Just posted a paper regarding Wittgenstein. If you’ve read the Philosophical Investigations, it might be interesting, or even if you haven’t. Check it out, let me know what you think.
Griffey and what he means to me
It’s been nearly a week since Ken Griffey Jr. retired… And I miss him so much. I don’t usually speak on sports issues here, though I love sports, but I had to make an exception here.
Ken Griffey Jr. has been my favorite baseball player for as long as I can remember. I live in Cincinnati, but I loved him before he ever came here. I have followed his career from the moment I was able to. I had his batting averages, hits, home runs, RBI, slugging percentages, etc. memorized for every year of his career. In 4th and 5th grade I wrote books about him, even sending one to him through his cousin, who happened to live up the street from me. Later that year, he had his cousin give me a copy of his autobiography for my birthday. Its a bit tattered now. I’ve read it over 100 times, and used to even sleep with it under my pillow. I have more than 40 baseball cards of him. I saw him play in Cincinnati about 50 times or so. When he was traded to the White Sox, we made a trip to Chicago specifically to go see him. We recently had a trip planned to see him in Cleveland this year, but that has been called off, for obvious reason.
He was drafted in 1987, on June 2. He made his big league debut on April 3, 1989. I was born in August of 1990. June 3 was the first day of my life that Griffey was not a professional baseball player, but rather a former one. I couldn’t sleep the night of the 2nd. I found myself up until 3 or so watching videos of him in the field, at the plate, with his dad, doing interviews. What a player…
He finished his career with 630 home runs, 1,836 RBI, 2781 hits, and a lifetime batting average of .284. He is pretty much a guaranteed first ballot Hall of Famer. But the most remarkable thing about his career? He was never, ever, EVER associated with any steroids or Human Growth Hormones. Despite playing in the Steroid Era, where Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, A-Rod (the other big names of the era) playing on steroids, racking up home runs like never before seen in history… Yet there was Griffey, right there with them. Did you know that he had 56 home runs in ’98, without steroids? And in ’97 too, when he won MVP. Did you know he was on pace to break Maris’ record in ’94 before the strike? Again, no ‘roids. So what makes him so remarkable is the fact that he played with the guys on steroids, without them. It’s like the kid in school who aces every test because he cheats, and then the kid across the room does the same, but did it honestly. The first diminishes the accomplishment of the second in many cases. And this was true for much of Griffey’s career. But here at the end, looking back, we are amazed to see it. And his career now means that much more.
Overall, I think he was the best center-fielder to ever play the game. Yes, better than Joe D, Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, etc. I am so grateful to have grown up, admiring him, watching him, mimicking him, and am so appreciative of the work that he put into his game, without cheating.
So in a few years, when he walks across that stage in Cooperstown, New York, I will be on my couch, possibly in tears, because of the player, the man, that was such a huge part of my life.
Left on the Dock, how NOT to interpret the Bible
So most people know about the Left Behind Series by Tim LaHaye. Even my dad was a big fan. It’s just disappointing that such a non-biblically backed idea, like the rapture, would become so popular and mainstream. There is so little biblical evidence for the rapture, and the “evidence” that is often used is based on taking things out of context and giving them a new interpretation(though I won’t go into that in this post, but hopefully another one soon),which is ALWAYS wrong.
This leads me into the topic of this post, reading the Bible.
I enjoy some of Greg Koukl’s work, and recently his essay on never reading a Bible verse. The title is catchy. It seems un-Christian-like. But he goes on to explain that both critics and proponents of certain views take verses by themselves, which leads to them being taken out of context, and getting wrong ideas. A new idea in the evangelical sphere is to read the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to call up a personal interpretation for what you are reading. And this is where I am left on the dock. They have set sail into this dangerous, misguided style of interpretation that leads only to confusion and ruin, while I am left standing on the dock trying to tie up as many ships as I can, trying to keep people from making this grave mistake.
The authors of the Bible had a specific purpose for writing what they wrote. It is supposed to be personal, and affect your personally, but while the effect may be different from person to person, the meaning NEVER changes. There was an original intent, and it needs to be preserved. This destructive path that these ships are sailing towards is often liberalism. This is where doctrine becomes wishy-washy, loses the Christian essentials, and allows for personal interpretation of sacred texts. Now this is a fine line in a way. In no way do I espouse, nor should you, the idea that lay people should not be able to read the Bible and ponder on it themselves, for, when done correctly, this is extremely fruitful. This is the route that some have gone, saying that only priests or ministers or those who are “qualified” can interpret scripture. This leads to grave results as well, like people being prohibited from rational thought, and basically being brainwashed (how about some of them JW’s).
