Addendum to the last post

I saw this article after I posted the previous entry. It lays out some of the ethical complexities of ESCR.

Some thoughts on embryos

BC Christian News ran a story on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) back in May. Trinity Western University philosopher Paul Chamberlain is quoted as follows:

“’Using stem cells which would otherwise be destroyed – either by us or by waiting – doesn’t seem prudent,’ responds Paul Chamberlain, professor of apologetics at Trinity Western University. Despite his caution, however, he adds: ‘I can see no moral obligation why we shouldn’t use them if there is a very good purpose that can come about from stem cell research.’ Chamberlain admits that he has ‘struggled with [the issue] pretty hard.’ ‘I am also aware that, by using the excess embryos, we may continue to create a demand by people who would not have the same moral restraints and would not object to creating embryonic stem cells simply for the purpose of research. I would really stand against that.’ The other options, he says, are to either discard or store embryos – or to utilize them for beneficial purposes. ‘If we have an opportunity to use [them] for some other human, who has the same value as the embryo, that may well be morally permissible…The other two options seem to be worse. Unless someone is willing to adopt them – by all means, go ahead. That would be the ultimate. It’s hard to agree that doing nothing is better than doing good… We need to have a high regard for human life.’”

I agree with Chamberlain regarding the ethical problem of creating embryos specifically for research. He seems, however, to open the door for research on frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. I wrote a version of the following letter to the editor (sensible people that they are, they didn’t print it):

“Paul Chamberlain, in expressing his ambivalence over the fate of frozen embryos, seems to be saying that it may be permissible to use embryos to help alleviate suffering. If that is in fact his position, then I must respectfully disagree, though I’m certainly not unsympathetic to his concerns.

While we have an obligation to relieve suffering, such obligation can only be adhered to where it is ethically feasible. We are not obligated to relieve suffering where it is not ethically feasible, and taking the life of an embryo certainly presents some serious ethical difficulties. The argument that embryos, if left in a frozen state, will eventually die and be of use to nobody, overlooks the fact that they are placed in that state by a third party through no fault of their own. These embryos are purposely being prevented from developing in the normal manner.

Now, if such embryos are not human beings then there should be no moral hand-wringing about the matter. But the facts point otherwise. A human embryo is a complete human organism (albeit an immature one). It (in fact, she or he) possesses a complete and unique human genetic code. If placed in the proper environment (her mother’s womb), she will eventually develop and grow into a newborn infant. All such development and growth is directed and controlled not by the mother but by the embryo herself. The facts tell us that the embryo is a human being and, therefore, in possession of intrinsic moral worth. The problem with using embryos for research is that such research treats the embryo as though she is of worth only if she has instrumental value, that is, if she can offer any usefulness to the rest of human society. Jesus’ attitude towards the lame and blind, the "useless" of first century Judea, ought to inform our actions here.

I believe that a frozen embryo, a full member of the human family, should be treated in the same way that a comatose person should be treated. I think most Christians would agree that a person in a coma should not be killed and his organs used for the benefit of others. A defenseless human being should not be used in this way. We care for a comatose person and if he dies then we commit him to his Creator. Where some embryos are not adopted, the same ought to be done for them as well.”

In an article in Time magazine a few years ago, Michael Kinsley asked (referring to a photgraph of a 4 or 5 day old embryo) “Is this a human being? My memory is a bit fuzzy. He may have asked “Does this look like a human being?” In either case, the answer is yes. A 4 day old embryo is a human being. The embryo is alive, contains human DNA, is genetically distinct from its mother or father, and undergoes metabolism,. And does that clump of cells look human? Actually, that is what all humans look like several days after conception.

This website stemcellresearch.org gives details about the promise and effectiveness of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research which, I think, offers the best that stem cells can offer without the attendant ethical problems.

What if God didn't exist?

The purpose of apologetics is to provide reasons to support the rationality of Christian belief. There are many ways of doing this. If the God of the bible has truly created this universe we inhabit, then his fingerprints ought to be all over the place. But if one’s vision is blurry, those clues may not seem so evident. So, one needs to don the proper set of glasses. Now, I don’t pretend to be an expert in these matters. These are just a few desultory thoughts.

It seems that most apologists start with arguments for the existence of God. I wonder if this is the best approach. Most people already believe in God (or a god of some sort). There is probably not a general apologetics book around that doesn’t have a chapter on God’s existence.

