existed long before Bush, and will exist long after he is out of office.

As Paul said, “test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thess 5:21-22) 

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Other than on talk radio, liberalism dominates most aspects of our culture, such as the news and entertainment media and academia.  This domination gives liberals five huge advantages that allow them to perpetuate their dominance even though the policies that they support have been demonstrated time and time again to have failed, while conservative policies have been show to have worked.

The first and most obvious is simply their ability to filter and control what people hear.  As I heard a Democratic Senator say shortly after the 2000 elections, the problem with Fox News was that they let the Republicans “get their message out.”  

Similar to this is the ability to shape perceptions.  The view presented of most Republican leaders is that they are either out of touch, dumb, heartless, corrupt, or some combination of the above.  Ronald Regan was a dumb actor who was reading his lines.  George Bush 41 was out of touch. Dan Quayle was dumb. Newt Gingrich was heartless, and the current president is just a dumb cowboy.  That these perceptions are untrue does not seem to matter. The current president, for example, is not only a reader, but a serious one at that, going through over 100 books a year, and with such depth, as to impress at least one author with his thoughtful analysis of the author’s book.  One wonders just how many books those critical of Bush have read in the last year? But such facts are irrelevant, and the perception left by the media is that Bush is just a dumb cowboy.

In addition to the ability to slant the debate, and shape perception, the liberal dominance also allows them to effectively rewrite history, at least to some extent, even recent history.  This is because memories get hazy with the passage of time, and eventually the only thing most “remember” is the liberal view that is repeated over and over. 

For example, many people remember how the anti-war movement forced us out of Vietnam and the pictures of the last helicopter lifting off from our embassy.  What they don’t remember is that Nixon negotiated a peace agreement 1972 that ended the war, removed our troops and brought home our PO; this in 1973.   It was only later, that the anti-war movement in Congress, ensured our defeat of South Vietnam, by among other things drastically cutting the aid we had promised.  So in reality the antiwar movement did not end the war, as the war was already over, they did ensure that the peace became a defeat.

Another example would be the conformation of Clarence Thomas.   In polls taken immediately following a debate that was far too controversial for the liberal media to control, the majority of the American people believed Thomas, and for good reason, as there were simply too many holes in the charges against him.   But in the years since the confirmation, the media has kept at it and as memories faded, and the assaults on Thomas continued, they slowly reversed public opinion.  

The last two benefits of the liberal dominance come from their control of academia. The first and clearest is that it provides a source of “experts” who can be counted on to make the case for liberalism, or to counter the argument of conservatives.  Given the liberal dominance of the news media, these liberal “experts” are often presented as objective and unbiased.

Finally academia can be counted upon to provide a steady stream of new studies to support the claims of liberals.  This is extremely important as the newer studies are always given precedence over older studies.  Thus it does not matter, how much of liberalism is refuted, for liberalism is an ever moving target.  Once DDT was the big problem requiring government action; by the time it had been refuted, it had already been replaced by a new scare overpopulation. Before overpopulation could be refuted, it was replaced by global cooling, before global cooling could be refuted, it was global warming.   This concept of a moving target occurs even within these large debates.  Most of the earlier studies warning of Global warming have long since called into serious question or even refuted. But no matter there is a steady stream of new studies to bolster the case.

To make matters worse it is not limited to a single issue, but the same tactics are used on a whole range of topics from global warming, anti-smoking, schools, health care, the economy, virtually everything liberals are interested in.  All used new studies to claim there is a crisis which only government can solve. By the time the studies are analyzed and the problems pointed out, it no longer matters, because more recent studies will have “confirm” the crisis or raised some new crisis requiring government intervention.

In short the failures, mistakes, and errors of liberals are never really examined. In fact the successes of conservatives are often attributed to liberals. For example, if you look at the economic data, it is pretty clear that Clinton inherited from Bush 41 a growing economy which stagnated when Clinton increased taxes.  Then when the Republican won control of Congress in 1994 and push through tax cuts, the economy took off for the remained of the decade, allowing to Republicans to push through a balanced budget over Clintons objections.  Yet this is now presented in the media, as Clinton inherited failing economy from Bush 41 and by raising taxes, caused the economic boom of 1990s and balanced the budget.