So what can we learn from this? Read a passage in its entirety. No one would start right in the middle of a page in the 10th chapter of a 30 chapter book and expect to have an idea about what is going on. And we should not approach the Bible in this manner either. If Jesus is talking in some end times language, what prompted this talk? Was there a question, or two, that he is answering? When Paul is speaking of the dead rising, why is he addressing this issue, since he is writing letters to a church, and he is addressing worries and issues that church has. How should a prophecy be interpreted? What is the context? Context is oh so important, and losing it causes everything else to become worthless.
I think that if Christians all approached the Bible in this manner, there would be far less disagreements, far less controversy, and a lot more love and encouragement in the Church. So the next time you see/hear someone taking a verse by itself, ask them how it is being used and what point it was meant to address, and you could have a very fruitful discussion on your hands.
What will the end of the world look like?
No clue,
But this is an overview of some of the main views that Christians hold to the Second Coming and associated events. I am sympathetic towards amillennialism since it seems like some of what the Olivet Discourse speaks of seems to have happened, like the temple’s destruction, major wars, etc. But I don’t like how that view really ignores the place of the nation of Israel, which seems to play a prominent role somehow according to Paul in Romans 11. Having said that, maybe some sort of historic premillennial, with no rapture, but the “millennium” not necessarily a literal 1000 years. Though I am not sure what happens at the end of this period, other than the Final Judgment. I have no clue when the New Heaven and New Jerusalem begin (whether Christians are taken before the millennium to this place, or if they are simply in some “holding” area until this period ends). So I am definitely open to anything, that can be supported biblically at least.
So here it is in the Papers and other Documents page.
Can you be a Christian and Gay?
This is a hot topic in today’s Church. Some churches have accepted openly homosexual members, others have tried to change them, and others have rejected them. But is any one of them right? Let’s take a look.
The Bible seems to speak against homosexuality. We look at the Old Testament and see in Leviticus that a man lying with another man as he would a woman is a sin. We also see homosexuality condemned in Romans and in 1 Corinthians. But what does this mean? And how does it apply today?
Obviously, there is no way getting around the fact that the Bible seems to have condemned at least some aspect of homosexuality at the time it was written. It was applicable to the Jews, as well as to the first Christians. Given this, I think that whatever was meant by these verses holds true today, as it lasted from the Old Covenant into the New Covenant. So I am not one who says that this can be regarded as a cultural taboo, but is now acceptable. It seems pretty straight forward that this was considered sin and always would be. Especially in the Corinthians passage, where it places homosexuality in the category of stealing,coveting, idolatry, adultery, etc. These are all considered wrong to this day, so why would Paul have included this with these if it did not have this in common? It seems like he wouldn’t have.
So if this still holds true today, what does it mean? I actually agree with some of the homosexual community that the Bible does not really reference homosexual orientation. Rather, it refers to the action. And the action, being sexual, is condemned on merit not only of its homosexual nature, but the fact that it is sexual relations outside of the marriage relationship. The Bible is pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman, and if I, not being married, participate in sexual relations, this is sin. I am held to the same standard that a homosexual is! This is not hypocrisy, as some have claimed. It does indeed go both ways. However, I, a male, can marry a female, and have sexual relations without sin. But I cannot marry a fellow male and do the same, as this is not the marriage relationship that the Bible speaks of.
So where does this leave us? There is some evidence that some homosexuals are such not so much due to choice, but to genetics and/or experience. They can’t control this, and should not be expected to change. Having said this, I am not an advocate of trying to force a homosexual to become heterosexual. If they want to try, by all means they can. But failing to change should not be held against them. But if they wish to practice their homosexuality, this should not be permitted. That would be sin, and sin needs to be dealt with if possible. This would be an unrepented sin. So I do think one can have a homosexual orientation and be a Christian. The Bible does not condemn the mentally handicap for not being able to learn like others. And in a way, a homosexual is “handicapped” in a at least somewhat similar way, in that they are different, and should not be condemned for merely being so. But this is not to say that their are not responsible for their actions. Sex outside of marriage is sin, whether heterosexual or not. And this is the aspect of homosexuality that is condemned and is in fact sinful. And this needs to be known to all, so that morality does not slowly deteriorate as some continue to give in to being “politically correct” and “today” rather than focusing on the unchanging and immutable.
