Is AHA an organization?

A prominent abolitionist emailed me to complain about my terminology. I will reproduce my side of the correspondence. This is edited to eliminate personal references. His statements are indented:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't even attempt to offer a substantive rebuttal. You don't try to show how my interpretation of the AHA post I quoted is fallacious. It's just your knee-jerk defense of whatever anyone at AHA says or does. 

The AHA post uses a straightforward argument. Resort to violence is logically entailed by the argument it gave. 

Also "at AHA" is a meaningless statement, which I've corrected you on before and on which is based many of your misrepresentations. Yet you forge ahead without taking into account the correctives I offer. THAT is knee-jerk.

You mean, because I don't accept AHA's hairsplitting, nonsensical distinctions about how it's not an "organization" or even a "group"? 

It's AHA that's redefining words. You say it's not a "group," but you say it's a "movement." Well, a movement is a group of people. You say people can't "join" or "belong to" or be a "member" of AHA, but, needless to say, people can belong to a movement.

Likewise, AHA has "societies." Well, what are societies if not "groups." 

In fact, you try to have it both ways:

First, “Abolish Human Abortion” is not a group. 

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/01/is-aha-cult.html 

"Abolitionists are a group of people..." 

http://abolishhumanabortion.com/societies/start-a-local-society/

I don't accept the propagandistic redefinition of words.

I notice that you haven't even attempted to offer a plausible alternative interpretation of the statement I posted. 

Movements aren't groups, or organisations. They're movements. Because words mean things, Steve.
It's not fair to say we're REdefining words. We're defining WHO WE ARE. Just like it would be wrong to say that Calvinists are fatalists. You're not being fair, and that's not loving of you.

Consult a few dictionaries. Movements are organized groups of people, with a common ideology, working together to advance a common cause. 

Yes, you're defining who you are...by twisting language.  

AHA is a social movement. It deploys group action to further its agenda.

Stop saying "AHA says" and "AHA is a group" and stuff like that, because it's false, and you know it's false. The question is: Do you care?

You're being preposterous. Take this:

http://abolishhumanabortion.com/faq-about-abolition/

Or this:

http://abolishhumanabortion.com/abolitionism/the-five-tenets-of-abolitionism/

Or this:

http://abolitionistradio.com/Declaration%20of%20Sentiments%20International%20Coalition%20of%20Abolitionist%20Societies.pdf

You're going to tell me that's not what AHA says? If that doesn't represent AHA, who or what does it represent? Disneyland? 

An, an "ideology" can't speak for itself. An ideology is an abstraction for what the ideologues say it is. People define an ideology. It's a set of ideas by a person or persons. 

A group can have subsets. Groups within groups. Collectives. 

Your effort to drive a wedge between the singular and the plural is arbitrary.

Abolitionists define AHA as both an ideology and a group. Groups can say things. A member of a social movement can speak for the movement.  

It's bizarre that abolitionists are so hung up on these artificial, semantic quibbles. 

You're being simplistic. To state "AHA says" is shorthand for "representatives of AHA say."

To state "CBS said" is shorthand for "a CBS reporter said."

Do you really need to have anything that elementary explained to you? 

It's true that at one time AHA was spoken of as a group, but for a long time now we have been trying to reform our language and be careful to speak of it as what it actually is - an ideology. Sometimes even the most experienced of us slip up. You ought to be engaging what our position actually is, though, not slip-ups.

You can't obligate me to use your irrational descriptors, any more than I'm obliged to call Bruce Jenner a woman or Caitlyn. 

Like it or not, AHA is an organization. It has spokesmen. They post on the AHA blog and Facebook wall. 

AHA isn't just an ideology. Rather, it's a social movement, an organized group of people united by a common ideology and a shared purpose.  

It's a waste of time…

You emailed me, not the other way around. You're wasting my time. 

You don't get to define who we are or what we have set up, especially not in the face of our protestations to the contrary. You're the Arminian insisting that Calvinism is fatalism despite many reasons to the contrary. You're that guy. Stop being that guy. 

As a matter of fact, I do have the right to define things in the face of protestations to the contrary. I have a right to define homosexuality and transgenderism in the face of protestations to the contrary. I have the right to define atheism in the face of protestations to the contrary. 

A social movement or ideology is not entitled to dictate how other people must view it simply because it wants to be viewed a certain way. It only gets to define itself if in fact its definitions are reasonable–which is not the case with AHA's fabricated, illogical dichotomies and disjunctions. That's not something you get to impose on other people just because you say it or just because it serves your purpose.  

When open theists redefine omniscience, then say they affirm omniscience, I reserve the right to say they deny omniscience. 

Intellectual honesty would demand you deal with who we really are, not who you want us to be. 

Well, John Reasnor is an XRecon theonomist, and he used that to define AHA in your sponsored debate with Wilcox. Is that what AHA really is? 

Intellectual honesty demands that I distinguish between who you really are and who you imagine you are. 

Part of your mistake is thinking of AHA as a top-down group. We are neither top-down nor a group. It may be difficult for you to imagine that, as I get the feeling you're in the rut of thinking everything has to be some sort of institution. 

I notice you don't quote anything I've said to that effect. That's just your idiosyncratic definition of an organization, as if, by definition, an organization must be a top-down group.

I notice you've reciprocated nothing about love in your emails. 

I'm amused by your hypocritical refrain about love, when AHA routinely slanders prolifers.

Debugging atheism

I'll respond to some comments left by infidels in response to James Anderson's post on "Bugs, Features, and Atheism."

XTheist 

As a Bible believing Trinity worshipper, on what basis would you condemn something like slavery? On what basis would you condemn someone who poisoned and killed a child because of something that child's father did (2 Sam 12:14-18 and no I'm not "taking it out of context" no matter how desperately you insist I am.)? On what basis would you condemn global genocide (including infanticide)?

Short answer:

i) First of all, it's nice to see XTheist tacitly concede that atheism has no objective basis for right and wrong. Since he can't rebut Dr. Anderson's argument on that score, the best he can do is try argue for parity with respect to moral relativism.  

ii) Whether slavery is morally condemnable depends on what kind of slavery you're talking about, how someone becomes enslaved, and the viable alternatives.