Given their ability to filter information, shape perceptions, rewrite history, combined with their liberal experts, and the constant source of supporting studies, it is a wonder that conservatives ever win.  But they do. And as the importance of alternative media grows, the effectiveness of the liberal dominance will decline until like the old Soviet Union, it will implode. And like the Soviet Union, that implosion may happen much quicker and sooner than anyone expects.

 

Listen to the MP3

 

Nov 9, 2007, Wausau, Wi —  Last time in my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at the flaws in the first three point of what Dawkins calls “the central argument of my book.”  Again, he summarizes this argument in the following six points:

1 – The appearance of design is one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect.

2 – The temptation is to attribute design to a designer.

3 – The designer hypothesis is false because it does not explain who designed the designer. 

4 – Evolution, the best explanation so far, shows that design at least for biology is an illusion.

5 – Since in evolution, apparent design is an illusion, it could be an illusion in other areas such as physics.

6 – We should not give up hope of finding better explanations elsewhere and the
weak explanations we do have are better than the explanations that rely on God.

When we come to point four, that evolution shows that design in biology is an illusion; this of course assumes that not only is evolution a valid theory for the origin of new life forms and biological structures, but that it is a completely explanation.

Space here does not permit a discussion of all the problems with evolutionary theory, and in any event, these are well discussed elsewhere. So I will just mention two points that cast serious doubt on Dawkins argument. The first is that the problems with evolutionary theory have not decreased over the years, as our understanding has grown, but rather have increased to the point that, as I discuss in my book Evidence for the Bible, even the definition of evolution itself is now unclear, as supporters keep shifting the definition to avoid these problems, frequently in contradictory ways.  

The second is that, contrary to the claims of evolutionists like Dawkins, evolution is not questioned simply for theological reasons, and not are all of those who question it are even theists. In fact, evolutionists have increasingly had to resort to the suppression of differing views, in order to maintain their dominance, as the evidence contrary to evolution and in support of intelligent design has grown.  In short, the claim that evolution has shown design to be false is simply untrue despite how much evolutionist like Dawkins might want to believe in it.

Point five, which claims that the apparent design in areas other than biology might also be an illusion, correspondingly falls apart. Yet even if this was not the case, point 5 would still have a huge problem as it is fallacious. It simply does not follow that even if evolution shows design to be an illusion in biology, that it was therefore an illusion elsewhere.  This would be like claiming that just because some apparent suicides turn out to be murder, all apparent suicides could be murder, and therefore we can reject the concept of suicide itself.

This brings us to last point. It can hardly be called a conclusion.  Rather it is a plea to “not give up hope.”(158)  I must commend Dawkins for his honesty.  Most atheists strongly deny that hope, and it counterpart faith, play any role in their thinking, and in fact are highly critical of theists when they express hope or faith.  But at least theists do not confuse expressions of hope, with logical arguments that make opposing views untenable.

Dawkins’ does acknowledges that there are problems in the view he defends, but see hope in an old argument frequently employed by atheists.  Chance + enough tries = certainty.  Such reasoning has another name: The Gambler’s fallacy, and the error of such reasoning can be clearly seen in the lavish displays of wealth in such places as Las Vegas.

Based on Dawkins estimates, where concerning the number of planets he even knocks off a few zeros “for reasons of ordinary prudence”, and where he assumes that life is a one in a billion chance, there would still be billion planet with life, and ours would only be one of them.

This is at least better that Carl Sagan’s famous estimate of billons and billons of planets.  Yet like Sagan’s it is seriously flawed. Sagan only considered a few of the factors needed for life. Far more rigorous looks at these numbers have shown that if all of them are considered the chance of having even one planet in the entire universe that would support life, are less than 1 in 100, odds that even Dawkins says are to be laughed at. And this is just for a planet that could support life. It does not begin explain how life itself could start. The odds against life starting by chance are so incredibly huge that they are truly beyond comprehension, odds so large that even other atheists have compared them to a miracle.  (For a more complete discussion of these odds, see chapter four in Evidence for the Bible)

So Dawkins’ hope is based on an off the cuff estimate that are not even close.  Where he estimate billions of planets with life, serious estimates of all the relevant factors show that there should not even be one planet that could support life, much less actually have life.