I think the problem of God’s non-existence might be a better place to start. Imagine if God doesn’t exist. Or, let’s say the atheist disproofs of God are pretty airtight. What follows from that fact? There would be no after-life (and no heaven). There would be no resurrection of the body (contra the Nicene Creed not to mention the Bible). There would also be no beauty. No objective moral standards. No reason to get up in the morning.

Non-theists may not agree. God’s non-existence (or at least our non-acknowledgement of his existence) actually frees us from stifling beliefs and allows the expansion of our minds to new and exciting areas of thought. Why confine ourselves to the old ways and old patterns when a new horizon of possibilities awaits us, one free of the despotic rule of a cosmic overlord?

Two writers who have given me some mental fodder to chew on in this matter are C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig.

Lewis gives what’s commonly called the Argument from Reason. It says that if there is no God, then naturalism (the view that all that exists is nature/matter) is true. If naturalism is true, then everything in the universe is the result of blind matter in motion and non-rational forces, including our thoughts about the universe. This puts us in the peculiar position of saying that our thoughts are rational while at the same time professing that these thoughts are the result of non-rational forces. But if our thoughts are the product of blind matter in motion, do we really have any good reason to trust our thoughts about anything, including those thoughts about rationality? It seems more reasonable to believe that more than just matter exists, and that our intelligent, rational minds are themselves the products of intelligence, namely God. A detailed discussion can be found in his book Miracles.

Craig gives a case for the absurdity of life without God. He claims that if God does not exist then humans are just the accidental by-product of natural processes. As a result, there can be no ultimate meaning in life, no ultimate value, and no ultimate purpose. If God does not exist, there is no objective moral law, no right and wrong. All that’s left is personal, subjective judgements. For those who say that we can create our own meaning and purpose, the only response that can be given is, “So what?” Scientists tell us that the universe will continue to expand forever. Billions of years from now nothing will exist but the cold, lifeless shards of a universe that used to be our home. Humanity is racing towards extinction and utter ruin. He puts it this way: “Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the atheistic world view, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving the lie to our world view.” Any meaning or purpose we create is ultimately meaningless and purposeless. We could do no better, it seems, than to follow Bertrand Russell’s advice to build our lives on the firm foundation of unyielding despair. Listen to a presentation that Craig gives here

An aesthetic argument for God goes: There is the music of Bach, the literature of Shakespeare, the art of Rembrandt. Therefore, there must be a God.
But if there is no God, one could only ask, even of Bach, Shakespeare, and Rembrandt (or insert your own favourite artists): Is that all there is?

Life without God brings to the fore the irrationality of claiming that we are rational, intelligent beings, and the absurdity that life has any meaning or purpose. Only if God exists can we claim these things. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that God actually exists (maybe life really is meaningless), but it can prompt an investigation into the matter; for, after all, can anyone really live as if her life lacked meaning or that her thoughts were nothing but non-rational gibberish?

On books

Of the reading of books there is no end. I don’t own that many books, fewer than 80. With only this many books, my personal library does not qualify as one belonging to a serious reader. I could own a lot more books, but I think I’m too cheap (okay, I know I’m too cheap). This may be why the public library is my favourite public place. And with interlibrary loans I can get books from all over the country, from small libraries in rural towns to large public university libraries holding over a million titles. Plus, I can also borrow books from other people. I’ve read books ranging from short biographies of missionaries to long anthologies of 17th century poetry simply by asking people if they have any books they can lend.

I wish, though, that I could be more like Erasmus: “When I have a little money, I buy books- if any is left, I buy food and clothes.”

Time waits for no man

He stares at his comb

One, two, five, ten, twelve…

Strands of virility cling harmlessly to plastic

He’s thin in the wrong place

A look in the full-length mirror reveals all

Youth has turned its back as time looks toward an end

The clock on his desk ticks like a middle-aged heart

Behold the man

Built for greatness; grasping at survival

He thinks he needs a stiff drink

Perhaps he needs something else.

