Accuser of the brethren

I don't know if this is worth commenting on:

https://time.com/5615617/why-evangelicals-support-trump/

He's raising repetitious objections, which invite repetitious responses. I prefer to avoid that, but since his article is getting some buzz, I'll take a shot: 

1. French's attack is reminiscent of Quislings who denounce and disown their fellow citizens to make themselves look good in the eyes of the Establishment.

2. Does he wish to create a society in which we substitute unsubstantiated "claims" of wrongdoing for corroborated allegations? In fairness, given Trump's admitted history of voyeurism and sexual harassment, that erodes the presumption of innocence–not legally but epistemically. Yet even so, we must resist the lynch mob mentality that someone should be ruined by uncorroborated allegations. 

3. It's unclear what French is trying to accomplish. Is his aim to convince folks who don't already agree with him? If that's the goal, his methods are counterproductive. He appeals to his own standards and priorities, as if that's a given. But if he wants to be persuasive, he needs to argue for his standards and priorities.

4.  He doesn't specify what he means by "their previous commitment to political character". Is that a historical allusion to the Lewinsky scandal? If so:

i) Many evangelical Trump voters were children or not even born when that scandal broke, so it's not as if they abandoned their previous commitment to political character. 

ii) Before Bill Clinton there was Jimmy Carter. But many evangelicals voted for Reagan because political character is not enough. 

iii) At best, French's indictment only applies to the subset of evangelicals who at the time of the Lewinsky scandal made a big deal about political character. 

iv) Moreover, there's nothing necessary wrong with adjusting your position when you find yourself in a different situation. For instance, French is an ex-Marine. He understands that the rules in wartime are different from the rules in peacetime. A crisis may justify actions that wouldn't be called for otherwise. 

5. "Fear-based decisionmaking"? Once again, French is an ex-Marine. Is it fear-based decisionmaking to have a professional military class? Is that fear–or rational, moral prudence? 

6. French acts like it's dishonorable for Christians to protect their dependents. But that's a Christian duty (e.g. Mt 15:4-6; 1 Tim 5:8). 

7. In addition, this isn't limited to protecting Christians from harm. Consider the harm done to innocent children of unbelievers by the secular progressive onslaught. Consider the harm done to the elderly and developmentally disabled by the euthanasia ethic. 

8. His standard of comparison is Sunday School theology. That's literally childish, as if our theology should remain at the intellectual level of a 7-year-old. 

In context, the verse he quotes (1 John 4:18) has reference, not to fear in general, but fear of divine judgment. So it has no bearing on the issue at hand. He quotes the verse out of context because he's still thinking at the juvenile level of Sunday School indoctrination. 

9. When he appeals to religious witness, who does he suppose holds the yardstick to measure our witness? Do unbelievers hold the yardstick? Must our witness measure up to their notions of what Christianity ought to represent? Does their opinion dictate what Christianity is allowed to be like? If, on the other hand, the approval or disapproval of unbelievers is not the standard of comparison, then French's appeal is confused and beside the point. 

10. Moreover, his charge is circular. There's an element of copycat syndrome and self-fulfilling prophecy when pundits like French write a script that unbelievers recite. How many unbelievers attack evangelical Trump voter as hypocrites because pundits like French and Russell Moore are feeding them their lines.  

11. It's the duty of gov't to uphold justice and punish wrongdoing. That's straight out of Rom 13. So it's hardly "repulsive" for Christian citizens to demand that gov't carry out its proper mandate. Is it "repulsive" that French is a litigator? He talks out of both sides of his mouth. 

12. "Of all the groups in American life who believe they have the least to fear from American politics, Christians should top the list."

Really? Christian Americans, c. 2019, have less to "fear" from gov't than LGBT mascots of the secular progressive establishment? 

13. French has become a smear-merchant. An accuser of the brethren. It would be one thing if his attacks were more targeted (e.g. Paula White, Falwell Jr., Jeffress, Franklin Graham), but he's become a man who slanders Christians to cheering infidels in the Colosseum. He unites absolute moral certitude with slipshod justifications. That's a bad combination. 

What would you become if...

Christians, please answer this question. If you came to believe that Christianity is false, you would become a...

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) June 27, 2019

i) This is Rauser's M.O. Constantly posing skeptical hypotheticals. While there's some value in that exercise, it's nihilistic to make that your stock-in-trade. 