All things being equal, a Christian could condemn slavery on the grounds that in a fallen world it's generally imprudent to give one person that much power over another. Likewise, it denies the slave the freedom to exercise his duties to God. Moreover, unless the slave had done something to forfeit his freedom, liberty should be the default condition.

There are, however, situations in which a person can, through misconduct, forfeit his freedom.

Likewise, there are situations where the lesser evil principle the best available option. 

iii) The other two examples fail to distinguish between what's permissible for God and what's permissible for man. 

NINJA_PUNCH 

On the one hand:

Christianity: Not evidence-based. In fact, directly contradicts the evidence. Has justified slavery, racism, sexism, and homophobia; and continues to justify the murder of children by "faith healings". Harms people immensely.

On the other hand:

You make quite a show of pretending to have "objective" morals, but at the end of the day, your morality is societally based, just like everyone else's. The only difference is that atheists have the strength of character to admit it.

Second objection negates first objection. If everybody's morality is societally-based, then how can one societally-based morality condemn another societally-based morality? If sexism is a societally-based morality, then what's the problem?

Where do you get your idea that slavery is bad? So long as the Israelites are not the slave, the Bible is expressly in favor of it.

Lawmakers aren't necessarily in favor of what they regulate. Some laws simply seek to mitigate evil. 

The Mosaic law could not abolish human trafficking in countries outside the holy land. And foreign slaves purchased by Israelites enjoyed certain protections not afforded them elsewhere. 

Where do you get the idea that rape is bad? So long as the woman is not engaged/married, the Bible never has an ill word to say of rape, and often encourages it.

Demonstrably false.

What can you say against racism, sexism, human sacrifice, and the murder of children, when you deity has encouraged them all?

The OT forbids human sacrifice. The Bible does not encourage "racism." 

The role of ridicule

i) The spectacle of Bruce Jenner posing as a pin-up girl on the cover of Vanity Fair raises the question of ridicule in Christian discourse. Is that ever appropriate? 

There are Christians who think that violates Christian etiquette. We should never indulge in ridicule or sarcasm. 

ii) Some Christians are hypersensitive to ridicule because atheists like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and their many imitators, deploy ridicule as a weapon against Christians.

The problem, however, is not the general propriety of ridicule, but the specific context:

a) Ridicule should not be a substitute for argument. That begs the question. If it's been established by reason and argument that the object of ridicule is indeed ridiculous, or if the object of ridicule is manifestly ridiculous, then ridicule is appropriate. 

But all too often, atheists cut straight to ridicule before doing the intellectual spadework. They resort to ridicule as a substitute for reasoned discourse. 

b) Apropos (a), the object of ridicule should deserve to be ridiculed. It's inappropriate to ridicule an undeserving object. 

iii) Apropos (a-b), the forces of political correctness attempt to shame people into submission. They use intimidation rather than persuasion. That betrays the fact that their positions are irrational. 

iv) I'm not suggesting that everyone who engages in ridicule must begin by making a case for their position. Different people are good at different things. A comedian is not a philosopher, or vice versa. 

v) In addition, some beliefs and behavior are prima facie ridiculous. It doesn't require an elaborate justification to mock it. There's a common grace intuition that comes into play. 

vi) There's a balance to be struck between stigma and cruelty. As a rule, I think we should avoid humiliating people. For instance, teenagers sometimes do embarrassing things which would be hard to live down if that became widely known. I don't think they should be ruined on that account. We should avoid exposing them. I don't mean covering for their actions, but not publicizing their actions. Not doing them harm. Protecting the weak is virtuous. 

vii) But that can be counterbalanced by another consideration. Up to a point, stigmatizing certain behavior is a salutary disincentive to destructive behavior. There are men who underwent sex-change operations after that became socially acceptable. That's an irreversible procedure. It didn't solve their psychological problems. In fact, it aggravated their inner turmoil. As a result, many commit suicide.

Had sex-change operations been stigmatized, that would deter them from having the operation, thus sparing them the deleterious consequences. 

viii) Moreover, there are some people who ought to be publicly humiliated. For instance, some ambitious, fanatical politicians are dangerous to the common good. They will use their power to promote evil. Take Anthony Weiner, who at one time was a leading candidate to be mayor of NYC. Or take Eliot Spitzer, attorney general and later governor of NY, who persecuted crisis pregnancy centers. Their ascent to power was jackknifed, at least temporarily, by scandal. They deserve to be ridiculed. Men like that ought to be driven from the public square. They are a menace to society. A threat to all that's good and decent. 

ix) Furthermore, there's a difference between people who struggle with "inner demons," and people who make a public spectacle of themselves. For instance, Bruce Jenner has chosen to live in a fishbowl. 

What is more, he's a willing pawn on chessboard of social engineers. He is being used to further a destructive agenda. Destroying the Bill of Rights. Persecuting the church. The war on boys. The war on babies. Euthanizing the elderly and developmentally disabled. They use him as cover.  

His antics invite mockery. His brazen repudiation of God's design for manhood and womanhood richly deserves to be lampooned. His buffoonery is an apt target for satire. Indeed, it's almost beyond parody. 

And, more importantly, the larger cause he represents should be greeted with derision.

x) The Bible is no stranger to satire. Isaiah lampoons idolaters. Jonah is the butt of the joke. Jesus ridicules the religious leaders (Mt 23). 

But as I say, we need to choose our targets with care. 

Autogynephilia

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/06/11/what-kind-of-woman-is-caitlyn-jenner-part-one-of-a-qa-on-autogynephilia-with-michael-bailey/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/06/12/what-kind-of-woman-is-caitlyn-jenner-part-two-of-a-qa-on-autogynephilia-with-michael-bailey/

Threshing the wheat

Christian Americans live in a threshing time. The Obama regime has created a legal and social climate in which nominal Christians feel it's safe to express their true views. The current state of the culture wars is having a sorting action on the evangelical church (as well as the church of Rome). 

i) On the one hand, you have "progressive Christians" like David Gushee and Tony Campolo who feel right at home in the new climate. 

ii) On the other hand, you have professing Christians like Michael Bird, Andy Stanley, and Adrian Warnock who are morally and theologically confused. 