God and hurricanes pt.4

One more thing about hurricanes (see Sept. 21 entry). If in fact the increase in hurricane activity and intensity is a result of global warming, then we have a situation where both free will and natural law interact to produce painful results. Human activity is the main culprit for global warming. If hurricanes are needed to reduce the amount of heat in the oceans, then perhaps we should lay part of the blame on ourselves. This kind of situation is similar to when deforestation causes massive mudslides. The mudslide would not have occurred if enough trees were in place to stabilize the soil. In the case of New Orleans, human inaction resulted in a levee system that was inadequate for a category 4 or 5 hurricane. In addition, the human response after a natural disaster can cause a lot of trouble, such as looting, price gouging, sluggish government action. In the case of famines in, say Africa, there is usually enough food. It just isn’t getting through to the people in need due to civil wars or corrupt politicians or genocidal politicians.

Anyway, while there are no easy answers to the question of natural disasters, as a Christian, I think the best answer to all type of suffering is Jesus Christ. If the Creator of the universe was willing to enter into dirty, gross, ugly humanity because He loves us, then that speaks volumes more than any theodicy. A God who shares our pain is the kind of god I want to follow (although my wanting and my doing are often at cross purposes).

Veritas lectures

I’m spending way too much time on the internet listening to lectures. I wouldn’t say I’m addicted (yet) but I’m falling behind in my reading. (It would be nice if I could just download all that information directly into my brain just like, say, Keanu Reeves in Johnny Mnemonic, or just like, say, Keanu Reeves in The Matrix. Of course, they’d probably have to do a little bit of drilling through the skull…better stick to reading.)

Anyway, here are some pretty good presentations by speakers at various Veritas Forums (Fora?). Check them out here.

To find out the purpose of the Veritas Forum check out this page. I also recommend reading the book, Finding God at Harvard edited by Kelly Monroe, which gives more details on how the whole thing got underway. The book is a collection of a number of thoughtful essays on faith and life in the halls of higher learning (Ivy League style).

The First Church of Fenway

I didn’t realize that my favourite baseball team, the Red Sox, had so many Christians on it. The only indication I had of this was when I heard Curt Schilling mention God a couple of times during last year’s playoffs. This Boston Globe article spells out the details.

There seems to be a level of disapprobation among some when athletes give credit to God for their success. Maybe it’s just because some Christian athletes are so showy in expressing their beliefs. Regardless of whether you’re an athlete or not, being loud and proud can be a detriment to effective Christian witness when you’ve really got nothing useful or good to say (saying something loudly doesn’t make it more palatable). I find myself perturbed especially at certain football players who make a big show of “praising God for that winning touchdown”. On the other hand, we shouldn’t neglect thanking God. So, where’s the line between appropriate and inappropriate God-talk in the locker room? Tough question, I think.

But I hope athletes don’t just thank Him when they win; it’s just as helpful to thank Him when they lose. God can work through both wins and losses. And I hope they don’t think that being the best of all is necessarily best for them (though it could be). If God has given a tennis player, for example, the ability to be no better than the number 17 player in the world, then he ought to play to the best of his ability and be content at #17 (though if he can improve to #16, then by all means try). I think God is more concerned that people use their abilities to the fullest, regardless of the outcome. Winning can sometimes ruin a person. Losing can sometimes make a person better. The trick is in knowing the difference between a bad win and a good loss.

And I think the Red Sox faithful have the right idea:

“The evangelicals in the Sox clubhouse say they believe God wants them to glorify him by performing at their highest possible level. The rest, they say, is in the Lord's hands.”

Well, as long as they finish ahead of the Evil Empire, er, the Yankees.

No Fly Zone

Today’s JetBlue incident underscores why I hate flying and have no intention of flying any time soon. The last time I hopped a ride on a jet, we almost crashed (well that’s what it felt like). We were approaching O’Hare when the pilot came on the intercom to tell us that it would take a bit longer before we could land since we had to fly around a severe thunderstorm. When I see seasoned flight attendants looking pretty worried (I was sitting right next to one of their stations), I get worried. Just three words: Worst…turbulence…ever. And it just kept going on and on. It was like bucking a bronco. A 200 ton metal bronco. I prefer to take Kasey Kasem’s advice: Keep your feet on the ground…(I forget how the rest of that goes.)

God and hurricanes pt.3

Now, one might object by asking: "Couldn’t God intervene whenever a major disaster is about to hit?” They might also ask: “Couldn’t God have created different physical laws, ones that wouldn’t result in so much devastation?”

To the first question we could respond that God would have to intervene in so widespread a manner that it would result in the suspension of the natural order with all its regularity of physical laws. But this would jeopardize responsible human action.