And it gets to be silly, since you can pose skeptical hypotheticals about anything. "Suppose you came to believe that your wife was actually an extraterrestrial clone of your wife? What would you do then?" What's the point?

ii) In addition, the question is ambiguous. As stated, it's a psychological question rather than a factual question. It's not "what would you become if Christian was false (or demonstrably false)", but "if you came to believe that Christianity is false…" 

iii) Suppose I play along with the question for argument's sake. In that event, I wouldn't become anything. I'd have nowhere else to go. I wouldn't know what to believe. There's nothing else for me to turn to. Nothing else to believe in. 

iv) But here's another response: "What's more likely–that Christianity is wrong or that I'm wrong about Christianity?" 

The Vedek conclave

Michael Voris

DS9 Tribune

Reporting from the Vedek conclave on Bajor. Until he withdrew his name from consideration, in a shocking last-minute move, it was a contest between Vedek Bareil and Vedek Winn to be the next kai. The Vedek conclave has been sharply divided. On the one hand the Sedekaist faction, led by Vedeks Taylor, Sungenis, and Matatics, regard former Kais Meressa and Opaka as anti-kais. And they view Vedek Bareil, Opaka's protégé, as another anti-kai in the making. Meressa, Opaka, and Bareil reflect the modernist wing of the Vedek order, viewing the Celestial temple as nothing but a glorified wormhole and the "Prophets" as extraterrestrials rather than gods. Vedek Bareil's candidacy was championed by Vedeks Martin and Barron.

By contrast, Vedek Winn is the RadTrad candidate. They revere the Celestial Temple as the One True Temple. They venerate the Prophets as deities who reveal their will through the mystical orb. They've championed Vedek Winn's candidacy. As Vedek Taylor explained to me in an exclusive interview, the Bajorian faith has been infiltrated by alien influences like the Cardassians and a human Emissary. But as an outspoken xenophobe, Vedek Winn is eager to purge the Vedek order of foreign contaminants. And now that she's running unopposed, they seem to have the upper hand.

For his part, Bajoran liaison Kira Douthat is conflicted, not feeling at home with either side. On the one hand he's not a Bajoran fundamentalist. On the other hand, he's sympathetic to the Sedekaist prognosis that the modernist wing of the Vedek order will steadily demythologize the Bajoran faith to the point where it's indistinguishable from Gene Roddenberry's secular humanism. But straddling fence is a pain in the crotch, so maintaining that posture becomes increasingly untenable.

AOC's 3-hanky performance

Grab your hankies while you watch AOC's heart-wrenching reaction as she sobs uncontrollably at the sight of a parking lot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z70MO8I9rJ4&t=7s

Biden

I should say at the outset that I'm terrible at predicting elections. I just don't think like the average voter. In fairness, even folks who do this for a living have been caught off-guard when Obama beat Romney and Trump beat Hillary.

I've read a number of pundits who think Biden can beat Trump if Biden's the nominee. Maybe. But I have reservations.

Biden's strength is his avuncular, down-to-earth, reassuring facade. It's totally phony, but lots of folks can't see through that. And he might bring some blue collar Democrats back to the fold.

However, I suspect Biden suffers from the same problem as Hillary, only for a different reason. By that I mean the enthusiasm gap. I think the base has an appetite for someone like Kamala Harris, not an old white guy. Yeah, they rallied behind Bernie in the last campaign, but Bernie didn't have the competition he now has.

At the time of the primaries and general election, I was living in the bluest county of a very blue state. During the primaries, there was a handful of bumper stickers for Hillary, but far and away most bumper stickers were for Bernie. After Hillary cinched the nomination, I saw hardly any bumper stickers for Hillary. The energy and excitement was gone, like puncturing a balloon. 

Biden is not an inspirational candidate. From what I can tell, he's not the kind of candidate that gets voters to turn out in droves. By contrast, Trump will have many enthusiastic supporters. Admittedly, that cuts both ways since he's a lightning rod. But unless Democrats have a candidate they can put their heart into, their rage at Trump will be harder to mobilize at the polls. 

What Is Race? Four Philosophical Views

What Is Race?

Four Philosophical Views

Joshua Glasgow, Sally Haslanger, Chike Jeffers, and Quayshawn Spencer

Table of Contents

Introduction
Chapter 1: Tracing the Socio-Political Reality of Race, Sally Haslanger
Chapter 2: Cultural Constructionism, Chike Jeffers
Chapter 3: How to be a Biological Racial Realist, Quayshawn Spencer
Chapter 4: Is Race an Illusion or a (Very) Basic Reality? Joshua Glasgow
Chapter 5: Haslanger's Reply to Glasgow, Jeffers, and Spencer
Chapter 6: Jeffers' Reply to Glasgow, Haslanger, and Spencer
Chapter 7: Spencer's Reply to Glasgow, Haslanger and Jeffers
Chapter 8: Glasgow's Reply to Haslanger, Jeffers, and Spencer

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/what-is-race-9780190610180?cc=us&lang=en&

What is race?