New document
Did Jesus ever claim to be God? Did Paul preach this? Did the disciples believe it? What about the early church? Or was deity ascribed to Him long afterwards, possibly as late as the Council of Nicea? Check out Jesus as God in Papers and other documents on the right of the screen for evidence that this really was early and something that Paul thought and even Jesus thought Himself.
Loftus- Why I Became an Atheist, Part: 1
Got the book for Easter, along with two of Michael Martin’s books. A little humorous, because as I celebrate the resurrection, I’m reading about why I am wrong about doing so. I will try to do a post per topic in each book, but no guarantees. So here is the first post on Loftus’ book.
I started Loftus first, as he came highly recommended. But through the first 4 chapters, I’ve actually been disappointed. He had a rough time that cause him to fall from his “faith,” but wants to entirely attribute his “deconversion” as he calls it to his intellectual fallout. But it surely appears, at least at face value, that it was in fact the emotional problem he had that aided his intellectual disbelief. For those of you who don’t know his history, he grew up a nominal Christian, and knew of nothing else. He got into drugs, but then found Jesus, who became his new high, and that was in fact how he preached it. He went to Bible college, got a few Masters degrees, even one under Bill Craig, and went into ministry as a pastor. He succumbed to the openness of a co-worker and had an affair, and instead of the Church rallying around and supporting him through his sin, they condemned him, and not his actions, and even though he repented, that wasn’t good enough. This was just the beginning. He continued to find problems at other churches, and eventually he started to stop attending.
Now as one can see, it is indeed a sad story. He found redemption in Christ and lived as best he could to please Him, and we all fail at this, and when he failed, his church did not treat him very well at all. In their correspondence, Norman Geisler apologized to Loftus for the church’s behavior, and does not at all blame him for his reaction. So while the church messed up and surely didn’t follow Christ’s example. Indeed, it is a heart-wrenching story that one, as a Christian, hates to hear. But this was not the part that I was disappointed by. This was actually eye-opening, because all I had known before hand was that Loftus was trying to follow in the footsteps of Paul Copan and become an apologetic leader for the church, and then the next thing we knew, he was promoting atheism. So this story was moving and enlightening, as I realized it wasn’t that he just looked into it and doubted, but had other reasons to doubt as well. And not only this, but that he went down kicking and screaming, for 13 years nonetheless.
The part that was disappointing was the chapter on morality. He attacks Divine Command Theory(DVC) by proposing the Euthyphro dilemma, and says that this puts the proponent of this theory in a tight place. He quotes Craig as biting the bullet. Yet, as a former Christian, it seems he should know that many theologians consider this a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility, viz. that God commands are good because He is good, that it is part of his nature. And in the same way that we are human, and can’t act apart from our human nature’s, God is good and can’t act apart from that. His response is that this begs the question, since how is God good if there is no good other than God to compare his good too? But this can be applied to us being human as well. How do we know what human; is apart from ourselves? We can call it whatever we want, the name is arbitrary, but the proposition or state of affair that hold for one to be “human” seems to be just that, the state of affairs such that one is “human.” So to say that “God is good” is more of an identity statement rather than an attributive statement. He is the measure of good, just as we are the measure of human.
But then he goes on to basically dismiss the natural law theory of Aquinas in less than a paragraph, which he admits is the most popular view in Christianity today, that says that morality is innate to us, that God has “put it on our hearts” and this is our intuition of right and wrong. He simply states that this does not make Christian morality superior to any other morality, and that if this is true, anyone can grasp it. Well, this seems to be a straw man. I know of no proponent of multiple objective moralities, so either Christian morality is true or it isn’t. There is no better than or worse than, it either is or isn’t. I also have never heard anybody say that you must be a Christian to be moral. Usually the argument from morality says that we all observe objective right and wrong, not that only Christians do. So it seems he is surely attaching a straw man.
And this is what disappointed me, and I hope improves as I continue reading. As a former Christian, I hoped that he would only look at the real issue, rather than attacking fake versions of it to make his arguments seem strong, the way Dawkins and Haris and Dennet and Hitchens often do. But that is exactly what he resorts to when speaking of morality.
So… more to come on the next few chapters. I will try to do a post per topic that he discusses and some thoughts on it.
Evidence from how it is vs. how it would be
So if the Christian story was true, what would things look like? Let’s give a quick list.