To the second question we could respond that the person asking the question simply has no idea what such a world would look like. If God were to modify one part of the natural system to prevent, say, earthquakes, for all we know He’d have to modify some other part of the natural system that may produce even more unpleasant results. Philosopher Ronald Nash points out that a “natural order is a system; even an apparently minor change in one part of the order would have to have repercussions throughout the system.”

The answers provided by the free will and natural law theodicies pave the way for the Soul-Making theodicy. In order to grow and become virtuous people, we must face certain challenges. Growth is difficult, if not impossible, in an environment that is free of any risk, danger or disappointment.

Some, maybe many, people won't be very satisfied with this response. Fair enough. But it's at least worth thinking about.

I’m certainly not qualified to write much more than this about this topic. For a fuller treatment, I recommend Part 4 of Ronald Nash’s book Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Zondervan, 1988).

Also worth a look is this article by William Lane Craig.

I honestly hope I do not ever go through a natural disaster. Like a lot of people, I’ve witnessed my share of suffering (family members dying of cancer or stroke or pneumonia, and family members being subjected to a repressive and deadly Communist regime). That's about all I can handle (and I wasn't even the one doing much of the suffering). The best that I can do is to trust that God has got it all under control (even if it seems like He doesn't). And to give to the Red Cross and Salvation Army.

God and hurricanes pt.2

Hurricanes, tsunamis and other serious natural disaster always bring up the question of why God, who is all good and all powerful, would allow this kind of suffering, commonly called natural evil.

My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful God to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how God would allow evil. Perhaps the models are not completely accurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why God would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. These models are commonly called theodicies. A theodicy is any justification of God’s goodness and power in the face of evil.

Most people are familiar with the Free Will theodicy, namely, human beings freely make certain choices, some of which result in evil, commonly called moral evil. God’s purpose in allowing moral evil to exist is to bring about certain greater goods. These would include the existence of moral goods like love, generosity, compassion. Free moral agents are needed for moral good.

I don’t know if philosophers use the term theodicy to express the idea that we know exactly how God would allow evil. If so that seems a bit presumptuous. I think I prefer the term Free Will Response to the problem of evil. But I’ll just use the term theodicy for now.

The natural law theodicy says that an orderly created world is necessary for moral agents to act responsibly. Moral order requires physical order. If natural objects were to behave unpredictably, deliberate action by humans would be made difficult, if not impossible. We need to know what the effects of our actions will be, and for this we need nature to behave in regular ways.

For example, we need to know that pushing your little brother off the fifth floor balcony, or that pushing your little brother’s head underwater for too long, or pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing has serious consequences. Our knowledge of the predictable effects of gravity, for example, keep us (or at least should keep us) from acting in irresponsible ways.

These same physical laws are the things that cause hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. And these laws are capable of producing both harmful and beneficial effects. The water you drink is the same water that can drown you. The knife you use to cut your food is the same knife that can seriously hurt you.

Though it’s difficult to accept if you’ve gone through one of these disasters, scientists point out that hurricanes and earthquakes are required for life to exist on earth. Christian physicist Hugh Ross (in Facts & Faith, 1998, vol.12, No.4) points out that:

“[H]urricanes…play a vital role in sustaining the right range of temperatures for life. On the one hand, they counterbalance the ocean's tendency to leach carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked, would result in a catastrophic cooling of the planet. On the other hand, hurricanes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat. They help circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean (reflecting solar radiation) locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures. During the summer of 1995, three hurricanes over the Sargasso Sea increased the flow of carbon dioxide from the water to the atmosphere by more than fifty percent. At the same time, each hurricane cooled the sea water (near the surface) by 7°F (4°C) for two to three weeks at a time.

Meteorologists affirm that too many or too few hurricanes would spell disaster for advanced life on Earth. The fact that their frequency and intensity fall into precisely the right range for life support provides one more piece of evidence that God carefully designed Earth with the necessities of life in mind.”

Elsewhere he write:

“The apologetics question about earthquakes I hear most often is "Why would a loving God allow us to experience the horrors of earthquakes?" I can give one answer from my limited human understanding, and that has to do with His provision for man's food needs.
Without earthquakes, nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve. But, thanks to tectonic plate movements (the movements that generate earthquakes), nutrients eroded into the oceans are recycled back to the continents.
If the number and intensity of earthquakes on planet Earth were any smaller, the rate of nutrient recycling would be insufficient to support land-based life.