Take Warnock. He seems to be a nice, sincere Christian. But he's playing checkers in the Hunger Games. He has no inking of how campaigns against "homophobia" and "transphobia" are just a cover for a secular pogrom. "Gay wedding cakes" &c. are the iron fist in the velvet glove. Start out with some seemingly innocuous demand. But that's not what it's really about. It's a prelude to repression. 

That's a different sorting effect than (i). Warnock is well-meaning, but he can't rise to the challenge.

There are people who can function well within a moral structure which is imposed by a tradition that's wiser than themselves. When, however, that structure is removed, and they must define the moral boundaries on their own, they are at a loss. 

iii) Then you have many Americans of various ideological stripes who disagree with political correctness, but keep their mouths shut for fear of reprisal if they buck the system. Although that's a win for the fascists, it's like the waning days of communism, where very few people believed in the "revolution." That accounted for the precipitous collapse of communism. There were so few true believers left, since it was based on intimidation rather than persuasion.  

Political correctness has to be coercive because it's so unnatural. So counterintuitive. Without coercion, the pendulum automatically swings back to its natural center of gravity. It takes constant vigilance, constant coercion, to enforce political correctness. For that's not how even most unbelievers normal think and behave. 

In that respect, political correctness is always at a disadvantage. Beleaguered Christians who feel that we are losing the culture wars need to keep that in mind. 

The Fascist Left and Same-Sex Marriage

http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/shapiro-fascist-left-and-same-sex-marriage

Are we really 99% chimp?

I don't agree with the evolutionary premises (e.g. universal common descent), but it's interesting to see someone who subscribes to neo-Darwinism criticize the idea that we're "99% chimp" (which others like the ID theorists have criticized for years):

The Self-Defeating Logic of Transgenderism

http://www.fpiw.org/blog/2015/06/04/the-self-defeating-logic-of-transgenderism/

Gagnon on Christianity Today

Robert A. J. Gagnon

Christianity Today published on June 8 a somewhat disturbing article by Mark Yarhouse (professor of psychology at Regent University in Virginia) on "gender dysphoria." Gender dysphoria is the APA's current description of the condition whereby someone perceives one's "gender" to be other than one's birth or biological sex. The previous designation in the APA's diagnostic manual (and in my view still preferable) is "gender identity disorder" (GID).

Mark contends:

1. Church members should address a man who thinks he is a woman by her chosen female name and use feminine pronouns, and a woman who thinks she is a man by her chosen male name and use masculine pronouns. He appears unconcerned that this approach compels churchgoers to participate in gender delusion.

2. The church should not "treat as synonymous management of gender dysphoria and faithfulness" to Christ. The church should allow those with transgender desires "to identify with aspects of the opposite sex, as a way to manage extreme discomfort," including cross-dressing, as though such actions can be divorced from faithful discipleship.

3. For the most part the church should give up on the "culture war" battle on this and other issues. “The church is called to rise above [culture] wars and present a witness to redemption. Mark apparently believes that the church's focus on redemption precludes such things as: (a) trying to keep society from becoming increasingly confused and immoral in sexual ethics; (b) combatting society's efforts to persuade children in the public schools that one's perceived "gender" need not correlate with one's biological sex; and (c) working to prevent the state from punishing believers who can't support a transsexual agenda (for example, requiring schools and businesses to allow males who think they are females use female restrooms).

Mark cites me as an example of what he calls an "Integrity" position (he quotes me several times but strangely doesn't cite or link to the online article from which he quotes, which is here:http://www.robgagnon.net/artic…/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf). Mark does not put himself in this camp (though he believes Christians should let it "inform our pastoral care"). Rather he subscribes to a "Disability" position. Mark cites as a distinguishing feature of this position that it "rejects the teaching that gender identity conflicts are the result of willful disobedience or sinful choice." Gender dysphoria is not "a result of moral choice."

This way of delineating matters distorts my view because I do not view the mere experience of gender dysphoria as necessarily resulting from active efforts to rebel against God. My approach is not far from Mark’s on this score: “A person may have choices to make in response to the condition, and those choices have moral and ethical dimensions. But the person is not culpable for having the condition as such." However, even this view is a bit simplistic: There is often a dialectical relationship between involuntary desires and the strengthening and reinforcing of desires through behavior and active thought life (a nurture-becomes-nature component).

Another problem with his "Disability" view is that for the most part people don't associate a disability with sinful conduct. When people think of disabilities they typically think of such things as physical impairments of mobility, hearing, or sight; mental retardation or other learning impairments; or health impairments like asthma, epilepsy, or attention deficit disorder. Such non-moral disabilities can be accommodated in all sorts of ways without violating any moral standards of God.

Even depression and anxiety (cited as parallels to gender dysphoria by Mark) are not as directly or severely related to the desire to sin as a desire to pursue a gender identity at odds with one's biological sex (and in what sense do we accommodate to depression and anxiety?). This confusion on Mark's part causes him to want to accommodate to the sexual delusion of gender identity disorder in ways that I believe compromise core scriptural standards of sexual ethics.
Mark further argues that "it is an act of respect, even if we disagree, to let the person determine what they want to be called." I disagree. It is a mark of dishonor to contribute to the self-dishonoring misperceptions and false steps of someone who seeks to mar the stamp of gender stamped on one's body by the Creator (compare Paul’s language of dishonor in discussing homosexual practice in Rom 1:24-27). If someone believes that he is Adolf Hitler redivivus and wishes to be addressed as "Herr Hitler" or "Mein Fuhrer" it is not appropriate to advise Jews or anyone else to comply with his request.

Mark claims that "redemption is not found by measuring how well a person’s gender identity aligns with their biological sex, but by drawing them to the person and work of Jesus Christ, and to the power of the Holy Spirit to transform us into his image." This statement is contradictory insofar as acting on desires to become the opposite sex can impact one's redemption negatively. In Paul's day such behavior would have incurred a warning about not inheriting the kingdom of God precisely because such conduct manifests an untransformed life marked by serious unbelief. Compare Paul's inclusion of "soft men" (malakoi) in the offender list in 1 Cor 6:9-10, which in context designates men who attempt to become women (through dress, mannerisms, makeup, and sometimes castration), often to attract male sex partners.