So Dawkins argument has serious problems with each of his six points.  It ends with a hope that could only reasonably be called misplaced.  Rather than showing that God is untenable, the evidence points to the existence of God, and this conclusion as grown stronger over the years, not weaker, as we have learned more about life.

 This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

Last time I looked at some of the problems with Bill O’Reilly’s fallback argument that fighting Global warming would at least make the world cleaner, and isn’t cleaning up the world a good thing? In addition to the problems that CO2 is not really a dirty pollutant that needs to be cleaned up, and all the ambiguities in the science concerning whether the earth has warmed, will it continue to warm, how much humans are affecting any warming, and whether there is anything we could realistically do about it, it is not at all clear whether global warming is even a bad thing. 

For example, one of the bad effects cited by Al Gore is the number of people who will die as the result of increasing temperatures.  But what Gore ignores is that far more people die each year as a result of cold, than heat.  Thus, any warming of the earth should result in a net saving of life. In addition, most of the land mass of the earth is concentrated in the northern latitudes.  This means that while warming might result in the loss of some costal lands due to increased sea levels, and some farm lands due to drought, we will gain far more land that is currently uninhabitable due to cold.  Nor is this unprecedented in human history, for example, during the time of Rome, England was warm enough to be a producer of wine, while today it is too cold.  So while some decry the coming of Global warming, it is just as likely, if not more so, that we should be celebrating the ending of Global cooling, assuming of course that it is really ending.

Still, there is even a more troubling problem with O’Reilly’s argument. His isn’t-cleaner-good argument ignores the costs other than his caveat of not destroying the economy. A common problem that affects a lot of arguments on all sides of many debates is Utopianism.  Utopianism is presenting your side in a perfect world context of only positives while ignoring or downplaying the costs and downside. If this was a perfect world and there were no cost or downsides, then clearly cleaner would be better.  Sadly such perfection is still a ways off, and here in the real world to make things cleaner, will not only have some benefits, it will also have costs and downsides. There are pros and cons to everything.  So while, in a perfect world, cleaner is better, in this world it all depends on whether the benefits of being cleaner, outweigh the costs to be cleaner, and we could cause an awful lot of suffering, without destroying the economy.

When we look at the proposals made to fight Global warming, even the drastic proposals such as the Kyoto treaty, would have at best minimal effect on Global warming.  Yet the cost would devastate our economy, and lower living standards worldwide.  More minimal proposals such as increasing the CAFE Standards to force more fuel efficient cars would have almost no effect at all on Global warming, though it would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, at a cost of increased deaths and injury from car accidents, for more fuel efficient cars mean smaller and lighter cars, and smaller lighter cars are more dangerous cars.  Yes in a perfect would, you could have smaller, lighter and safer cars, but again this is not a perfect world.

A clear example of the dangers of being “cleaner” is DDT.  In the 1960s the big environmental scare was DDT and unfortunately the environmentalist got their way and DDT was banned. Like so many environmental claims, those that resulted in the ban on DDT, have also turned out to be false. DDT is safe, except of course to the insects it kills.  But the costs of the ban are not speculation, and in fact were known before the ban and used as arguments against it.  But the environmentalist ignored the costs, for them the danger was too great. As a result diseases like malaria, which in many areas had been wiped out, have since returned, and now kill between 1-2 million people a year.  In the nearly 40 years since the ban that is over 40 million people who died as a result of environments scares, and this is for malaria alone.   And yet even today despite the fact that millions have died and continue to die, many environmentalists are still more worried about theoretical risks lifting the ban on DDT might have, despite all the evidence against it, rather than the actual deaths the ban is currently causing.

The changes demanded by the global warming activists are far more sweeping and invasive than just a ban on a pesticide.  The changes would devastate the world economy, entail a huge loss of freedom in order to enforce, remove any hope for those in poverty of ever getting out, throw many more into poverty, and lower standards of living worldwide.  It should not be forgotten that one of the effects of a lower standard of living and increased poverty is not just increased suffering, but also more deaths.   