- Human intelligence
- Appearance of design
- Appearance(intuition) of an immaterial soul
- Outside world matching up with thoughts in head
- “Beautiful” theorems and laws
- Rapid spread of belief after Jesus resurrection
- Bible matching up archeologically and historically
- Evil (due to free will)
- Good sometimes coming from result of evil
- Religious experience
- Appearance of “miracles”
There are more, but this you get the idea. There are certain things we would expect to see if it were indeed true.
So what about this? Do we see this? It seems we do see these things, ALL of these things. Dawkins admits that things appear designed, physicists are saying it seems like somebody monkeyed with physics, Einstein found his formulas by looking for beautiful theorems, we find ourselves able to think of these things, and so on. So is it a coincidence that what we would expect to see we do indeed see? It doesn’t seem so to me. It seems like this is decent evidence for the Christian view. It matches up.
On the other hand, what about atheism? Do we see what we would expect? Does it appear that things happened by chance? Obviously not if they appear designed, since something can’t be appeared to be designed by chance (this is not saying that evolution by natural selection is wrong, just simply that one may not say, “Oh yeah, just looking at this it looks like it was entirely unplanned and random.”). Is there a natural explanation for everything? Not yet at least (origin of life, origin of universe…). Why would self-sacrificial religion be so prevalent (some religions may benefit survival, but ones like Christianity that lead to selflessness and possibly self-sacrifice would not be too beneficial)? Purely natural evolution would not explain such a thing. If atheism were true, we should expect religious stories to all fall into the “myth” category and not have hardly any evidence that any such religion is true or has any trace of fact in it. Such things like the Greek and Egyptian myths of gods impregnating humans to form demi-gods like Hercules (Heracles), or fighting each other to form night vs. day, and dying and rising with the changing of the seasons. There are no evidences that would support these being held as facts about the real world, but are rather stories that helped explain events that otherwise had no explanation. And this is what one would expect to be true of all religious stories if atheism were true. But…
There is great evidence for Christianity in the Bible. There are cities and civilizations that were dated correctly by the Old Testament. The same for the New Testament, not to mention the life of Jesus. We have more biographies written within 50 years of his death than almost every ancient figure including Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. He is mentioned also by Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, and Tacitus, not to mention the Talmud. The events in the New Testament are historically accurate on nearly everything spoken of, and even some of the so-called “errors” may be reconcilable. But is this what one would expect if atheism were true? That one religion would have any evidence, yet alone this much supporting it, on top of what is mentioned earlier about finding what one would expect to find if this religion (Christianity) were true? The answer is no, this is not what one would expect to find given atheism.
1 in 3 people are Christians, and 62% believe hold to a form of theism, while only 2% claim to believe in no gods, and 8% are atheist/agnostic/humanists. These don’t seem to be the numbers one would expect to see if there were no gods, and yet the numbers are what the Christian theist would expect. Should we really have to be so counter-intuitive, explain away so many facts, in order for atheism to be rational? One would think that if atheism were true, that religion would be counter-intuitive, or at least be discarded by natural selection once it was no longer useful. But religion, Judeo-Christian belief in particular, has weathered every storm, assault, and come out with 1 in 3 people in the world believing it. Not what atheism would seem to promote.
Now by no means is this definitive of anything, but simply is a point that should spark some thought. This is at a glance, since this is by no means delving too deep into this idea, the concept of expect to see vs. actually see supports the Christian theists view, and not the atheistic view. Think about it.
Can minds have evolved?
Taking some concepts from Alvin Plantinga’s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN), I will attempt to show how our intelligible minds could not have evolved for two reasons.
The first reason will be more controversial I believe, and that is this. Beliefs are not entirely subject to genes, but other factors as well. If free will is true, then this is even more true. Even if not, one could argue that the setting we find ourselves in shapes our beliefs, even if genes make one more predisposed to believe something, it does not follow necessarily that they will believe that, since both/either free will and/or the environment can determine this. Given that natural selection, defined as “A process in which some individuals have genetically-based traits that improve survival or reproduction and and thus have more offspring surviving to reproductive age than other individuals, (Berkeley)” can only operate on genetically-based traits, and beliefs are not genetically-based, it therefore cannot effect them. This is not denying evolution, just evolution of the mind as we know it, that can entertain beliefs.
