Facts Don't Care About Your Religious Feelings

Ben Shapiro's line, "Facts don't care about your feelings.", is popular among political conservatives. And it should be. It's a good line. At the time I'm writing this, the tweet just linked has close to 400000 likes. The line and variants of it are often repeated, featured in memes, etc.

But it's remarkable how many conservatives have far less concern about facts and reason in religious contexts. If you follow religious discussions at political web sites, on political talk radio, on political television programs, and so forth, you notice that there isn't much interest in religion and that the few religious discussions that do occur tend to be of a shallow nature intellectually. There's often not much depth in their political discussions either. The people who go to these web sites, listen to these radio shows, etc. largely want somebody else, like Shapiro, to do the intellectual work for them. But at least there's more interest shown in intellectual matters and more intellectual work done by laymen in political contexts than in religious ones. And they don't just know more about politics than religion. They also seem to know a lot more about sports, humor, movies, music, and other subjects than they do about religious matters.

Political conservatives are better than the average American in a lot of ways. (See the sources linked here for some of the relevant documentation.) Most Americans don't care much about intellectual issues in religious or political contexts. But if political conservatives are going to be so (rightly) critical of the emotionalism of the political left, and they're going to keep showing so much interest in sentiments like the one expressed in Shapiro's popular line, they ought to be making far more of an effort to be consistent about it. The sentiment Shapiro is expressing matters more in religion than it does in politics, but people act as though the opposite is true.

Why the 4th of July should matter

2nd degree murder

Looking at the legal descriptions of third-degree and second-degree, elevation of the Floyd killing to second-degree is quite risky. It requires proving intent to kill, rather than depraved indifference to human life. That's a heavy legal burden.

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 3, 2020

Dying young and old

1. Cultural warrior Ben Shapiro got into hot water recently by suggesting that death of the elderly from COVID19 isn't equivalent to the death of  30-something from COVID19. Shapirio is not a bioethicist, so his assessment is intuitive. There are lots of critics who wish to indulge in moral grandstanding and lobe accusations of hypocrisy rather than have a serious ethical discussion. 

2. One issue is whether it's more tragic to die young or have a natural lifespan. For instance, Mickey Mantle died shortly after a liver transplant. The question was whether the donor liver was wasted on a poor candidate. Should that have gone to a patient in a better prospect of survival? 

Dick Cheney's heart transplant at 71 was criticized. Should that go to someone with more life ahead of him? 

Not life threatening, but criticisms were raised about Prince Philip receiving a hip replacement at 96. 

3. Returning to (2), there's a sense in which the elderly have both more to lose and less to lose. On the one hand they have a cumulative lifetime of memories. A lifetime of experience.

On the other hand, the young miss out on their future. They never had those experiences. 

4. There's also the issue of squandering the gift of life. Blowing opportunities. Can you forfeit the right to demand a second chance when your second chance denies someone else a first chance? Someone who through no fault of their own never had the opportunity you abused?

5. Then there's the question of a normal lifespan. Surgery, medication, and good diet can extend life beyond what would be a natural lifespan. Is that an entitlement or a windfall? Is that something we should get used to? Should we feel cheated if we don't have a normal lifespan? Or is that a boom?

6. Artificially prolonging life carries the risk of increasing exposure to raving diseases like Parkinson's and senile dementia. So there are tradeoffs. It's tempting fate. 

7. From what I've read, the death toll for COVIN-19 is inflated by classifying the cause of death as COVIN-19 even when comorbidities were necessary contributors to death. It was the coronvirus in combination with preexisting or underlying conditions that pushed them over the edge.

8. From what I've read, we have the opposite of quarantine measures for the elderly. Rather, we round them up in retirement ohms and nursing homes which are infection vectors. They die at high rates because they infect each other and have low resistance. So if this was really about protecting the elderly, they wouldn't be concentrated in nursing homes and retirement homes where the density of exposure and low resistance guarantees high fatalities 

9. Death is inevitable. We can sometimes postpone the inevitable, but the ultimate issue is the significance of human life. Is this life all there is? What ultimately matters is not how long you live but what's in store for you when you die. 