Just for context: The wider context for this post is what James White recently said about black people. However, I don't discuss White or his remarks in this post. Steve Hays and Peter Pike have already done so: Black abortion, Identity politics for me but not for thee, Victim mentality, Feedback loop, and As Huxley is to Darwin. Instead I thought I'd try to tackle a more basic question - what is race?

---

1. To my knowledge, the two major positions regarding race are (a) race is fundamentally a social construct or (b) race is fundamentally a biological (genetic) concept. I presume each of these could be further delineated.

A third position is race doesn't exist, but I'll leave that aside since it seems most believe race exists.

2. However:

a. If race is fundamentally a social construct, then (prima facie) that doesn't seem to explain group-distinctive physical features which are hereditary, from generation to generation.

b. If race is fundamentally a biological concept, then (prima facie) that doesn't seem to explain how there's typically more genetic variation within races than there is between races.

3. There are few higher authorities on human genetics than Francis Collins. I think Collins makes a sensible case for what race is from the perspective of a medical geneticist, though I'm not suggesting it's the final word or anything like that:

Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world. As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations, and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world...On the genetic side of the diagram, race is an imperfect surrogate for ancestral geographic origin, which in turn is a surrogate for genetic variation across an individual's genome.

4. Suppose (arguendo) race is fundamentally a biological (genetic) concept. Nevertheless that still doesn't get us to the inference that races necessarily share similar mental, psychological, behavioral, and/or moral traits due to their genetics (e.g. IQ, work ethic). A further connecting argument would be needed.

Moreover, such similarities could be due to cultural and/or other factors.

His lightning lights up the world

The Bible contains many descriptions lightning. For instance:

12 He made darkness his canopy around him—

    the dark rain clouds of the sky.

13 Out of the brightness of his presence

    bolts of lightning blazed forth.

14 The Lord thundered from heaven;

    the voice of the Most High resounded.

(2 Sam 22:12-14)

He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven

    and sends it to the ends of the earth.

(Job 37:3)

17 The clouds poured down water,

    the heavens resounded with thunder;

    your arrows flashed back and forth.

18 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,

    your lightning lit up the world;

    the earth trembled and quaked.

19 Your path led through the sea,

    your way through the mighty waters,

    though your footprints were not seen.

(Ps 77:17-19)

4 His lightning lights up the world;

    the earth sees and trembles.

5 The mountains melt like wax before the Lord,

    before the Lord of all the earth.

6 The heavens proclaim his righteousness,

    and all peoples see his glory.

(Ps 97:4-6)

These and other descriptions reflect ancient awe at the spectacle of lightning. Electrical storms at night are especially impressive because they present an extreme contrast between light and darkness. Instantaneous alternat between opposites. One moment an observer can't see anything all. The night is pitch black. A moment later, the sky, down to the horizon, is blindingly bright. For a split second, the landscape is revealed in minute detail in searing light. Flooded with light, but drained of color.

The Christian pilgrimage is like walking home in the dark during an electrical storm. The trail is invisible in the impenetrable darkness. And there's a dangerous ravine alongside the trail. One misstep and you plunge into the ravine. But intermittent flashes of lightning illuminate the trail. For a split second, you can see ahead in crisp detail. The lightning guides you forward. But you must move in the direction you remember, from instantaneous flashes of light. Due to vision persistence, your perception the landscape lingers slightly longer than the illumination, but it fades. Most of the time, you can't see the trail. You must go by what you recall, during the last flash of lightning. But the trail isn't straight. As you're about to tumble into the ravine, there's another flash of lightning that enables you to make a last-moment correction. 

The future is like a trail at night. We can't see where we're going. We're walking blind. But the journey is punctuated by flashes of lightning that show us the next stretch of the trail. Then the view goes dark. We don't walk by what we see but what we saw. 

Dropping the metaphor, we have what God told us in the past (Scripture). Occasionally, God may give us a sign (miracle, revelatory dream, audible voice, answered prayer, remarkable providence), but that's unpredictable, and even if it happens, it's a flash of lightning, affording us a momentary glimpse of the way ahead, but the rest is by faith. 