So the real question is not isn’t cleaner better, but rather is how many people must looses their jobs, how many people must be thrown or locked into poverty, how many people must die, for how much cleanness and all to fix something that we may not have any control over, may not even be happening, and even if it is, it may not even be a bad thing?   Environmentalist like Gore may have good intentions but that does not change the fact that people with good intentions can still do a lot of harm. Just ask the relatives of all those who have died from Malaria or West Nile virus.

 Listen to the MP3

In this installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I come to what Dawkins calls “the central argument” of his book. About this argument he claims that if it “is accepted, the factual premise of religion – the God Hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist.” (pp 157, 8)  This central argument centers around the apparent design we see in the natural world around us.  He summarizes his argument in the following six points:

1 – The appearance of design is one of the greatest challenged to the human intellect.

2 – The “temptation” is to attribute design to a designer.

3 – The designer hypothesis is false because it does not explain who designed the designer. 

4 – Evolution, the best explanation so far, shows that design at least for biology is an illusion.

5 – Since in evolution, apparent design is an illusion, it could be an illusion in other areas such as physics.

6 – We should not give up hope of finding better explanations elsewhere and the
weak explanations we do have are better than explanations that rely on God.

I have to admit that when it became clear to me what his actual argument was, I was both shocked and disappointed.  I was disappointed because, despite his simplistic approach to the whole subject of religion up to this point, I was still expecting something a little more substantial.  This was particularly the case when, in a section on Irreducible Complexity, he spends several pages refuting the claims made in a Jehovah Witness’s track. 

This again reveals a major flaw in Dawkins thinking and his approach, though in his defense, it is one common to all groups.  All groups of any size, be they political, religious, or whatever, have those who are on the fringe. By their very nature of being on the fringe they often make arguments that are not representative of the whole, but despite this, opponents often see refuting the fringe to be the same as refuting the whole. 

Jehovah’s Witnesses are a small group that are not orthodox Christians and thus not even representative of Christianity, much less theism in general.  They are also marked by strong tendency towards anti-intellectualism.  Yet Dawkins still spends several pages on one of their tracts, refuting a source that even most theists would not take seriously.

 Not only was I disappointed, I was shocked as to just how bad his argument actually was.  In fact, given point six, it is more an expression of hope than an actual rational argument.

If taken as an argument, there are problems with each of his six points. At first blush, point one may seem reasonable, particularly since it claims the problem of apparent design is only “one of the greatest challenges.”  Yet it has a hidden assumption that is very much a problem.  In short, apparent design would only be a problem if there wasn’t a designer.

To be clear, it may be a very great challenge to discover the identity of  the designer and perhaps how they executed their design,  but the design itself would not be.  To see this, imagine that that the first explorers to Mars were to find a watch laying on the ground.  While it might be a very difficult problem to discover how the watch came to be there, the fact that the watch had been designed would probably not be an issue at all.  As such, apparent design in the natural world around us is only a great problem if design is something that needs to be explained away without resorting to a designer.  Thus Dawkins argument falls victim to circular reasoning right off the bat, as his initial premise assumes his conclusion.

This  circular reasoning probably underlies the slanting found in point two when Dawkins talks about the “temptation” to attribute apparent design to a designer as if it this were somehow inherently a false choice to be resisted.  While no doubt this is Dawkins’ view, to build it into his argument in this fashion is illegitimate and perhaps shows that even he sees the weakness of his argument and feels a need to push the reader with his choice of words, rather than relying on the strength of his reasoning.

The problem in point three, who designed the designer,  again results from Dawkins’ simplistic approach to the entire subject.  The key problem for Dawkins is that whether something was designed or not designed, only comes into play for things that had a beginning.  The issue of design is inherently linked with the question of how something came into existence.  It is therefore meaningless when discussing things that have always existed.  By definition design must precede existence.  As such, when talking about an eternal God, the question of who designed God is an irrational question, akin to asking ‘What is the difference between a duck?’ It may at first sounds like a question, but the more you think about it the less sense it makes.