If the number and intensity of earthquakes were any greater, human civilization, certainly, urbanization, would be impossible. The rate of earthquake activity is just right. The next time you feel an earthquake, try thanking God for His perfect providence.

In the case of other disasters, too, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and blizzards, you may be comforted to learn that here again the number and intensity are ideal for sustaining the best conditions for life on Earth. Though it is painful to suffer or see others suffer through these disasters, we can acknowledge that they are, on a grand scale, a manifestation of God's care.”

God and hurricanes pt.1

Recent natural disasters have focused attention on the relationship between evil, pain and suffering, and an all-powerful, loving God. Some Christians say that God is punishing people for their sins and saying it unlovingly and unintelligently (see this Richard Roeper column, for example)

Others, while not going that far, acknowledge that natural calamities are generally related somehow to a sinful, fallen world.

For example, this article quotes Al Mohler:

“According to Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, people who focus on God's loving and powerful qualities have an incomplete understanding of who God is. ‘The one thing that is often missing from that picture, in terms of how people think about God, is that He is also just,’ Reverend Mohler says. ‘That means that we know that one of the reasons the world experiences earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornados is because of sin, and the fact that this is a fallen world. It is not like Eden, as God had intended from the beginning.’ A hurricane happens, in other words, because the balance that God intended for this world has been upset by sin.”

The same article quotes a Catholic theologian:

“Nevertheless, the idea that human sin is responsible for something like a urricane is completely foreign to Catholics, according to Sister Elizabeth Johnson, who teaches Theology at Fordham University, a Jesuit school. She says in Catholic theology, hurricanes and earthquakes are caused not by God and not by sin, but by Natural Law. ‘God is the cause of all causes. God is the primary cause,’ she says. ‘Catholic theology teaches that God set the world up with its own integrity as a creature. It has its own natural laws, it has its own internal ways of working. You have an undersea earthquake, and you get a tsunami,’ Professor Johnson says. ‘God didn't cause that. That's the actual working of the planet that keeps it fertile and refreshed and so on. And hurricanes are in the same boat.’

Now, I agree with Mohler that we live in a fallen world. But is sin the specific reason that Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf states, or that the tsunami hit southeast Asia? I prefer the Catholic approach.

Now, there is a difference between the philosophical or theoretical response to evil, and the pastoral or emotional response. What I want to try to present is a very brief summary of the theoretical response. This is important, I think, because even though most people suffering from evil probably don’t give a rip about the intellectual problem in the midst of the ongoing trials and pains, later on, while reflecting on the question, they may want to look for some answer to the question of why God allows suffering.

Does blogging make you smarter?

Does blogging make you smarter? (Didn't I just say that?) Well, it hasn’t helped me any (I think mental flabbiness is an irreversible trait with me). But, this blog post by two doctors claims that blogging promotes the type of brain stimulating activity that promotes critical thinking and enhances both introspection and social interaction. It’s very interesting.

My question is, how many posts does it take to cause a significant increase in brain power? 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 5…(well, you get the point)? Is it a gradual effect or does it suddenly cascade into a torrent of brainy expostulations, sort of like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz, who, upon hearing he had a brain all along suddenly spouts off the Pythagorean theorem (at least, if memory serves me right. Blast that brain of mine). But if he had a brain the whole time why didn’t he figure this out beforehand (the dummy)? Anyways, don’t hate me because I’m dumb. Hate me because I’m, uh, what was I saying…?

Semicolons

Here’s an entertaining article on semicolons; it’s basically a combination of a comma and a period; with the period on top and the comma on the bottom.

Natural Predispositions

If someone says that he has a natural predisposition towards some behaviour (say, alcoholism, or stealing, or whatever), he will probably use that as an explanation to excuse that behaviour.

Now, we all have natural predispositions. Some predispositions lead to good and healthy behaviours, and others lead to not so good and unhealthy behaviours. I, for example, have a natural predisposition towards uttering dumb, inappropriate remarks in serious situations (hopefully this isn’t one of them), or telling a fib to get out of a tight spot. But does that make the action right? What if someone has a predisposition towards pedophilia or child abuse or pyromania? Shall we excuse him from his behaviour based on natural predispositions?