10. Theologically, it's an interesting question what constitutes a normal or natural lifespan. As I read Genesis, humans were naturally mortal, naturally subject to the aging process, but they were created with the unrealized capacity for immortality. They'd naturally age and died, perhaps at a slower rate, but the potential for immortality wasn't automatic. Rather, that's a gift conferred by the tree of life. And for the dead in Christ, that's reversed by the resurrection of the just. 

Bishop Barron's inclusivism

Ben Shapiro asks Bishop Robert Barron about salvation according to Catholicism. I don't recall Shapiro asking William Lane Craig or Ravi Zacharias this question, but it's possible I missed it. Shapiro may have asked John MacArthur, but I didn't watch that episode.

What’s the Catholic view on who gets into heaven and who doesn’t? I feel like I lead a pretty good life - a very religiously based life - in which I try to keep, not just the ten commandments, but a solid 603 other commandments as well. And I spend an awful lot of my time promulgating what I would consider to be Judeo-Christian virtues, particularly in Western societies. So, what’s the Catholic view of me? Am I basically screwed here?

No surprise Barron gives a terribly unbiblical response:

No. The Catholic view - go back to the Second Vatican Council - says it very clearly. I mean Christ is the privileged route to salvation. "God so loved the world he gave his only Son that we might find eternal life." So that’s the privileged route.

However, Vatican II clearly teaches that someone outside the explicit Christian faith can be saved. Now, they’re saved through the grace of Christ, indirectly received. So the grace is coming from Christ. But it might be received according to your conscience. So if you’re following your conscience sincerely - or in your case you’re following the commandments of the law sincerely - yeah, you can be saved.

Now, that doesn’t conduce to a complete relativism. We still would say the privileged route - the route that God has offered to humanity - is the route of his Son.

But, no, you can be saved. Even Vatican II says an atheist of good will can be saved, because in following his conscience, if he does - John Henry Newman said the conscience is "the aboriginal vicar of Christ in the soul" (it's a very interesting characterization) - it is, in fact, the voice of Christ if he is the Logos made flesh, right? He's the divine mind or reason made flesh. So when I'm following my conscience I'm following him, whether I know it explicitly or not. So even the atheist, Vatican II teaches, "of good will", can be saved.

Just a brief response for now:

1. Why bother becoming a Catholic if what Barron says is true. Heck, why bother becoming a theist if what Barron says is true.

2. Barron equivocates between "following one's conscience" and "following the commandments of the law". The two aren't necessarily the same. Especially if we're referring to the 613 commandments in rabbinic Judaism. It's not as if a non-Jew's conscience (however "intact" it may be) would necessarily tell him to follow kosher laws, observe Shabbat, and wear a tallit with tzitzit.

At best, I think, conscience might coincide with the Noahide laws, but even that's hardly a given. Does a pagan's conscience necessarily tell them not to worship an idol? Doesn't a good Buddhist (Mahayana) think he's doing right by his conscience in what he does for Buddha? Doesn't a good Muslim have a clear conscience when worshiping Allah? Yet post-Vatican II Catholicism even accepts that good people in other religions can be saved.

Or take the prohibition against murder. One could be a good communist who believes murder is wrong, but who doesn't consider killing the bourgeoisie "murder". One could be a modern American progressive Catholic who believes murder is wrong, but who doesn't think abortion is murder. That's not what their conscience tells them.

3. Perhaps Barron would reply these people have a seared conscience. A good conscience would have to align with biblical morality. But how far does that go? Wouldn't a Catholic in Barron's vein accept that worshiping a false god could somehow be done unto the true God? Similar to how Emeth in The Last Battle worshiped Tash. Yet biblical ethics would say that'd be a clear violation of the ten commandments.

4. I don't follow how Christ being the Word (Logos) made flesh means our conscience is "the voice of Christ". I don't doubt God could well speak to us through our conscience. I could even agree with Barron's conclusion that a good conscience is God's voice. However I don't see what this has to do with Christ being the Logos.

5. Of course, much turns on the phrase "of good will". What does that mean exactly? Who decides? I suspect much of this turns on Catholic natural law. All this would suggest severe faultlines in Catholic inclusivist soteriology, but I'd have to do a lengthier post about all this.