So, Dawkins third points, is simply false, at least if one is referring to a God such as the eternal God of the Bible.   I will look at the problems in the remaining points next time, but it is important to remember that if the premises of an  argument are flawed, the argument itself is unsound. Based on the first three points, Dawkins argument already fails.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.  

Many people have fallback arguments.  Fallback arguments are those argument people resort to when their normal arguments fail.  These arguments attempt to shift the framework of a debate to such an extent that an opponent is caught off guard and unable to respond, usually with some vague statement of good that is hard to oppose.  Bill O’Reilly of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor clearly has such a fall back argument when it comes to global warming. In fact, given the problems that have become apparent with the theory of man-made global warming and Al Gore’s movie on the subject, O’Reilly has used it frequently of late:  that fighting Global warming would at least make the world cleaner, and isn’t cleaning up the world a good thing?

I have seen O’Reilly use this fallback argument on several occasions, and so far, at least in the limited time constraints of TV, it has worked well for him.  After all how can one argue against a cleaner environment, particularly when O’Reilly adds the caveat, as he sometimes does, as long as it does not destroy the economy?  The problem is that we are not having a general discussion on what measures we could take to clean up the environment without destroying the economy.  The debate is about human caused Global warming and  specific measures being proposed to correct it.

In addition, O’Reilly argument is a based on a false premise which is that the main effort to stop global warming, the reduction of CO2, would make the environment cleaner.  This is false because CO2 is not really a pollutant.  CO2 released into the atmosphere is not like an oil spill in the ocean that needs to be cleaned up. CO2 is a naturally occurring substance, and is a vital one at that.  “Clean up” all the CO2 and you doom all life on earth, for plants need CO2 to live.  Plants take CO2 and release Oxygen as a waste material.  Animals take oxygen and release CO2 as a waste material.  You release CO2 into the atmosphere, every time you exhale.  Calling CO2 a pollutant, strains the concept of what is a pollutant.  In fact, calling CO2 a pollutant is really little more than a public relation ploy because most people (and O’Reilly includes himself in this group) have no idea of what CO2 is or the important role it plays, but they know that pollutants are bad things and to be opposed.  So calling CO2 a pollutant and then claiming it needs to be cleaned up automatically puts the public, and O’Reilly, on the environmentalist side, and casts opponents in a bad light by making them defend a “polluted world.”  On the other hand, if you see CO2 as a natural and vital part of the environment, O’Reilly’s fall back argument falls apart.  Why waste a lot of money to clean up something that is not dirty?

This is especially true given the huge ambiguities surrounding the entire issue.  While the earth has probably warmed in recent years, even that is not completely certain, as the increase has been very small and there are a lot of factors that must be estimated to arrive at the final result.  But even if we assume that all these estimates are correct, and that the earth has indeed warmed, it is not at all certain it will continue to do so.  Based on solar cycles, there are some scientists who say that we are about to enter a period of cooling.  But again if we assume that the global warming activists are correct and that we will continue to warm, it is even less certain that human activity is having any significant effect.  The word ‘significant’ is key, as it would be virtually impossible not to have some effect.  If the human race consisted of only a single small tribe, who had a campfire every night that would have “some effect”, even if a completely insignificant one. So when supporters of Global warming ask if human being are having any effect on Global warming, the answer is of course yes, but the real question how much are we affecting Global warming?

 It is pretty clear that much of the recent warming is not the result of human activity. After all, scientist have not only found that the earth is warming, but have found that other planets in the solar system have also warmed, which is to be expected if cycles in the Sun are responsible for the warming, but completely unexplainable if humans were the cause. But even if human activity is responsible for 10% of the warming, which would be a large amount given the amount of CO2, which is released naturally versus the amount released by human activity, and we were to cut the effect we had in half, which would be a huge reduction with major social upheavals and negative effects on people lives, that would only be a 5% reduction and would leave 95% of the warming.  In short, not only is there doubt about whether we are a significant part of the cause, even if we are, there is doubt about our ability to do anything significant about it. 