Each person has natural predispositions. But this issue is separate from the issue of whether the actions that result from these predispositions are right. And here we ought to look at each behaviour on a case by case basis to see whether it is healthy or unhealthy.

Let’s say someone does an altruistic act (eg. Giving to charity, volunteering with troubled youth, opening their home to disaster victims, etc.). We commend that person for doing a good deed. Is that commendation any less valid if we knew that the person had less of a natural predisposition to doing good deeds than someone else? We recognize the good deed irrespective of the natural disposition of the person in question. So, don’t let anyone try to justify a bad behaviour by appealing to a natural predisposition. As they say about blood stains, that just won’t wash. (or maybe grass stain – blood makes some people faint).

Jesus or Horus?

In another letter to our local paper one reader wrote:

“Mr. X. has written a fascinating tirade about how wonderful and responsible the evangelical Christian movement has been and still is….But what I find fascinating is that…he apparently has not looked at the simple reality that there is virtually no historical evidence that Jesus as a man ever existed. All of the significant elements of his so-called life were lifted almost in their entirety from Egyptian mythology of several thousand years earlier. In their wisdom, the Egyptians knew them to be life-enriching myths about Horus, not historical events. However the “Church” of the early 300s forced the members of the Christos cult to change their views and history so that the Christos in every man was changed to be in “a man” – thus the birth of Jesus as the only saviour. Even back then, the struggle for power and control outweighed the simple and much more wonderful and inspiring truth: We all have divine inspiration within us, equally, and vibrantly. It is up to us as individuals to foster it.” Mr. Z from the city.

Mr. Z seems to have lifted this idea from Tom Harpur’s book The Pagan Christ. Since I haven’t read the book I wouldn’t really be able to say much about it except to recommend that Mr. Z, and others like him, spend more time reading books by respected biblical historians like N.T. Wright (Bishop of Durham), E.P. Sanders (Duke University), and Martin Hengel (Tubingen University). None of these scholars are evangelical (though Wright and Hengel are certainly “evangelical friendly”). Sanders is not, as far as I know, a Christian; but his scholarship has been valuable in discovering more about Jesus of Nazareth, especially in the context of Judaism. Even liberal scholars like those in the Jesus Seminar, whatever their differences with evangelicals and other theologically conservative Christians, acknowledge that Jesus existed.

This long article from Tektonics.org contains a critical review of Harpur’s book if anyone is interested. In fact, I'd recommend Tektonics to anyone who has questions on objections to the historical Jesus.

Do Christians Impose their Beliefs?

A letter appeared recently in our local newspaper that goes as follows:

“Mr. X’s commentary explaining what being an evangelical Christian means to him was passionate, eloquent and informative. I am left with no doubt that he is a good person. However, I believe he has missed the point as to why some people get nervous about the efforts to mobilize the Christian right politically (with evangelicals seemingly being at the forefront). It is a fine line between wanting to have your voice heard and wanting to impose your belief system on others. Though Mr. X might not want to, many hear the rhetoric of some leaders of that mobilization as the desire to impose their beliefs on others. You don’t have to believe in God or some particular version of God to be a good person. Although the vast majority of us, evangelical Christians included, are good people, avowed belief and attendance at church don’t determine who’s good and who isn’t. Also, each of us have a different view on what disqualifies individuals from membership in the “Good Person” club. Debating the qualifications is healthy. Trying to impose my views on others when their views don’t really affect me is quite another matter. The heroic political evangelical leaders to whom Mr. X refers all understood the difference. Some of us are not as confident about some of the current leaders.” By Mr. Y from the eastern suburbs.

Now, I didn’t read the original letter or commentary by Mr. X (not his real name). But I gather that he expressed the belief that evangelicals are generally good people and that a number of evangelical leaders in the past have effected important social changes for the good. (I suspect he mentioned William Wilberforce’s successful effort to abolish slavery in the British colonies.)

Mr. Y commends Mr. X for being a good person and sees no problem (it appears anyway) with evangelicals wanting to have a voice in politics and in steering public policy in a certain direction. He seems genuinely concerned, though, about evangelicals imposing their views on others (he mentions this three times.) This concern, however, is unfounded.