Fishing expedition for impeachment

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1176878427942424578

Ben and Ravi

Today I watched Ben interview Ravi:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIMwWtt_EVQ

Before getting to the main point:

1. I've now watched Ben interview Ravi, W. L. Craig, and Bishop Barron. Of the three, Ravi is the most compelling communicator. Craig is dry. Although Barron is affable, he strikes me a joyless.

By contrast, Ravi projects warmth and kindliness. Has a soothing soft-spoken delivery. Due to his vast experience conversing with folks around the globe, he can dip into countless personal anecdotes. He has a more existential emphasis than Craig, although the "meaning of life" is part of Craig's apologetic menu. 

As a young Christian I read some of his stuff, but found it too superficial. So it's nice to come back to him after so many years.

Assessing the Craig/Shapiro dialogue

Orthodox Jewish culture warrior Ben Shapiro recently interviewed William Lane Craig:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/05/shapiro-interviews-craig.html

Craig is pushing 70. Looks great for his age, and remains mentally sharp. Although the entire interview is worth viewing, I think the reason most of us tune in is to see their exchange about the messiahship of Jesus, so I'll focus on that. 

One brief point: Craig mentions the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in Mk 15. He notes the reference to Dan 7. There is, however, a combined reference to Dan 7 and Ps 110. Now let's shift to the heart of the exchange: 

Shapiro: In the Gospels, Jesus's vision of himself is completely different from the prior vision of what the Jewish messiah is, and is actually outside the scope of how Jews described the messiah or really have ever described the messiah. The messiah in Judaism has always been a political figure who is destined to do certain things–restoring the kingdom of Israel, maintaining control of that kingdom, bringing more Jews back to Israel…but the idea of messiah as the embodiment of God is something foreign to Jewish religious philosophy, going all the way back to the beginning. So even the idea that the Sanhedrin would be questioning him in those terms and would get from that that what he means is "I am God"–which would a much more punishable offense, actual blasphemy–is an oddity. 

Craig: I think you're absolutely right in saying that Jesus's understanding of the messiah was radically different from the prevailing cultural understanding of the messiah among the chief priests and the common people, and he didn't meet their expectations. Indeed, that's what helped to get him crucified…Why should we believe Jesus's reinterpretation of the messiah rather than the one that the chief priests and the people held? And I think the answer to that is his resurrection from the dead. 

I don't think that's a good answer to Shapiro's challenge:

i) How do we determine "the prior vision of what the Jewish messiah is?" That can't be determined by Rabbinic Judaism inasmuch as Rabbinic Judaism isn't prior to Jesus, but developed in conscious reaction and opposition to Christianity. So the view of the messiah in Rabbic Judaism is, in some measure, reactionary and anachronistic. 

ii) In asserting that the Jewish messiah has always been a political figure, there's the danger of circular methodology. Are you beginning with the OT? Are you basing your concept of messiah on prophetic passages about a future figure who will do certain things? Or do you begin with a preconceived notion of messiahship, and use that as an a priori criterion to differentiate messianic passages from non-messianic passages? Christians/messianic Jews think the OT contains more messianic prophecies than Rabbinic Jews. Who do Rabbinic Jews think these allegedly non-messianic passages are referring to? 

iii) Did Second Temple Judaism have a monolithic conception of the messiah? Jacob Neuser talks about Judaisms (plural). 

iv) Are 1C chief priests good representatives of Jewish theology? From what I've read, the 1C chief priests, and Sadducees generally, were puppets of the Roman occupation force. They were chosen, not for their orthodoxy, but for their loyalty to their Roman overlords. So even if Jesus didn't conform to their conception of the messiah, what makes their conception the standard of comparison?  

v) And even that may be too idealistic. The trial of Jesus was just a pretext to get a public nuisance out of the way. They weren't operating from religious or theological motives. 

vi) There's a practical tension in Judaism. On the one hand, for a creature to claim to be Yahweh is the epitome of blasphemy. 