Mark appears to give little thought for the impact that accommodating a cross-dressing "transgender" would have on a church's standards for sexual purity and healthy sexual differentiation. Whereas Paul recommends remedial disfellowship for grievous sexual offenders in 1 Corinthians 5, because "a little leaven (of sin/corruption) leavens the whole lump," Mark encourages the church to complicity with sexual delusion. If a man wants to be called "Sara," to be treated as a woman (including use of female restrooms in church?), and to come to church in a woman's dress and sporting a female hair style, high-heel shoes, panty hose, and lipstick, according to Mark church members should accommodate. Although Mark refers obliquely to wise counsel from church leaders, he allows the offender to call the shots.

Mark would certainly prefer that persons with gender dysphoria make peace with their biological sex. He thinks counseling should be directed to "how best to manage gender dysphoria in light of the integrity lens" and advising persons with GID to explore their other-sex desires "in the least invasive way possible." However, his willingness to see the church accommodate to the charade of transgenderism rather than risk alienating a male "Sara" is at odds with the gospel.

I have no doubt that his desire is to be loving to persons experiencing this distress. Yet it is possible to be sensitive, gentle, and loving without forcing the church to act as if the lie is the truth.

https://www.facebook.com/robert.a.gagnon.56/posts/10155825077595045

Parsons on presuppositionalism

Over at the Secular Outpost, Keith Parsons has some observations about transcendental theism:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2015/06/08/link-the-jones-parsons-martin-exchange-1991/

Keith Parsons It seems to me that the CP project is like Descartes's in Meditations on First Philosophy. You raise the specter of total skepticism and seek a secure foundation for knowledge. By the end of Meditation II, Descartes only knows three things for sure--that he exist, that he is a thinking thing, and that whatever he perceives "clearly and distinctly" must be so. To safeguard knowledge from the Evil Demon, Descartes must prove that a good God exists, and this he sets out (fallaciously) to do in Meditation III.
The difference between the CPer and Descartes is that the latter seeks to prove God's existence, while the former presupposes it. However, some knowledge is required even to coherently presuppose. The Christian God must be assumed to be the sort of being that values truth and rationality. CPers therefore have to trust that their assumptions about the putative nature of the Christian God are (a) intelligible, and (b) true. Any attempt to demonstrate the intelligibility or truth of their assumption could not rest on that assumption, upon pain of circularity. Hence, any non-circular attempted demonstration of the intelligibility or truth of the assumption would violate the assumption itself by appealing to standards not validated by the Christian God.
The upshot is that we have no choice. If we want to know anything at all, at some point we have to accept the deliverances of our own reason.

The comparison with Descartes is interesting, but misses the point:

i) Descartes is questioning what we take for granted. If we systematically scrutinize what we take for granted, how much of that is indubitable? 

ii) Transcendental theism is similar, but different. The question at issue is how we can ground what we take for granted. Indeed, what we must take for granted. If we deny the existence of God, then do many of the fundamental beliefs we take for granted become groundless? Once you deny God's existence, that commits you do denying all the implicated beliefs. It's not a question of indubitable belief, but the metaphysical basis, if any, for the fundamental beliefs we take for granted. 

iii) Parsons is blending transcendental theism with a strategy to deflect the Cartesian demon. But a God who values truth and rationality is not, in the instance, the distinctive contention of transcendental theism. Rather, it's about the possibility of knowledge. What metaphysical machinery is required for truth and rationality to even exist. 

iv) You can indirectly demonstrate the necessity of the claim. You explicate the claim to demonstrate that there's no rational alternative. 

v) To counter that believers and unbelievers alike have no alternative to reliance on reason misses the point: transcendental theism doesn't deny that. The question at issue is what, if anything, undergirds that dependence. Conversely, does atheism subvert the reliability of reason? Examples include the argument from reason (C. S. Lewis, Victor Reppert) and Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism. 

Sure, there's a sense in which reason is the inescapable starting-point. But an acidhead who's tripping out on LSD must still rely reason, even though his faculties are woefully impaired.  

What makes Modus Ponens valid? That is, how can we be sure that given p -> q and p, q must be true? Put more precisely, how do we know that p -> q and p jointly entail q? This is the same as asking how we know that {[(p -> q) & p] & ~q} is a contradiction. Well, we could write out a truth table showing that for every possible assignment of truth values to p and q, this expression comes out false. That is, {[(p -> q) & p] & ~q} is false on every interpretation, and this is what we mean by a contradiction. But what we get from our proof table is determined by what we put into it. We decide that every proposition has one and only one truth value, T or F, and we define the logical connectives "&" and "->" and "~" in certain rigorous ways. In other words WE make the rules that make arguments valid. There is nothing mysterious, transcendent, or supernatural about it. Achieving valid inference in logic is like achieving checkmate in chess. It often takes some cleverness to get there, but each proof, and each checkmate, is achieved in a rigorously rule-bound way.

Once again, that misses the point:

i) The question at issue isn't what makes modus ponens valid, but the ontology of logic. What are logical truths? Is modus ponens something we invent, or something we discover? Are logical truths necessary and universal? If so, what metaphysical machinery must be in place to make it so?

ii) Do we mere stipulate validity and invalidity, or must our rules correspond to modal intuitions? And must our modal intuitions correspond an ultimate and underlying reality that's independent of human cognition? 

Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/06/15145/

The Iraq question

A few weeks ago, GOP presidential hopefuls were asked: "if you knew then what you know what, would you invade Iraq?"

In principle, there are roughly four different answers you can give:

i) A libertarian like Rand Paul would reformulate the question: "Given what I knew then, I opposed the war!"

That would invite a follow-up question: "So why did you think it was wrong at the time?"

ii) The respondent could challenge the question: presidents don't have the benefit of hindsight. They must make important decisions based on the information they have at the time. 

iii) A respondent could say "no." 

That would invite a follow-up question: "So what do we know now which leads you to believe the invasion was a mistake?" 

iv) A respondent could say "Yes, but…"

In other words, he could say it was still the right thing to do, but we should learn from our mistakes. If we had it to do over again, we should change the strategic objective and/or the tactics.

That would invite a follow-up question regarding the alternative strategy and tactics.

Carrier on Cartesian demons

An atheist attempts to debunk Cartesian demons:

Cartesian demons are necessarily vastly more complex than explanations lacking them… 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7619#more-7619

Seems to me the Cartesian demon is parsimonious. In principle, a single agent can account for every perception of every human being. Surely that's simpler than Carrier's alternative–where you need a separate stimulus (and attendant machinery) for each perception. 