A map is not enough

Been a while since I discussed Scripturalism. According to standard Scripturalist epistemology, the Bible is the only source of knowledge. All other sources of information are consigned to opinion.

Scripturalism is like giving someone a map. The Bible is the roadmap. That's all you need–or is it? 

Problem is, a map in itself, however accurate and detailed, is useless unless you know where you are in relation to the map. To be able locate your destination, and the route to take, you must be able to locate yourself on the map. But that information is not on the map. The map doesn't show you. So you must be able to compare the map to recognizable street signs or landmarkks to get your bearings. To use the map, you need information outside the map. 

Ryan Hedrich may be able to make the necessary modifications to Scripturalism. We'll see how that goes. 

Traveling by car or train

The process [of canonization] was more "bottom up" via local churches, than "top down" from a big Church council. P. Helm, Just Words? Special Revelation and the Bible (Evangelical Press  2018), 40. 

This points to a basic difference Catholicism and evangelicalism. Both believe there's an interplay between providential and supernatural factors with respect to divine activity in the world, but there's disagreement on the extent. Catholics imagine that their denomination enjoys special divine guidance and protection from error. And that includes conciliar or papal pronouncements. That's a topdown view of divine agency. 

Evangelicals don't deny that God sometimes uses a topdown approach. The paradigm example is biblical revelation. 

To change metaphors, the topdown approach is like handing a driver a roadmap. It's up to the driver to read the map, comparing the map to what he sees through the windshield. 

The bottom-up approach is like putting somebody on a train. So long as they're on the right train, that will take them to the destination. All they have to do is board the right train, and the train takes care off the rest.

Metaphors are flexible, so it's possible to develop the same figurative illustration in different ways. However, the point of my comparison is that on the Catholic paradigm, God provides direct verbal guidance throughout the church age. The Magisterium is a living oracle. It gives Catholics up-to-date answers. So that's analogous to having to drive your to your destination, but using a street map or roadmap as an aid.


By contrast, in the Protestant paradigm, especially in Calvinism, divine guidance (over and above Scripture) is usually oblique and providential. God directs our steps by ordering the circumstances of our lives. We're not generally conscious of divine guidance, because it's not direct, topical communication. Rather, one thing leads to another. That's analogous to taking a train, where the medium convenes you to your destination.

As Huxley is to Darwin...

In his recent Dividing Line broadcast (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_X9QuJGvgs), the Honorable Doc James White informs us (at the 11:08 mark) that he is "the most active English-speaking Christian apologist in the current day."  Which surprised me a little.  But you know, I can let him have Thursdays.  There's six more days to go around.

Although maybe he's talking about active on his bike.

White also informs us (earlier at the 10 minute mark) that he's been consistently careful and charitable.  I am actually quite grateful that he told us this, because otherwise no one would be able to tell.

I mean, just look at what White says at the 40 minute mark: "It is absolutely time to work through a basic outline on something called logic. Formal fallacies. Bad argumentation. What's modus ponens, what's modus tollens?  What's the law of the excluded middle?  What are these things? ...They are the laws of thought.  And, what happened last week?"

And yes, so far I'm with White.  But then, without a hint of irony, in the very next breath (literally--queue it up and listen), White proves how rational, logical, consistent, charitable, and reasonable he is: "Now, there have been various people who've attacked me.  People like Steve Hays.  Oh my gosh.  Steve, dude, um, that was one of the worst things that ever appeared on Triablogue.  I mean, you can't even pretend any longer to be even slightly unbiased.  At all.  I mean, you missed the forest for the trees so badly on that it was just shameful.  I'm sorry dude you've lost it."

This is his entire response to Hays.

It takes a special kind of mind to go off on a complete abusive ad hominem WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF SAYING YOU WANT TO TEACH LOGIC all whilst never examining even a single argument Steve Hays wrote.

And it's easy to see why White did this.  The good doc is going after the people who responded to him from the side of critical theory and, as is wont the case when an ugly fact destroys a beautiful theory, Hays didn't attack White on that basis.  He agreed with White's view on critical theory.  Thus, Hays doesn't fit White's narrative.

Just to make it even more ironic, I happened to see some interaction that Hays had with some members on Facebook who were discussing this, and one of them literally said to Hays, "This might come as a shock, but White's Dividing Line show was not a response to your (far more reasonable) criticisms."

Far more reasonable.