On the other hand, in OT narratives, Yahweh sometimes appears to people in a form that's phenomenologically indistinguishable from a human male. Although a theophanic angelophany is different from a divine Incarnation, my point is that in both cases, there's no empirically detectable difference between a man and God appearing in humanoid form. How could the Sandhedrin tell that Jesus isn't the Angel of the Lord? 

My point is that it's not automatically blasphemous in Judaism for someone who, to all appearances, seems to be human or merely human, to claim to be Yahweh. So that presents a certain conundrum when assessing whether the claim is true or blasphemously false. 

vii) One differential factor is whether the claimant not only says things only God is supposed to say, but also performs miracles. That at least shows a supernatural element is in play. 

viii) Craig seems unaware of the two-Yahwehs tradition in Second Temple Judaism. That's been documented by scholars like Alan Segal and Michael Heiser. 

Shapiro: One of the counterclaims is that the Gospels are written significantly after Jesus lives. The earliest Gospel is written 70 CE, somewhere 40 years after Jesus is crucified…especially when you're talking about events 2000 year ago.

i) Craig responds with his minimal facts trope.

ii) It's arguable that Mark's Gospel was written as earlier as the 40s (see John Wenham). It's arguable that Acts was written before Paul's execution. If so, then Luke's Gospel may be dated to the late 50s (give or take). Matthew's Gospel could be written in the 50s or 60s. I happen to think the epilogue to John (Jn 21) is best explained by the death of Peter. So I date John's Gospel to the 60s.

iii) But the key issue is whether the Gospels are based on living memory. 

iv) Shapiro's skepticism about the Gospels is inconsistent with his belief as an Orthodox Jew that the OT is a reliable record of events which transpired thousands of years ago. If the 2000 year gap is a problem for the Gospels, there's a much greater gap regarding OT history. 

In the same general connection, Shapiro mentions some disciples of the late Rabbi Schneerson. Although he died 20 years ago, some of them believe he's still alive. But that's a very loose comparison:

Is his tomb empty? Are there apparitions of Rabbi Schneerson? Even if there were, does he have conversations with the living? Can he be touched? Does he consume food? 

Shapiro interviews Craig

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL-zJzE5clA

A commenter posted a time-stamped, hyperlinked table of contents:


0:23 Welcome Dr. William Lane Craig 1:37 Why is there such a decline in religious belief in The West? 3:03 “Why should you get up in the dark and the cold to worship someone you don’t think is there?” 4:06 Nietzsche, “God is Dead”, Enlightenment sweeps away The Church 5:25 Faith backed by reason • A Renaissance of Christian Belief In Philosophy 7:40 What is the most reasonable proof of God? The Cosmological Argument (8:18) 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The Universe began to exist 3. Therefore, The Universe has a cause The Moral Argument (9:18) (1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist (2) Objective moral Values exist (3) Therefore, God Exists 10:12 Objections/Response to The Cosmological Argument 11:55 Objections/Response to The Morality Argument 13:32 What are the strongest objections to God? Build a Steelman. Where are your objectors the strongest in their objections? 14:46 ZipRecruiter 15:46 Bertrand Russell The External Transcendent Cause Argument (16:03) 1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in necessity of its own nature or an external cause 2. If the Universe has an explanation of its existence, then its explanation is a Transcendent external cause 3. The Universe Exists Cn: Therefore, The Universe has a Transcendent external cause 17:25 Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Vaccum The Ontological Argument (19:13) 1. That than which nothing greater can be thought not only exists in the mind but in the real world 2. God is that than which nothing greater can be thought Cn. God Exists 21:22 Maximally Great Island 23:12 What makes God a Constant vs a Clockmaker (Deism) God necessarily exists. Can’t cease to exist. 25:23 Aquinas and Aristotle. Athens And Jerusalem 26:00 Monotheism. Who Was Jesus? 28:47 Judaism On Jesus 32:00 Religio-Historical Context (1) Jesus tomb was discovered empty (2) Seen walking around after (1) (3) The Disciples believed he had been risen from the dead 36:15 Rabbi Schneerson 37:17 “Good evidence doesn’t become bad evidence just because of the lapse of time” 38:25 The Necessity for Judaeo-Christian Revelation. Why a Personal God? - Atonement For Sin - Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice for Mankind 42:45 Craig’s 1st Debate. Craig’s rematch debate 44:03 Problem of Evil 😈 Intellectual and Emotional Suffering 46:00 The Evils of The Bible Indentured Servitude/Slavery, an Anti-Poverty program 49:10 Divine Command Theory Divorce? 51:55 It is grounded in The Creation Story. 54:00 Relativism and Objectivity 55:25 Jordan Peterson 57:20 Reeducating Religion 58:49 What made you religious William?