To impose a belief is to force people to accept said belief. That being the case, evangelicals don’t impose their beliefs on others, nor could they given their numbers. Instead, they propose a certain view of reality for consideration, one that people are free to either accept or reject. As Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon points out, that’s what citizens in a democracy do: propose, give reasons, then vote. This is no different than what Mr. Y has done. He has put forward a particular point of view. He’s provided some reasons for his view. And as for voting, I presume he feels no obligation to vote the way certain evangelicals may want him to (and it should be noted that there is a diversity of political views within Canadian evangelicalism. There are evangelicals in all the major political parties and voting among evangelicals is not monolithic. See the Sept/Oct 2004 edition of Faith Today for details). I, or anyone else, can either agree or disagree with his view. I’m sure nobody would mistake the proposal of his viewpoint for an imposition of beliefs on others.

Of course, one could point out that Wilberforce did in fact impose his views on all citizens of the British Empire, namely the view that slavery is wrong and its practice should expunged from British society. But certainly some beliefs are so sensible and worthy of adoption that imposition is not a problem, and I think the abolition of slavery is one of those beliefs. Other beliefs need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. In addition, somebody’s beliefs are always being imposed on others in a democracy by being enshrined in law, such as the belief that it is wrong to steal other people’s property or that one should not abuse children. That being the case, imposition in itself is not a problem. The problem is in what beliefs are being presented for imposition. In any case, evangelicals propose beliefs for consideration.

Mr. Y also makes the claim that people don’t need to believe in God or attend church to be good. That this is obvious to both religious believers and non-believers alike renders such a statement meaningless. The question is not whether non-religious people can be good (of course, they can) but rather whether or not any person can be good if God does not exist, regardless of that person’s particular religious beliefs. The existence of objective moral standards follows from God’s existence. If objective moral standards do not exist, then one cannot distinguish between goodness and badness. Since one can distinguish between goodness and badness, then objective moral standards do exist. Since objective moral standards do exist, then God exists. The real question is: What grounds the moral standards in reality, the same moral standards (generally) that both believers and non-believers alike hold to? One doesn’t need to believe in God in order to be good. But God does need to exist in order for one to be good. Of course, on the biblical view, no one is truly “good”. We’ve all committed moral crimes of one sort or another (commonly known as sin). Hence, the need for forgiveness. And this is why many people are evangelicals. They have accepted the forgiveness of their sins offered by God through Jesus Christ.

Locked out (just like all of Ned Flanders's cable channels)

Employees at the CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation) have been locked out now for a few weeks. Some are probably disappointed by this, but I’m not (at least not too much). I do enjoy getting the news on CBC Newsworld but even that is not so big of a deal considering that I can get the news from so many other sources. No, the best part about this lock-out is the fact that I get 24 hours of classical music on CBC Radio 2. What’s even better than this is that there are no annoying announcers (I wonder if it’s appropriate to call them deejays) inserting their remarks between every musical selection. There are three announcers in particular that I find rather irritating. I won’t mention their names since I don’t know whether any of them are homicidal maniacs who know how to hack into websites and find out personal information about individual bloggers. But, they simply love the sound of their own voice(s). They love their voices so much that whenever I tune in to one of their shows, I tend to hear more of them than the music. Maybe I’m just tuning at the wrong moments. Maybe if I tuned in at the right time I’d be hearing only great music and not some guy going on about some trivial piece of banality, all the while showcasing his mellifluous, bass intonation (sort of like what I’m doing now only without the mellifluity (or is it mellifluousness) of a bass intoner.)

Well, to give them some credit, at least they give me the title and composer of a piece that I’m not familiar with. So I guess, when they get back to work, I’ll learn to live with them.

Norman Geisler vs. Alvin Plantinga

I’m no philosopher or even a grad student in philosophy. But I find that philosophy of religion is about the most interesting subject that I can read about.
I stumbled across a blog entry by John Depoe that questions the validity of Alvin Plantinga’s religious epistemology and the notion of the proper basicality of beliefs. In his critique, Depoe quotes from Norman Geisler’s Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. I looked up the referred article and found a few points to make. (Remember, I have no training in philosophy, so please be patient and forgiving.)

Geisler writes that including the belief in God as a properly basic one would “undercut natural theology, the need to provide any arguments for God’s existence.” This is obviously not a concern of Plantinga’s as evidenced by his “Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments”. Just because one doesn’t need evidence to believe in God, that doesn’t mean there isn’t any evidence. Some examples that Plantinga provides are: The argument from intentionality, the argument from natural numbers, the argument from positive epistemic status, versions of the teleological argument. He lists his arguments under the following categories: metaphysical arguments, epistemological arguments, moral arguments, and other (e.g. the argument from colors and flavors).