The second reason goes more along the lines of the EAAN, except not as radical. Let’s grant that evolution can effect beliefs. And let’s say that Plantinga is wrong that evolution may not select true beliefs. I actually am torn on this issue myself, since I find it plausible that it could select false beliefs that “promote” survival, but I can also see that somewhere along the lines, a false belief would be less beneficial than a true one. So let’s say that at least some beliefs can even be rationally thought to be guided by natural selection since they are true. But what about beliefs and concepts that don’t have any survival aspect whatsoever? People lived for thousands of years without calculus and physics, so were they promoted by natural selection? I can go two ways here. The first undercuts the idea that it could from the beginning. Natural selection cannot effect learned behavior of any sort, simply by definition. But even if we grant this, how does knowledge of the law of gravity increase my chance of survival? I don’t have to know anything about the law of gravity and it’s equation and how it works in order to know that if I step off a cliff I will fall. What about math? Does knowing 2+2=4 promote my survival? Do I live better by knowing that earth is the third planet from our sun? Do I have a better chance of living longer and producing more offspring if I know that a bachelor by definition is not married? I see no reason to think so. Based on this, natural selection cannot effect such beliefs since they have no survival value.
So what does this mean? Can we know or at least infer anything from this? I think that we can see that something else is needed to explain why we can apparently accurately detail laws of math and physics and concepts of biology, everything that we consider “intelligence,” if it doesn’t increase our chance to survive. What is this explanation? Even more, why is it that the ideas in our heads match up perfectly with actual world? Why are the laws of the world mathematically simple yet perfectly explanatory as well? Many have called this beauty, and finding beauty for these formulas seems to be an efficient way to find new laws. So what is the explanation for this? Yes, it could be chance. But what are the chances? I feel that this is simply not satisfying as an explanation at all. My proposal is that it is an extremely smart Being that did it all on purpose, for ease and beauty, and a small sign that allows us to find a small aspect of Him.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Romans 1:20 NASB
Future of the Gaps?
Obviously, many theists invoke the “god of the gaps” theory whenever they can. “Oh, you don’t know how that happened? Must be God.” This is TERRIBLE reasoning. However, even non-believers have fallen into this type of trap. In a recent discussion online, someone quoted how quantum theory was not complete and that some form of this could explain the universe. That is all fine and dandy, but it bears a striking resemblance to the “god of the gaps” argument. “Well, we don’t know now. But I’m sure we will figure it out in the future.” Both simply appeal to some unknown factor that may be right or may not be. Both with the same amount of reasoning behind them.
So my question is… When are we justified in saying that “God did it” or “We may figure out in the future?” Because I do believe that there are situations when this IS merited.
When other ideas fall into the same category. What I mean by this is simple. I will use the example of DNA, since it is information that is read, translated, and rewritten in the cell. We know that books are read, translated, and rewritten, and we know that humans “design” or wrote the books and programs to copy, translate, and paste the book as well. We are intelligent creatures. It then seems merited to infer that an intelligent something rather or another “designed” or wrote DNA, since it bears a great resemblance and is actually more in-depth than a book. This also applies to the future theory, though both are pretty subjective, since it is really an inference to the best explanation, but what is best to me may be different than your view of best.
Many people don’t like this concept. They say it is worthless and is never necessary. The inly problem is, this is how we operate in our everyday lives. We don’t usually have a deductive logical argument for the best course of action to take, or how someone will respond to an action, but rather we infer based on previous knowledge and assumptions. So are we stupid to do this? It appears not, as we are able to function quite well in this manner. And if it is highly successful in our day to day lives, why not in this situation as well, when there doesn’t appear to be a very strong deductive argument ether way.
(More to come on inference to best explanation)
Cosmological argument shown false… as Smith disproves motion?
In the Veritas Forum with Craig, Plantinga, Gale, and Smith, Smith talked a bit about how the universe caused itself.
Check out the video.
Parts
This should be all the related parts, the rest can be found in related videos on youtube.
Whole (sometimes won’t load all the way through)
http://www.veritas.org/Media.aspx#/v/315
Craig shows how Smith’s view of how the universe began, if true, would actually prevent motion as a cost. Plantinga then throws in the idea that the universe is not in fact entirely explained. Gale actually disagrees with Smith, causing a short comical period.
Why Ehrman’s logic is mistaken: “Admissions,” but only due to errant doctrine
Finished Jesus, Interrupted today. It took a little longer than expected due to school and teaching obligations, as well as a few new books that came in that I skimmed through, and also the fact that it was getting frustrating seeing many of Ehrman’s points being aimed at what is really an incorrect idea of biblical inerrancy.