A Caution About Ben Shapiro's New PragerU Video And Book

You can view the video here. It centers around the Athens/Jerusalem distinction made by Tertullian. I haven't read Shapiro's book, though I did look up his citation of Tertullian there and read the surrounding context. I can't evaluate his book as a whole, but the video is misleading, as is the portion of the book I read. Shapiro does a lot of good work, and I suspect the book as a whole has a lot of good qualities. But the video is problematic, and what little I've seen of the book raises some concerns about it.

I wrote an article several years ago about misrepresentations of Tertullian's comments on Athens and Jerusalem and another passage in Tertullian that's often misrepresented. Go here to find an index of responses to many other misconceptions about the church fathers, including other ones about the supposed intellectual negligence of the early Christians. And here's an article I wrote about the intellectual nature of Christianity and the importance of apologetics.

"Anti-Catholic myths"

Catholic apologist Trent Horn responded to something John MacArthur said in a recent interview with Ben Shapiro:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/refuting-a-pastors-dark-ages-myths

On Sunday, Daily Wire host Ben Shapiro interviewed Protestant pastor John MacArthur for his radio show and podcast. A little while into the conversation, Shapiro asked MacArthur, “Do you think the Enlightenment was a good thing or a bad thing?”

In response, MacArthur gave a rambling answer that focused instead on the Reformation and the Catholic Church, in the process repeating numerous anti-Catholic myths.  

John MacArthur and Ben Shapiro

I've watched most of this; it's not a bad discussion. I thought some of you would be interested to see this:

The White House press corps

I'm struck by the fact that David French and Ben Shapiro are siding with CNN over the Acosta kerfuffle. They act like Trump violated Acosta's Constitutional rights. 

This is concerning because it goes to the issue of judicial philosophy. Conservatives typically champion strict constructionism rather than a living Constitution. 

A president can't shut down the press. The press has a right to report on the Executive branch. Has the right to investigate the Executive branch. 

However, there's no Constitutional right to have a White House press corps. There's no Constitutional right for journalists to be stationed at the White House. There's no Constitutional mandate that a president hold press conferences. Or have a press secretary. Those are traditions that developed long after the Constitution was ratified.

There's no Constitutional mandate that a president call upon a particular reporter. There's no Constitutional mandate that a particular reporter from a particular news outlet have access to the White House. Those are traditions that developed long after the Constitution was ratified.

Banning a reporter from the White House grounds isn't a criminal penalty. The only folks who are really entitled to be on White House grounds are White House employees. 

It's disturbing when David French and Ben Shapiro hail the ruling of a judge in favor of Acosta. That's the kind of judicial overreach that conservatives are supposed to oppose. Inventing Constitutional rights that have no basis in the text, logic, or history of the Constitution. Their antipathy towards Trump is skewing their judgment. 

BTW, I've never seen the point of the White House press corps. The press secretary will defend whatever the current policy happens to be, whether the policy is logical, illogical, factual, or demonstrably false. It's a vacuous, predictable game in which reporters pose argumentative questions while the press secretary gives evasive, disingenuous, scripted answers. This is equally true for Democrat or Republic administrations. It's not a productive way to elicit useful information.  

What's in play

Regarding this debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNmbIXYxcTs&feature=youtu.be

It may be in part a generational thing. I think religious Jewish conservatives of the Prager/Medved generation (as well as secular Jewish hawks like Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer, and Richard Perle) are more cynical. They have lower expectations about politics and politicians. So they settle for less. They're more pragmatic. If you're too idealistic, you lose. You end up with nothing. 