In short, we might waste a lot of money, for a problem that might not exist, and even if it does, our effort would have minimal effect, except that in the process we would cause a lot of suffering.  More next time.

 

Listen to the MP3

 In the last installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at Dawkins’ attempted refutation of Aquinas arguments for the existence of God how some of the recent discoveries in science have put atheists like Dawkins in paradox when it comes to the definition of natural and supernatural.  But there are even more problems with Dawkins’ attempted refutation of Aquinas arguments.
To summarize (and simplify), Aquinas had argued that an infinite sequence of linked events such as cause and effects was impossible and since the natural world is based on such linked events, there must have been something such as  a first cause, to have starting the whole process going in the first place.

In many respects the theory of the Big Bang confirms Aquinas as it shows that there was in fact a beginning to the universe, that the chain of sequences we see all around us did have a beginning.  This is perhaps why Dawkins does not try, as some have to avoid this argument by claiming that infinite regression is in fact possible.  

Instead, as we cited last time, Dawkins uses the example of cutting gold in half, again and again.  Eventually you reach a single atom. If you cut the atom into pieces you no longer have gold.  Thus the atom is a natural terminator to the sequence, and since this sequence has a natural terminator, Aquinas’ regression might also have a natural terminator.

Again, there are many problems with Dawkins’ argument.  Perhaps the most surprising is that this argument actually parallels Aquinas’, as key for Aquinas is that infinite regression is impossible, and to refute it Dawkins cites a regression that does not go on forever.

While Dawkins does this to claim that Aquinas’ first cause might be natural, there is a major problem.   Aquinas’ arguments are based on things that are inherently linked, such as cause and effect where one is depended in some fashion on the other.  A chicken comes from an egg. No egg, No chicken. The egg came from an earlier chicken, no earlier chicken no egg.  And so on and so on.

Yet the sequence that Dawkins cites has no such link.  If you have a piece of gold there is no way to tell if it was cut from a large piece or made by combining smaller pieces.  In short, there is no inherent link between a piece of gold and cutting, in the way that there is between chicken and an egg. 

Thus the sequence that Dawkins cites to try and refute Aquinas is a completely different type of sequence than Aquinas was referring to.   Another way to look at this is to see that that a block of gold is made up of smaller pieces of down to a single atom of gold.  While it may be divided in a series of cuts, down to a single atom, even as a block of gold, it still exists as group of atoms. Any sequence of dividing the block happens only as we may choose to cut it.

The sequences that Aquinas was referring to were truly sequential, with each step depending on the ones before it.  A chicken cannot be fully grown and still in its egg at the same time.  It is in its egg before it can hatch, it must hatch before it can grow to maturity, it must grow to maturity before it can lay other eggs.  If this was the same type of sequence as Dawkins, then the all could and would exist simultaneously. So Dawkins supposed refutation seem to have completely missed its mark, and actually provides some support for Aquinas.

Much the same can be said for many of the other arguments in this chapter. While Dawkins does ok on some of the weaker less convincing arguments for God’s existence, on the stronger arguments, it is hard to take Dawkins’ refutation seriously, for his simplistic approach to the subject means that he does not take these arguments seriously and therefore, as with these arguments from Aquinas, fails to really address them.

However, this may not be totally his fault.  After the philosophers of the 17^th and 18^th century, these arguments were considered to have little more than historical importance and were not taken seriously, and this is probably what Dawkins was taught in school.  As a scientist, he may not be up to date with current philosophical discussions. But over the latter part of the 20^th century, philosophers began to realize that the finding of science had undermined the earlier rejection of these arguments.  As such they are once again being seriously considered.

So we are still left with the regression of sequences like cause and effect. These cannot go on forever, but must have a beginning, a first cause. This first cause cannot itself be caused, for if it were, it would not be the first. It cannot be part of the natural universe, because if it were it could not then have caused the natural universe.  Since time is part of the natural universe, and was created when the universe was created, this first cause must be eternal. And it must be powerful enough to have caused the universe. 

Thus Aquinas’ argument still leaves us with an eternal supernatural first cause, powerful enough to have created the entire universe. While not a complete description of God, it is a good start.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.