I ended up finding the book pretty enjoyable, though most books tend to be such for me. There were moments of frustration, but I stuck through it. Ehrman raises some good points throughout the book, but nothing that should shake one’s faith. One can believe in God and Christ even if the Bible is not inspired or inerrant in any way, since then the books would be treated as historical biographies anyway (which is really one way they should be treated anyway), and that the information could still be largely trusted. His points merely force one to think about what inerrancy is. In a previous post, I discussed this, but will do so a little bit once again.
Ehrman came from the belief that there was not a single error in the Bible, not even a misspelling or misuse of a genitive or dative or perfect or aorist word. This was shattered given his findings, and it was really the first step towards his “conversion.” The issue here is that his doctrine seems to have been flawed. There is a lot of literature on the topic of inerrancy, but if you are interested in possible views, I recommend listening to Parts 5-7 of William Lane Craig’s Defenders Podcast. In short, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is at least that the Bible is inerrant on what it teaches and affirms. The historical facts are “allowed” to be wrong on this view, though many can be reconciled in plausible ways. For example, Ehrman spends some time on the story of Jesus cleansing the temple at the end of his ministry or at the beginning. But what he fails to mention, and being a historical scholar would know, is that the ancient historical biography was not usually listed in chronological order in the way we do so now, nor were quotes direct quotes, but rather, the author was given some leeway to place events in order of importance, and quotes would be used to summarize what was said. Chances are, Jesus sermons consisted of much more than what we find in the Gospels, but that the gist of the sermon could be summarized and still be considered what had been said.
So while Ehrman does point out some difficulties that are indeed hard to reconcile, one need not throw out entirely the doctrine of inerrancy, and even if one finds necessary grounds to do so, it by no means diminishes that historicity of the books as historical works rather than religious works.
Having your cake and eating it too
While reading Bart Ehrman’s Jesus, Interrupted, I came to realize how atheists often wish to have their cake and eat it too. The sad part? It often works.
Ehrman discusses some of the contradictions that can be find in the Bible, which are mostly minor and do not cause any change in doctrine no matter how you look at them, and says this is reason to believe that the Gospels are all wrong and contrived for evangelical purposes only, and not for writing an accurate history. But for some reason, most scholars agree that when stories are too similar to each other with no variation, this is a tell-tale sign of them being forged because it shows that the authors were probably collaborating. just like if I were to ask 20 who saw a crime to describe the suspect was and they all said 6’4″, about 250 lbs, white male with a blue shirt that had an outline of a woman on it and he was wearing white Nike’s and some straight leg Hollister jeans, I would be pretty naïve to think that it was merely a coincidence that they all said the exact same thing. So some variation is necessary to be considered legitimate…
But wait a sec, isn’t that what Ehrman is complaining about? Some slight variations? At one point he even discusses how they used different wording of what Jesus said. Duh? Can we really expect them to say verbatim what He said based on their memory or even a witness’ memory? And if they used the exact wording, surely he would jump on that and say that they were working together and that they are therefore unreliable. Please people, get your heads on straight and quit being so obstinate. You can’t have it both ways.
Now that’s what I call having your cake and eating it too, which would be nice if you could, but you can’t, and we (atheist and theist alike) need to point this out when anybody tries to do so.
Challenge
Recently, I “officially” started a challenge that really began in ’06 that consists of reading both atheistic and theistic books as to find the truth, which happens to be the purpose of my blog. I will give updates a few times a month, probably at the end of each book read, and give some comments and feedback on each one.
Check back for more.
Emergentism
It may or may not be something you have heard of, but its worth some consideration. I speak of it in regards to philosophy of mind, and in this case, it seems to be nearly the opposite of reductionism. Reductionism being the idea that consciousness and other seemingly mental states can be reduced to physical brain states, at least as their causes.
On the other hand, there is emergentism. The idea that the sum is greater than its parts or at least that some property/properties of the sum are not identical to that of any of its parts. So lets take the brain. We have an entirely physical entity made of matter. And then the soul/mind/conscious (which I will use interchangeably), which is non-physical, if I may, or immaterial and seemingly not made of anything (I will not resort to substance dualism). This mind seems to have intentionality, or the ability to “be” or think “about” things that matter seemingly cannot. We can see that these differences seem to emerge from nowhere and simply are.