A Jewish conservative of Shapiro's generation might be more confrontational. That may be in part because you didn't have the culture wars when Prager/Medved et al. came of age. I think culture warriors like Shapiro regard the more concessive strategy as a failure. When we compromise, the Left wins. So Jews like Shapiro and Levin (who's older than Shapiro but younger than Prager/Medved) are pushing back hard with all they've got. 

There's a parallel with the Holocaust. The old Jewish strategy was accommodation. Go along to get along. But the end of that road was the Shoah.

Younger Israelis look down on Holocaust survivors because they didn't fight back. They were too passive. Too nonresistant. 

Younger Israelis regard the Warsaw uprising as an inspirational model. If you're doomed, at least take as many of the enemy with you to the grave. 

I think that's why Israel breaks out the brass knuckles when necessary. Israel can't count on the "international community" to protect Jews. Indeed, much of the "international community" is rooting for the Muslims, or just doesn't care if Jews are wiped off the face of the map. So you have to be tough as nails to survive.  

Both sides have a reasonable position, and it's hard to say ahead of time which strategy will succeed or fail. A successful strategy at one time or place may be disastrous at another time or place. 

On the one hand, I agree with Shapiro that we always need to retain our critical detachment. We can't let political leaders be the ideological leaders. We need a definition of conservatism that's independent of political leaders.  

On the other hand, many on the Left who think social conservative are hypocritical for supporting the Trump administration don't know what hypocrisy is. They have no grasp of Christian ethics. They measure Christians by a yardstick that's not a Christian yardstick, then accuse Christians of inconsistency. 

Many of these critics are impervious to correction. They're fanatically invested in their narrative. Although we need to explain ourselves, it's futile to imagine that will win over all the critics. They demand nothing short of wholesale capitulation. 

United by “Victim Status”. Where does your “victim status” rank?

In this approximately four-minute video, Ben Shapiro shines the light on “the multiple avenues through which racial and gender expression are experienced”, and how various victim statuses now work together under the umbrella of “intersectionality”, to enhance the political impact of the various victim groups that have been and are continually being created:

Medical and state tyranny

I recently wrote about Alfie Evans here.

Ben Shapiro has an article "Who Controls Your Kids' Lives?" that's gold.

Over 100 U.K. physicians have signed the following:

Press release, regarding Alfie Evans: Medical and State Tyranny
From the Medical Ethics Alliance
14.00pm 24th April 2018

We are deeply concerned and outraged by the treatment and care offered to Alfie Evans. Wanting to withdraw treatment so that he will die, the medical authorities have taken Alfie to the High Court. At that point, and as a result of the hospital’s court action, the parents were stripped of their right to be decision makers for their beloved child. They could only advise the Court and look on as the High Court made decisions for Alfie.

The High Court decided that it was in the “Best Interests “ of Alfie to die and duly authorized the withdrawal of treatment. As a result the parents are being tortured as they watch the hospital take actions expected to lead to his death.

Despite a viable alternative being available (namely transfer by air ambulance for further assessment to a specialist hospital in Rome), the hospital and doctors responsible for his care insists that he remains under their care and on a pathway towards death. While he now has some oxygen and some fluid this has taken huge effort to obtain for him. He is offered sedation although (we understand) this has not been given at present. Sedation (if given) would mean that he would develop respiratory failure and die even more quickly.

Actions such as these have now brought the Alder Hey Hospital to worldwide attention and by extension bring our whole profession into disrepute.

Medical tyranny must stop. Poor Alfie must not be killed in this way. We demand that the authorities to allow Alfie safe passage to Rome.

With respect we insist that with immediate effect the GMC investigate the actions of doctors providing his care. Surely the doctors should refuse to implement such a tyrannical decision and allow Alfie to go to Rome.

Did We Need The Government To End Private Segregation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alrcdi_VfS0&feature=youtu.be?

Ben, Berkeley, and abortion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48PMlt2vTRA

Leftwing bigots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwm1apB84zM

Noplatforming

http://www.dailywire.com/news/13799/4-thoughts-free-speech-and-noplatforming-ben-shapiro