Here's a better response: If the Cartesian demon exists, I might as well act as if it doesn't exist, for however I act, there's nothing I can do about it. And if the Cartesian demon does not exist, there's nothing that I need to do about it.

At a practical level, it makes no difference one way or the other. If it's true, I have nothing to lose by acting as if it's false–and if it's false, I have nothing to lose by acting as if it's false. 

Likewise, if it's true, I have nothing to gain by acting as if it's true–for nothing I think or do has any effect on the illusion. There's no advantage in taking it seriously. And there's no disadvantage in discounting it. 

Armed revenue collectors

One basic problem with current policing is that police have become armed revenue collectors. That often seems to be their primary job. Indeed, their job depends on it. 

It's become a circular, incestuous dynamic: police exist to collect revenue, and revue exists to hire more police. 

When the city coffers are plush, more police are hired. When the city suffers a budget shortfall, police are laid off. You need more revenue to hire more police, and you need more police to collect more revenue. 

The police don't exist to protect the public, but to keep revenue flowing into the city coffers by ticketing as many citizens for as many infractions as possible. 

I see many more police on the road than I did back in the 60s and 70s. Admittedly, that's my anecdotal observation. 

But there seems to be an internal logic to it: to fund ever larger municipal gov't, you need an ever larger police force to collect supplemental revenue. Indeed, I think there's an informal ticket quota, although the police are loath to admit it.

This inevitably raises the number of unpleasant encounters and altercations between police and citizens. And this is often not about public safety, but fining people for purely technical infractions that exist, not to protect the public, but to generate municipal revenue. 

And by raising the odds of gratuitous altercations, you raise the odds of situations that end badly. It's a vicious cycle with predictable consequences. 

I'm not saying the police never save lives. But much of what they do is not about that. We've developed a hovering, predatory police presence. Police on the prowl for opportunities to rake in revenue. Casing the neighborhood to pounce on somebody for some technical violation that carries a fine. 

Instead of going after threatening people, all too often the police are threatening people who engage in perfectly innocuous behavior. The danger isn't coming from the general public but the squad car. On the lookout to make a buck for city hall. 

Bugs, features, and atheism

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/bugs-features-and-atheism

A waspish worldview

I live on the other side of Copernicus and Galileo; I can no longer conceive of God as sort of above the sky, looking down and keeping record books. I live on the other side of Isaac Newton; I can no longer conceive of things that I do not understand as simply being supernatural invasions of the theistic God to do a miracle. I live on the other side of Charles Darwin and I can no longer see human light as having been created perfect and falling into sin, I see us rather emerging into higher and higher levels of consciousness and higher and higher levels of complication. I live on the other side of Sigmund Freud, and I can no longer use the kind of parent language of the past without being self-conscious about the passive dependency that that encourages. And I live on the other side of Albert Einstein, and I know what relativity means in all of life, and so I can no longer claim that I possess objective and revealed truth and it's infallible, or it's inherent, those become claims out of the past that are no longer relevant for 21st century people.  

http://www.abc.net.au/sundaynights/stories/s815368.htm

Spong is a pseudo-sophisticate who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. But his position isn't that different from John Walton or Peter Enns regarding the obsolescent science of Scripture.

Now there are doubtless things we understand about the natural world that ancient people did not and could not. Mind you, what traditional Christian theologian ever thought that Gen 1-3 was based on what people back then could know apart from revelation?

There is, however, another aspect to this question. Scientific progress often proceeds by flights of the imagination. Take Maxwell's Demon. The technology is not available at the time to perform these experiments. It's often scientific imagination that's driving technological advances, rather than vice versa. 

Recently I was sitting at a park bench. I noticed a hornet about a yard in front of me climbing up, down, and around a concrete block. Finally, it made the mistake of walking towards me. A fatal miscalculation. As I was watching the wasp, it also reminded me of times I've seen spiders and houseflies climb a wall, then walk across the ceiling.

It made me think about the degree to which our human sense of up and down is conditioned by our sense of gravity. Because insects are virtually weightless, an insect an walk vertically as easily as horizontally. Can walk upside down as easily as right-side up. It takes no more effort for an insect to walk up and down a tree trunk or under a branch than walking on the ground. The pull of gravity is negligible. 

In that respect, an insect has a cubical perception of the world. Every surface is equivalent to ground level. A four-dimensional experience, where up, down, upside-down and right-side up range along a common continuum. 

Yet the world doesn't look the same from each orientation. In each case the view will be different.

Of course, insects lack the intelligence to appreciate difference. They don't have a viewpoint. 

But suppose an insect had human intelligence, or suppose a human had insect mobility. It would resemble that scene from Inception where the cityscape curls around like a cylinder. 

What would be "up"? What would be "down"? What would be the frame of reference?

Notice, though, that my little thought-experiment doesn't depend on modern astronomy or modern technology. It begins with me observing an insect. Mentally detaching myself from my natural viewpoint and projecting myself into the situation of an insect.

I'm certainly not the smartest man who ever lived. Surely there have been men centuries before me, millennia before me, who could practice the same detachment, assume a different viewpoint. Turn things around in their mind. 

That's an engine of science. It doesn't require modern physics or modern technology. Rather, it's those leaps of the imagination which give rise to modern physics and modern science in the first place. 

Shredding the Fourth Amendment

http://ca.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idCAKBN0OP09R20150609?sp=true

I Sexually Identify As An A-10 Thunderbolt

http://www.duffelblog.com/2015/03/op-ed-i-sexually-identify-as-an-a-10-thunderbolt/

Moral mayhem

Here's a prominent homosexual activitist on amputee identity disorder. He's taking homosexuality and transgenderism to their logical extreme. 

Other people's bodies—and other people's body parts—are theirs, not yours. And if someone needs to change or even remove some part(s) of their body to be who they are and to be happy and to be healthy, they should have that right…All you gotta do is strike the right balance between minding your own business and embracing/celebrating the infinite diversity of the human experience. 

http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2015/06/02/22323147/sl-letter-of-the-day

God wrote a book

A wall or a window?