  

  Listen to the MP3

Oct 19, 2007, Wausau, Wi — In the last installment of my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I looked at some of the problems in Dawkins’ attempted refutation of Aquinas’ arguments for the existence of God, or at least the lead up to his main argument.

To recap, Aquinas’ first three arguments all deal with the impossibility of an infinite regression of linked events.   Such a regression can either go on forever, with no beginning, or it can have a beginning.  Aquinas’ argument is based on the claim that it would be impossible for such regressions to go on forever, but there must have been a beginning to the sequence, a first cause, a first mover, etc.

When Dawkins’ gets to his main refutation, surprisingly he seems to concede the main force of the Aquinas’ argument, that infinite regressions are impossible, arguing instead that the beginning of the sequence might be natural.

To justify his position Dawkins writes “Some regresses do reach a natural terminator”  (p 78) and goes on to give the example of cutting a piece of gold into two pieces and then taking one of those pieces and cutting it in two to get two more pieces, and  how this cannot go on forever. Eventually you will get down a single atom of gold, and if you cut that in half, you no longer have Gold.

While true, like so much of Dawkins criticisms, it really misses the point, and in fact may even be seen as arguing in favor of Aquinas.   It misses the point because the arguments of Aquinas are not based on just any sequence but particular types of sequences.

In reality, Dawkins argument raises a huge, and little discussed issue that goes to the core of the difference between atheists and theists.  Just what are the natural and the supernatural?  Until recently, the natural world has been understood as the physical universe in which we live which is governed by the laws of nature. The supernatural was then something else, something beyond the natural universe, where the laws of nature as we understand them did not apply.

Atheists then argued that reality applied only to the natural universe, and that there was nothing beyond the natural universe.  A more nuances argument along these lines was that, while there may be something beyond the natural, since our understanding and knowledge was limited to the natural universe of our existence, it was impossible to know anything beyond the natural.

This view of natural and supernatural worked well for theist and atheist alike, until in the middle of the twentieth century it began to cause problems for those committed to denying the supernatural.  This was because the discoveries in science, such as the big bang, made it increasingly clear that the natural world had a beginning.  The science clearly showed that at the big bang, reality as we know it, including space, time, and the physical laws that govern how the universe works came into existence.  In short, the natural universe came into existence.   This was very disconcerting to atheists, who had denied the Bible’s claim of a creation, believing instead the universe was eternal.  In fact much of the work in cosmology since has been aimed either directly or indirectly at trying to avoid this conclusion, but to no avail.

Thus those denying the supernatural were put in a very difficult position, for if the universe had a beginning, it either popped into existence out of nothing for no reason, a proposition that would be akin to magic, and would fly in face of everything they believed, or it came from something that was not part of the natural world and thus would fall under the definition of the supernatural.

So far most skeptics have avoided this dilemma by effectively reversing their claim that reality is restricted to the natural into the natural is anything that is real. Thus as science has begun to investigate (or speculate) about be a reality beyond the creation of the universe, since scientists are investigating that reality, that reality is automatically assumed to be part of the “natural” universe.

Yet while such a view may seem to avoid some difficulties, it has may others. For example, much of the rejection of the supernatural is based on the inviolability of the laws of nature.  Miracles such as raising Jesus from the dead, or the parting of the Red Sea, are rejected because they would violate the laws of nature, and the laws of nature cannot be broken and they always apply.  Since they cannot be broken, miracles are impossible.  But what do such arguments mean, if there is a part of natural world where the laws of nature do not apply?

In short, secularists like Dawkins are caught in a huge paradox. If they stick to the old understanding of natural and supernatural their arguments for rejecting the supernatural at least make some sense, even if they are based on assumptions that Christians would reject.  But then the reality beyond the Big Bang would by definition be the supernatural.  On the other hand, if they expand the concept of natural to include the reality beyond the creation described in the Big Bang theory, they may avoid the problem of seeing this reality as supernatural,  but at the cost of having their arguments against the supernatural fall completely apart.  Either way they have major problems.

This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.  