Geisler continues with “[Plantinga’s] view is a kind of fideistic foundationalism” and later writes “Like other fideists…”. It’s clear that Geisler thinks Plantinga is a fideist. In the Encyclopedia article titled “Fideism”, Geisler writes, “Religious fideism agues matters of faith and religious belief are not supported by reason. Reason is a matter of faith and cannot be argued by reason. One must simply believe.” If this is what fideism is, then Plantinga is no fideist. In his book Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig writes, “Plantinga thus insists that his epistemology is not fideistic; the deliverances of reason include not only inferred propositions, but also properly basic propositions. God has so constructed us that we naturally form the belief in his existence under appropriate circumstances, just as we do the belief in perceptual objects, the reality of the past, and so forth. Hence, belief in God is among the deliverances of reason, not faith.” (p. 29) The following articles, “Theism, Atheism, and Rationality”, “Intellectual Sophistication and belief in God”, and “Theism as a Properly Basic Belief” show Plantinga using reason to stake out his position. For book lovers, see his Warranted Christian Belief and Faith and Rationality.

Geisler writes, “The denial that there are any self-evident foundational principles of thought involves one either in an infinite regress, where no justification is ever given, or else in an arbitrary cut-off point where one simply stops giving a justification.” Plantinga doesn’t deny that there are self-evident foundational principles. He gladly includes self-evident and incorrigible beliefs as basic ones in a person’s noetic structure. He simply thinks that these are not the only beliefs that are properly basic. Common examples of these other basic beliefs would be memory beliefs, the belief in the existence of an external universe, the belief that the people around you have minds and are not really automatons. When you see a tree, you don’t base your belief that you see the tree on any other beliefs. The belief that you’re seeing a tree is present immediately to your mind. Now, saying that a belief is basic doesn’t necessarily mean that it is true. It simply means that you don’t require any more basic or foundational beliefs to support that particular belief.

Geisler writes that unless the reformed epistemologist provides a rational justification for his basic belief, he “simply begs the question.” First of all, basic beliefs are precisely those beliefs that don’t require any further rational justification. Second, if the lack of rational justification for a basic belief begs the question, then anyone who holds, for example, that the universe has existed for more than five minutes also begs the question, since the holder of this particular belief would be pretty hard pressed to provide a rational justification for that belief. Both the belief in God and the belief that the universe has existed for more than five minutes are in the same epistemological boat.

Geisler writes, “Plantinga here failed to distinguish between belief in and belief that God exists.” In his book God, Freedom and Evil, Plantinga writes, “Now belief in God is not the same thing as belief that God exists, or that there is such a thing as God. To believe that God exists is simply to accept a proposition of a certain sort – a proposition affirming that there is a personal being who, let’s say, has existed from eternity, is almighty, is perfectly wise…To believe in God, however, is quite another matter… Belief in God means trusting God…” (p.1-2). Surely a philosopher and thinker as sophisticated as Plantinga would know the difference between belief in and belief that.

Calvin College philosophy professorKelly James Clark, in an article that I can’t locate any more, says that the way people normally come to religious faith is not through arguments (though I’m sure some do, but the majority of people don’t) but through experiences of various kinds under the right circumstances. The locus of faith is not rational argumentation but rather the work of the Holy Spirit.

So, I think that Geisler misrepresents Plantinga’s position. In addition, Geisler himself at one point in his Christian walk held to belief in God without rational justification. In a radio interview that I heard three or four years ago, Geisler said that he became interested in philosophy and apologetics when, after becoming a Christian as a teenager, people would challenge him to prove God exists or to prove that Christ rose from the dead. As a new believer, Geisler couldn’t answer those challenges. So, since he lacked any rational justification for his belief in Jesus, was Geisler irrational in believing in Him? Shouldn’t he have dropped his belief in Christ since he couldn’t provide a justifying argument? Obviously not. His belief that Christianity was true was the very thing that spurred him on to become a leading Christian apologist. Isn’t it more likely the case that his belief in Christianity was properly basic?

I’ve got a few complaints about the rest of the Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (though I, generally, find it to be a useful and helpful book). I’ll leave that for another time.

(I obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Let's never bring the topic up again lest I make a bigger fool of myself.)