(Source)

Incitement to violence

In the past, AHA has said it eschews violence. But it recently posted this:

Abolish Human Abortion

"What Christ says is to love my neighbor as I love myself. If someone were coming to kill you, you would do more than stand up and shout, 'Help!'. If someone were trying to kill you, you would oppose them with everything you have, because you love yourself. I ask that you think in those terms when you consider the pre-born child who is slated to die."

- Abolitionist Society of Fort Worth

https://www.facebook.com/AbolishHumanAbortion/posts/903010003098348

What is this if not an open incitement to violence? It's an argument from analogy. It considers verbal dissuasion inadequate. Rather, you'd oppose the assailant with whatever you've got. 

It presumes the right of self-defense, then extends that principle to protection of the unborn. According to the right of self-defense, you're entitled to use violent means, up to and including lethal force, if necessary, to protect yourself from being killed or maimed by wrongful aggression. 

By parity of argument, that's permissible and, indeed, obligatory, in defense of your neighbor (i.e. unborn babies). 

Moreover, protecting the unborn by the same means you'd use to defend yourself can't be qualified without destroying the analogy, which is the basis of the argument. 

You Shall Not Bear False Witness

http://www.proginosko.com/2015/06/you-shall-not-bear-false-witness-tabletalk/

Monopolizing Knowledge

http://monopolizingknowledge.net/contents.html

The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20140702_TNA41Hutchinson.pdf

Cyberterrorism and NSA backdoors

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/nsa-backdoor-mandates-lead-to-a-computer-security-freak-show-030615.html

The diaconate

Is a deaconess a permissible church office? 

i) Appeal is sometimes made to Phoebe in Rom 16:1, who has that designation. However, that's inconclusive inasmuch diakonos may not be a technical term for a church office in that passage.

ii) A better bet is 1 Tim 3:11. On balance, I think 1 Tim 3:11 refers to a deaconess rather a wife of a deacon. That's because it would be odd for Paul to stipulate the qualifications for the wife of a deacon but omit the qualifications for the wife of an elder. Since an elder is a higher office than deacon, surely it would be at least as important, if not more so, to give the qualifications for an elder's wife if wives were in view, than the qualifications for a deacon's wife. If the wife's character is significant in the lesser case, it would be all the more significant in the greater case.

Admittedly, that's not a terribly strong argument, but there are no strong arguments on either side of this exegetical question. It is, however, a stronger argument than the opposing arguments.

iii) However, that doesn't settle the issue. In fact, it has almost no bearing on the issue. That's because the NT doesn't give a job description for the diaconate. We don't know what NT deacons did. And it may have been flexible. 

From our distance, the diaconate is a cipher. Christians in Pauline churches knew what deacons did, but we don't. It's something Paul could take for granted when writing to churches he planted or supervised. We lack that insider info.

So whether or not it's permissible for a woman to be a deaconess depends on the job description we write for that office. In the absence of a NT blueprint, the specifics must be supplied by the denomination or independent church. Just because we use a biblical title doesn't mean what we call that office maps onto the NT counterpart. And that's not something we can reconstruct in detail. 

So it comes down to the question of what duties we assign to the diaconate, and if that's suitable to women. In the absence of specific Biblical warrant, what general principles in Scripture are germane to this issue? 

iv) Acts 6 is commonly thought to mark the institution of the diaconate. Since, however, it doesn't use that designation, it's hard to say. Of course, the idea can present absent the word, but it would be circular to presume it's referring to the diaconate. 

v) Ultimately, it's really not about the title but the job description. In some denominations, it's basically a visitation ministry. To my knowledge, deacons typically do things like bringing communion elements to shut-ins and nursing home residents, encouraging the sick or widows/widowers, taking their prayer requests, praying with them. 

I think that sort of thing is perfectly permissible (even commendable) for Christian woman to do. Indeed, some Christian women do that anyway, whether or not they have a title. Diaconal ministry is not an exercise of authority. 

vi) However, this is bound up with two additional issues. There's the question of whether a woman or layman is permitted to serve communion. In liturgical/high-church traditions, the communion elements must be consecrated to become the "true blood and body" of Christ. In addition, the priest must be a man. That whole framework buys into a framework of priestcraft which I reject.

However, even if we grant that rigmarole, a deacon can administer the consecrated communion elements. He can bring the communion wine and wafers to the sick, shut-ins, &c., so long as they were consecrated by a priest. 

vii) A second issue is whether the diaconate is an ordained church office. Some proponents distinguish between ordination and commissioning. I think that's an evasive distinction without a difference. 

Strictly speaking, ordination is extrascriptural. That's often inferred from the imposition of hands. However, the imposition of hands was a flexible gesture with varied significance. It could symbolize the impartation of a spiritual gift, special commissioning, &c. It's not a lifetime certificate. 

I'm not saying ordination is contrary to Scripture, but we need to distinguish between biblical categories and ecclesiastical developments. Although these may be consistent with Scripture, they aren't a mandatory framework. I think ordination can be a useful quality control mechanism. But the permissibility or impermissibility of a deaconess should not be cast in such anachronistic terms one way or the other. That's an extrabiblical refinement. 

viii) Finally, Warfield has an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.pcahistory.org/findingaids/warfield/deaconesses-1889.pdf

Bethany Bugay, 1960-2015

I wanted to let everyone know that my wife, Bethany, died suddenly on Friday, of an apparent heart attack. We celebrated our 28th wedding anniversary a week ago today (Monday, June 1). For those of you who have been reading this blog for a while, you’ll know that she was diagnosed with a form of leukemia almost exactly four years ago, and she had a bone marrow transplant in December 2011.

She had a very difficult recovery from that, but she seemed to have recovered completely after a while. Indeed, these last three years have been a beautiful time for us, a true gift.

Recently, she has been feeling very good and healthy (after almost three years of being totally sedentary), and she started doing work in the yard. I think this became the thing that ultimately killed her.

She worked in an “assisted care” living center – not quite a nursing home where patients required medical care, but they were old and frail enough to require lots of other care. She loved the people she cared for, and because of her medical training, she was even able to save a few lives through the magic of CPR.

She had worked the prior evening, from Thursday night to Friday morning. She came home and slept, as she usually did, and I put in most of a day’s work. (I work at home). She got up, we chatted around the house, I was getting droopy, so we laid down to watch TV and we both dozed.