I don’t really know if I support this idea entirely, as then one could be led to a mind-brain type identity theory that minds are not really anything more than brain processes, but that from the processes the mind emerges. For I want to espouse the idea of an immortal mind that is indeed separate from the body but is able to interact with it to a degree.
What exactly do I mean by “Inspired, Inerrant?”
For some, the idea of biblical inerrancy is a pretty big issue. Obviously, scribes made errors while copying the words down for other manuscripts. So does this mean that the Bible contains errors and is therefore not inerrant? i would say that their idea of inerrancy is a bit faulty. Yes, some denominations do teach that the Bible is entirely free from errors at all and at all times… But this is clearly false, given the numerous mistranslations of the original King James Version and the scribal errors that we see in different manuscripts, not to mention that historians, event the best historians, make mistakes, so we can presume that the history presented could contain errors as well. So we move on realizing that if we wish to hold to inerrancy, it must be something else.
I would say that inerrancy does indeed mean that the Bible is free from errors. But yet I just denied this, right? The Bible IS free from errors, but doctrinal errors are the ones I speak of. Jesus did die and rise for our sins, we are to remain abstinent until marriage, we are to submit our lives to God, heaven and hell are BOTH real, many people will not be saved, etc. Does the misspelling of a word change its meaning? If I said “Chalk is wite.” Would you knwo what I meant? Did you notice I misspelled “know” too? So if it doesn’t change the idea of a sentence, it surely wouldn’t affect the doctrine associated with it. So even with scribal errors, we can still figure out the original wording in nearly every case, and for sure at least close enough to preserve the point and idea of the sentence of passage.
But some wish to say that since God is omnipotent, that He should have been able to preserve the original texts and words and prevented any errors at all. He could have prevented humans from making human mistakes, right? I would say yeah, he could have. But saying that He would have done so if He could seems very presumptuous. How do we know what He would want? For someone who often accuses the Christian of claiming to know the mind of God, what would they call this? So why involve humans at all? It seems that the God of the Bible wishes to interact with humans and allow us to be, well, human. In doing so, it may be necessary to allow them to make minor errors here and there in the texts, although it wouldn’t change the meaning or message of the texts. He seems to actually value us for what/who we are, you know, the way a relationship is supposed to be, rather than trying to change us into something we aren’t. Given this, it seems very plausible that He may really want to involve us to a degree that would cause misspellings or incorrect grammar here and there. But being God, he made sure the message stayed the same through and through, and we receive inerrant ideas in this manner.
Why are the Gospels the only detailed account of Jesus?
While the historicity of the Gospels may be defended at a future point in time, I will focus on why the Gospels are really the only histories of Jesus that we have. Many wonder why no secular source wrote anything in detail about this supposedly amazing man. And I have the answer… They didn’t care. I’ve never heard anybody ask why the Romans never wrote much about Chinese history or vice versa, and then discredited theChinese for having written their own histories. In this way, the Christians wrote about Jesus while nobody else gave a hoot.
So maybe the only ones who did write accurately about it ended up having their biographies of Jesus being selected into what is called the New Testament today. What we have to realize is that what we call the “Gospels” are really intended to be historical biographies. So we must treat them in that manner. They were histories before they were the four Gospels of the NT, not the other way around. Given that they are intended to be histories, what does this mean? It means that this man, Jesus, had four biographies written about Him within 60 years of His life (I would say death but obviously that would stir up a controversy). Now that’s what I call impressive! Julius Caesar had only one secular historian mention him till nearly 150 years after his life. The five main histories we have about Alexander the Great weren’t authored until 400 years after his life. And last time I checked, nobody wonders why Julius Caesar only had a few people that had a vested interest in him wrote about him.
Enough background info. The only times Jesus is mentioned outside of the Gospels is about stuff that concerned the parties writing. Like the fact that he “suffered the extreme penalty under the reign of Tiberius..”(Tacitus). So while the answer seems so simple, it really is. Jesus had more histories written within a shorter period of time than most figures of antiquity. And these sources happened to be canonized into the Bible and are now often considered unhistorical because of this.
Edumacation? What has it become?
The other day I was talking to a friend about world history. He knew all about the World Wars, the Plague, the Holocaust, the Cold War, the American Revolution, the Civil War, etc. But guess what he didn’t know much about other than his rise and fall? Stalin.