For many, it is almost as axiomatic as the sun rises in the east, that Liberals are compassionate, and conservatives are heartless.   But like so many self serving clichés frequently cited by liberals, it does not hold up to critical analysis. While a liberal might say “I feel such compassion for …” The first two words describe the core of what is happening “I feel.”  In short this is often more an exercise in narcissism rather than compassion. While Liberals will understandably object to such characterization, it is demonstrated by another trait: existentialism, or living in the here and now. Liberal do have compassion, but only for those before them, either directly on in images. Those they cannot see, do not exist, and this tendency runs through and explains many of their positions, that would otherwise seem disjoined. 

One of the most defining of the liberal position is Pro-Choice.  For many Liberals this is actually an easy call.  They have compassion on the woman who is faced with such a difficult decision. While conservatives often portray them as pro-abortion, they really are not for what drives their beliefs is compassion.  This is why the horror stories of back alley abortions and coat hangers play such a role for they are projected upon themselves, they imagine themselves facing such a crisis (yet another indication of narcissism) which they then try to project on their opponents: “what if it were you.” For them, abortion is an issue of a woman facing a difficult and life changing crisis, a woman for whom they have great compassion.  For them, the fetus is unseen. It is not before them, and is really more of an abstraction. Given the existential outlook of liberals, it does not exist.   For them the issue of an abortion really comes down to “What would I do if I were pregnant.”  Along these lines it is interesting that as sonogram technology has grown, allowing parents not only to see their own unborn babies, but to have pictures to share with other, the fetus has become less abstract, and support the Pro-Choice position has declined.

This compassion of the moment is most visible where in cases  where positions change as the situations changes.  I talked to many liberals who opposed the First Gulf war, when the victims of war were most evidence.  And yet many of these same people were critical of Bush 41, for not “finishing the job” and leaving the people of Iraq suffering under Saddam.   As the sanction against Iraq had affected many liberals strongly opposed the sanctions, but with the second Gulf War became supporters of sanctions claiming they had been working.  This fluidity of position is understandable when looked at as compassion for visible victim of the moment.  It is also why liberals can be so strongly against the war because of the deaths that are occurring, and yet completely ignore that far more deaths would occur should we follow their demands that we leave before Iraq is stable.  These potential deaths are in the future and there is no future or past, there is only the here and now.

Another issue where this narcissistic existentialism is seen is in the illegal immigration debate.  Again the plight of the illegal immigrate is seen and felt by liberals. Illegal immigrates are poor people simply struggling to make a living.  Liberals worry about the struggles they go through to get here and try to make it easier for them, with such measures as setting up water stations, and opposing measures that would make the plight of the illegal immigrate more difficult such as building a wall.  The problems caused by illegal immigration on the other hand are abstract, and difficult to personalize.  While liberals can easily see themselves in the place of an illegal immigrate struggling to earn enough money to feed his or her family, they cannot see themselves as an infrastructure strained under the burden of illegal immigration.  Even when the problems are understood, such as the impact on Emergency rooms, or schools, again they have compassion for the illegal immigrant who needs medical attention, or their children who need schooling. 

In all of these cases, and many more, liberals see themselves as having compassion, but in all these cases their compassion is selective in that it is for those before them at the moment whose struggle  they can personalize.  Yet their compassion for these people normally comes at the expense of others who are often unseen.   For abortion this would be the fetus killed in the procedure.  While liberals can see themselves as, and thus have compassion for, minors who might have to face their parents and thus oppose parental notification laws,  the minors who have had complications from abortions and  who have died because their parents did not realize their daughter had just undergone a major medical procedure go unseen.  While they have compassion for those here illegally, there is little compassion for the unseen who do follow our laws and are waiting patiently to come to the country legally, a wait that is increased as we to struggle assimilate all those who have come illegally.

Many other issues could be cited, such as liberal compassion for criminals, particularly murderers which comes at the expense of their past and in some cases future victims when liberals get their way and convictions are harder to obtain, sentences are reduced or criminals are released on furlough programs. Thus the question is not who does or does not have compassion, but rather for whom will you have compassion, and at whose expense?