I slept about a half hour – she cuddled up close to me and we just fell asleep watching a Mafia documentary on NetFlix. (She was a prolific TV watcher). When I got up, I made some more phone calls. By 5:00 when I was done, she was up and about. I poked my head in the bedroom, and she said, “I hope you don’t mind, I ate all of the cabbage soup you made (it was a one-time experiment, making cabbage soup. But she loved it).

We went outside for a bit; we talked a bit about what I had been doing at work; she smoked a cigarette. She has been enjoying life greatly the last couple of years. In recent weeks, she has felt strong enough to do some yard work for the first time in years. (And of course, she loved protecting her yard work and garden from the local vermin). She had been digging up Yucca plants, and if you go to her Facebook page, you’ll see that she had posted photos of this titanic struggle. I think the combination of her sedentary life these last years, and the new (and quite determined) exertions led to the heart attack.

While we were talking, she said, “I feel funny”. It seemed as if her heart started racing, she got cold and clammy. She said “I have to go to the bathroom”. While she was sitting on the toilet, she said, “get me a baby aspirin, and call 911”. I said, “are you sure?” She said “yes”. She knew what was happening. I hesitated because we don’t have good insurance, and I wanted to see if it would pass.

I got the aspirin and water for her. She went into the bed to lie down, but all she could do was to crumple in a pile on the bed. She said “I can’t move”. That’s when I got the phone and called 911. In the meantime, she had gone back into the bathroom. I found her on the toilet, and she said, “I think I crapped myself”. While I was on the phone with 911, they were asking me for symptoms, so I was asking her. And she was telling me ... “sudden heart rate, shallow breathing, cold, clammy skin, a pain in the center of my back”. I tried to gently rub her back. 911 told me the ambulance was on their way and so I put the phone down and went back to help her.

She said, “I’m going to have to lie down, get some towels out of the cupboard, spread them out, and help me lie down here”.

When Beth was nine years old, her mother had the first episode that had led to her diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis. She was in a grocery store with her mom and her little sister, when her mother fell down and lost her bowels and made a mess. She was a little girl, asking for someone to help her mother, and no one seemed willing to help.

I got a blanked and rolled it up to make her head comfortable, then I got some scissors and proceeded to cut off her panties and clean her up with baby wipes. I had her all cleaned up; her head started to twitch. I could see that her eye had rolled up into her head and she took her last breath. I kissed her and said “I love you”. Then I heard the ambulance, and I ran out to get the attendant. I told her it had only been about 30 seconds since her last breath, and so they commenced CPR. They said that they had gotten a pulse maybe some 20 minutes down the line, but it didn’t matter.

More links:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/06/thoughts-on-25th-wedding-anniversary.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/12/christmas-day-2011.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=beth

Matthew, Mark Twain, Luke, and John

I've been reading parts of Mark Twain's autobiography. As I read it I think about the tunnel vision of conventional Gospel criticism. Gospel critics treat the NT as literature. In a sense that's right. The final form is a text. But we should take into account the process by which it came to be. 

Twain made several abortive attempts to pen his autobiography. Then he finally hit on a strategy: Instead of writing his autobiography, he'd dictate his memoirs to a stenographer. That gave him the spontaneity he needed. For instance:

You will never know how much enjoyment you have lost until you get to dictating your autobiography…how like talk it is, & how real it sounds, & how well & compactly & sequentially it construct itself, & what a dewy & breezy & woodsy freshness it has…There are little slips here & there, little inexactnesses, & many desertions of a thought before the end of it has been reached, but these are not blemishes, they are merits, their removal would take away the naturalness of the flow & banish the very thing–the nameless something–which differentiates real narrative from artificial narrate. 

..the plan that starts you at the cradle and drives you straight for the grave, with no side-excursions permitted on the way. Whereas the side-excursions are the life of our life-voyage, and should be, also, of its history. 

Finally, in Florence in 1904, I hit upon the right way to do an autobiography: start it at no particular time of your life; wander at your free will all over your life; talk only about the thing which interest you for the moment; drop it the moment its interest threatens to pale, and turn your talk upon the new and more interesting thing that has intruded itself in your mind meantime.  

…the events of life are mainly small events–they only seem large when we are close to them. By and by they settle down and we see that one doesn't show above another. They are all about one general low altitude, and inconsequential…this is what life consists of–little incidents and big incidents, and they are all of these same size if we let them alone. An autobiography that leaves out the little things and enumerates only the big ones is no proper picture of the man's life at all. 

I don't believe I ever really had any doubts whatever concerning the salient points of the dream, for those points are of such nature that they are pictures, and pictures can be remembered, when they are vivd, much better than one can remember remarks and unconcreted facts. Although it has been so many years since I have told that dream, I can see those pictures now just as clearly defined as if they were before me in this room.
…the language we naturally use when we are talking about something that has just happened…[whereas if] the historian had dug it up and was putting it in his language, and furnishing you a long-distance view of it…it would not be news to him, it would be history, merely history…When an eyewitness sets down in narrative form some extraordinary occurrence which he has witnessed, that is news…time can have no deteriorating effect upon that episode. The Autobiography of Mark Twain, vol. 1, H. Smith ed. (U. of California Press, 2010), 20-21,203, 220, 256,258-59, 277, 281.

Let's compare this to some scholarly observations about the Gospels:

The first half of Mark frequently groups a series of stories of like form (healings, controversies, parables, &c.)…  

[Matthew] chapters 8-9 go on to group together ten miracles stories (mostly healings)…

[In Acts] the gospel progresses from Jerusalem ever outward, through Judea and Samaria eventually reaching "the ends of the earth."…This exact geographical sequence can be discerned in Luke's Gospel as well, only in reverse order. C. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (B&H 2009), 129, 144, 160-61. 

Luke uses geography to structure his story…In the Gospel, the narrative moves toward Jerusalem. L. T. Johnson, Luke (Michael Glazier 1991), 14.  

Bauckham’s title for this lecture is: “Mark’s Topography: The Cognitive Map of a Capernaum Fisherman.” 