Yes, Joseph Stalin. Possibly the most murderous man in human history, but that part wasn’t in his history book. It didn’t mention how Stalin killed possibly 60 MILLION people. We hear all about Hitler and the Holocaust, but do you realize that Hitler killed less than 1/3 of the people Stalin killed? Whoa, crazy right?
Did you know that I’ve never heard much about Pol Pot during my entire academic career? Did you know that he killed nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population?
What about Mao in China? Did you know that he is responsible for the deaths of nearly 40 million of his own people? I have never heard him mentioned in the classroom.
So we all think of Hitler as the most evil man… but these there’s two that top him and one that comes close. The reason this is important for us today? All of these men were Communists of some sort, and that seems to be the biggest, but not the only, cause for the mass murders. So maybe, just maybe Communism/socialism isn’t a great idea, right?
And to see where this country is going…
Why Obama’s lieutenants love Mao
So why is this stuff not taught? I already said why it is important, so what’s the deal? Some say that there’s too much history to cover it all… so hit the big things, and these seem to jump out as some of the biggest. Others say its not necessary. But a fool is one who doesn’t learn from others mistakes as well as his own, and we can prevent another Stalin or Mao if we see what happened the first go ’round.
I could get all conspiracy theory about how the government this and the government that, but I think its the simple fact that our politicians, of all parties, want us to be out of the loop so that they can tell us what we want and need. Why would they do this? Again, refraining from the conspiracy ideas, I would have to say they are selfish and power hungry and don’t care what they have to do to get what they want. “Knowledge is power,” right? So if we have no knowledge, we have no power.
Comments encouraged, especially about the video, which I honestly thought was faked until looking into it a little more. HA, Mao as a role model? That’s ludicrous.
“What about Evil?”… what about it?
Many have made the claim that evil disproves an all-good, all-powerful God. My question is, how? The common argument is thus:
1. If a perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.
2. Evil exists.
3. Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
or more complex:
1. God is all-good and all-powerful.
2. If God is all-good, He would prefer a world without evil.
3. If God is all powerful, He could make any world He wanted.
4. Being able to make any world and preferring one without evil, God would make one without evil.
5. There is evil, therefore, God is not all-good and all-powerful.
or even more:
1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
2. A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.
3. An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
4. An omnipotent being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence and has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
5. A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
6. If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.
7. Evil exists…
However, running through the arguments, there seems to be a big leap into the mind of God. Do we know if He would necessarily desire a world without evil? If so, how do you know that? Because in order for this to be a sound argument, then it has to be necessarily true. So there can’t even be a single possible situation in which it is not true.
But I can name one right now, and that would be that God may have a desire for us to become dependent on Him, as the Bible claims, and that the best way to do this would be to make a world with evil and suffering so that He could show them that they need Him and can’t fix things on their own.
Ir if you don’t like that, maybe He has another reason to allow evil, such as knowing that a certain amount of evil can lead to a higher quality of good than in a world without evil. Now this one is speculative, yes, but is it possible, yes. What if He desires quality over quantity?
But let’s say these examples don’t work. Let’s say He does desire a world without evil. What if He can’t do it based on His other attributes. He must allow free will, and if there is free will, what if he can’t prevent evil. But this seems to contradict premise 1 of the latter two arguments, right? Or does it? It depends on how one defines “omnipotence.” Is it the ability to do anything, or just the ability to do anything logically possible? Can such an entity make a round circle or a married bachelor? Well, common sense would say not. But let’s throw out common sense. Why does that seem impossible, even for an entity that can do literally anything? Well, by definition, the two terms in each set of words are contradictory. A square is a shape with 4 congruent sides and 4 right angles, while a circle has no sides and no angles and all points equidistant from its center. And to be married means… to be married, and a bachelor is an unmarried man… So that seems to be a problem. But why can’t an omnipotent being produce such a thing? Some will say that this shows that an omnipotent being is itself contradictory, as the idea is paradoxical to say it can create anything but can’t create some things. So maybe we could use the word “omnipotence” to simply mean “maximally great,” as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines it. So yes, it is semantics, but this is where the whole thing seems to hinge if we accept that God wills there to be no evil. For an entity that really can do anything can make people freely do things, which is a contradiction of terms and is therefore not something a maximally great entity could bring about. So while it may be possible to have a world without evil, it may not be plausible, in the sense that it can be actualized.
Having said this, I think we have great grounds to throw out the logical problem of evil from our category of “evidence against God.” And if someone wishes to use it as such, they have the burden of proof to show that none of these things are even possible.