The geographical information in Mark’s Gospel, especially about Galilee, has often been thought to be confused and certainly presents some problems. The lecture uses the idea of a ‘mental map.’ The way we construct our spatial environment in our minds is very different from the maps we see on paper or on screen. A close look at Mark’s geography shows that it makes very good sense if it reflects the mental map of a Galilean fisherman based in Capernaum. 

http://davidbcapes.com/2013/08/11/a-o-collins-lecture-featuring-dr-richard-bauckham/ 

John 1:38 and 41 are examples of asides in John, instances where the evangelist seeks to clarify a given issue or undertakes to provide additional information to make an aspect of his narrative intelligible to his readers…Note that this literary device enables John to distinguish between his narrative proper and his own clarifying comments while still helping his readers along as he sees fit. Andreas Köstenberger, Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Baker, 2003), 250. 

The features which makes Mark's book so easy to read are to a large extent those which are characteristic of "oral literature."  

The enjoyability of Mark's storytelling is enhanced by the more extensive use of descriptive detail than in other gospels. Typically, the Marcan version of a miracle story may be twice as long as the equivalent pericope in Matthew, simply because Mark is more vividly descriptive… R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark (Eerdmans 2002), 16, 17.

My own approach to the structure of Matthew derives from noting how closely Matthew has adhered in broad terms to the overall narrative pattern of Mark, which, after a brief prologue set in the wilderness (1:1-13), presents Jesus' public ministry in three phases set successively in Galilee, on the journey from Galilee to Judea, and in Jerusalem. In my commentary on Mark I have argued that this represents a conscious structuring of the story within a geographical framework which owns more to Mark's systematization than to the actual movements of Jesus throughout the period after his baptism…This simplified structure of a single progress from north to south is thus best understood as one devised by Mark for its dramatic effect R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2007), 3-4. 

i) These observations share certain things in common. They note how geography is a structuring principle in the Gospels. Likewise, topical grouping. 

ii) This is viewed in literary terms. Narrative strategy. However, these features may have a different common denominator: rather than literary structuring principles, they may just as well, or better be, mnemonic structuring principles. For instance, geography is a way of remembering events. We remember events in association with where they occurred. We remember where we were at the time we heard it or saw it. We remember what happened because we remember where it happened. That's a cue. A reminder. 

iii) Likewise, clustering is a mnemonic device. Our mind groups related facts. That's a way of retrieving as well as storing memories. 

So it's quite possible, if not probable, that Gospel writers organize the information they way the do in large part because that's how they–or their informants–naturally remember it. That's how they see it in their mind's eye as they recall the incident. 

By "mnemonic device" I don't mean a conscious technique. I mean that's how we subconsciously store information. A subliminal process. Association is a mnemonic device. Topical and geographical associations are the glue of many memories. 

iv) Köstenberger classifies the Johannine asides as a literary device. Although that's possible, anyone who's spent much time listening to an elderly relative talk about their past will recognize the frequent use of parenthetical comments. Indeed, it can be maddening to the impatient listener. You wish the relative would stay on point and get to the point. Instead, we're treated to a string of digressions. But, of course, for the relative, getting to the point was never the point. They enjoy reminiscing about their long-lost youth. They linger. They savor the moment. For them the side-trips are more interesting than the destination. 

In addition, as they talk about the past, one recollection triggers another recollection. If they took time to complete their thought, they'd forget what just popped into their consciousness. They want to mention that before it slips their mind. They lose their train of thought and forget what they were talking about when they began the vignette, but that's because talking about the past has stirred up so many memories that elbow each other for a chance to be heard. It's a crowded field, vying for attention. 

v) Critics of inerrancy complain that the Gospels lack a linear chronology. Yet that's a mark of historicity; a particular kind of historicity: oral history. The Fourth Gospel contains so many editorial asides. If, however, John was dictating his recollections to a scribe, we'd expect him to break off and interject these explanatory notes. That's how people, especially older folks, talk when they tell you about their life. It's a different process than sitting down and writing it out. Much less a rough drafting process to get everything just so.

Likewise, there's the question of whether Jn 21 was part of the first edition, or added somewhat later. However, when talking about the past, when dictating your memoirs, it's not unusual have afterthoughts. You can't say everything at once. But because it's on your mind, people will often revisit the conversation and add things they didn't think to say at the first time around. The process stirred up old memories. Some rise to the surface faster than others. 

vi) The Gospel of Mark is probably a combination of firsthand and secondhand information. Based on Acts 12:12, he had access to both. Since Jerusalem was his hometown, he had occasion to witness the public ministry of Christ when Jesus blew into town. And since his mother's home was a founding house-church, he had access to Christ's traveling companions and confidants. 

He could sit them down and take dictation. Or he could dictate incidents to a scribe from his own recollections. Is it just coincidental that Mark and John are written in such vivid, pictorial terms–like Mark Twain's personal anecdotes? Matthew edits Mark down to make room for so much additional material–so he's less graphic and prolix. 

Likewise, when Luke records his three lost-and-found parables (Lk 15), that could be literary–or it could be because it's easier to remember things that are related to each other. That's how his informant remembered them. 

Maybe the ending of Mark is so brief because his informant got tired. My grandmother used to tell me stories about her life. But there was a point at which she was talked out. Needed to take a nap. 

vii) There's the question of how much the beloved disciple was present for. Is he the tacit witness in Jn 4? Although it says Jesus sent "the disciples" into town, "the beloved disciple" is set apart from the other disciples. That's the point of the title. To some extent he stands apart from the group. He's with Jesus at times when the others are not–seeing what Jesus sees, hearing what Jesus says. 

The Dr. Strangelove defense

Since it's obvious that Christians are in a losing battle on the culture wars, I decided to get on the right side of history by joining the dark side. It's the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy.

If I wait until we lose, I won't have any bargaining chips. So last night I joined the law firm of Wolfram & Hart.

Although the blood is barely dry on my pact, I'm thrilled talk about my new job. I'll be a defense attorney for drug lords, embezzlers, serial killers, &c. I'll be using a version of the insanity defense which I call the Dr. Strangelove defense. It's based on xenomelia or "foreign limb syndrome" (i.e. the non-acceptance of one or more of one's own extremities). It's analogous to gender dysphoria. 

You see, the Boston Strangler was a good guy trapped inside the body of a serial killer. Those weren't his hands. Those hands were total strangers to him. He's not responsible for what those hands did.