Hmm.  So White spends a ton of time going after the people who were far less reasonable, and he completely ignores Hays's arguments, instead substituting verbal abuse for argumentation.  Yes, I'm sure that's the way to win hearts and minds.  Even better, while doing that he should demand that people be calm and reasonable toward him, and that DeWitt provide logical arguments and reasons for treating White the way DeWitt did.

Oh wait.  That is what he did?

Well then.

Is White consistently careful and consistently charitable?  Well, he's consistently something.  I'm thinking the word is "hypocritical."

Wait a second.  Hypo...CRITICAL!

Critical Theory adherent confirmed!

All the world's a stage

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez should've opted for a career in Hollywood rather than politics. In fact, I'd say she deserves an Oscar nomination for her acting! For example:

1. Look straight into the camera for heightened dramatic effect. Sad, angry eyes, heavy with grief. A challenge to the audience.

2. Weep woeful tears, tears of shame and guilt for great wrongs done, vicariously experiencing the same tragedy the illegal immigrants are experiencing. (Alas! If only these "refugees" could somehow have turned around, then they wouldn't have ended up becoming "prisoners" in "concentration camps" at the border.)

3. A final forlorn glance, eyes staring off in the distance, in deep contemplation over the horrors she has witnessed, the unbearable weight of the world upon her shoulders.

4. And let's not forget the cameraman and other crew who captured AOC in all this - finding the right angles, the best lighting, positioning AOC in the proper poses and postures. Surely they're in the running for a Pulitzer prize for photography!

Hail, gladdening light

Once again I'm going to revisit one of my favorite topics: the biblical symbolism of light. There's always something new to say. 

i) Let's begin with some preliminary distinctions. Take the distinction between interior and exterior illumination. Natural examples of interior illumination include lamps, candlelight, and a fireplace. Natural examples of exterior illumination include lightning, sunlight, full moonlight, and campfire. 

ii) Interior illumination may create a contrast between light on the inside and darkness outside. Conversely, exterior illumination may create a contrast between darkness on the inside and light on the outside.

iii) A building may be illuminated from the inside (e.g. candlelight) or the outside (e.g. sunlight shining though windows, skylights, oculus). 

iv) Inside and outside are comparative relations. For instance, heaven is external to the world while the world is external to heaven. 

v) In addition to interior/exterior illumination is portable illumination (e.g. a torch). Portable illumination can shift from interior  to exterior illumination or vice versa. For instance, you can light a torch from a campfire, then take that inside to illuminate the dark interior. Or you can light a torch from a fireplace, then take that outside to shine in the darkness.  

No country for good men

The following post on Rod Dreher's website is from a homosexual man named Matt in VA who makes makes a number of insightful observations about homosexual culture: "The Wild West Of Male Sexual Desire".

Matt in VA's post is well worth reading in its own right. However, in my post here, I simply use it as a jumping off point to discuss different matters. Also, my thoughts don't have an entirely cohesive theme, just a loosely connected one at best.

Book Review: Infiltration by Taylor Marshall

https://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2019/06/book-review-infiltration-by-taylor.html

Why be Catholic?

I recently asked a Catholic philosopher why he's Catholic rather than Protestant. I asked him because he's the smartest Catholic philosopher of his generation, so I was curious to get an answer from the best of the best, instead of the garden-variety Catholic apologist. Here's his reply:

In short: Scripture tells us that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26; 16:13; 1 Tim 3:15). And only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a plausible case for having the same teaching as the early Church. Sexual ethics is perhaps the clearest case: Protestants have largely abandoned the teaching on contraception and remarriage after divorce.

He's distilled the Catholic apologetic down to what he considers to be the strongest arguments. It boils down to two arguments, using sexual ethics to illustrate one of the two arguments. So let's to back through his reasons:

Brake failure

It's revealing to see how progressives and/or Democrats are led by the nose. They rubber-stamp the progressive cause du jour. When critics point out the consequences of that position, they dismiss the critics as alarmists. When the warnings of the critics come true, the progressives/Democrats don't balk. They don't reconsider their original position. They just do a reset for the latest stage of the progressive cause. They have no brakes. They just go along with whatever the culture elite mandates. They passionately defend whatever the progressive cause du jour happens to be. They are incensed if you predict the consequences. They vehemently deny the consequences. Then when that happens, they instantly adjust to the outcome they angrily denied would eventuate. Two examples:

1. Remember when "marriage equality" was sold on the grounds that it would have no impact on heterosexuals? "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one!"

But the homosexual lobby didn't stop with "marriage equality" That was just a wedge tac tic. They want gov't to fine Christian business to shut them down.

And when that happens, how do the voters who used to spout the "marriage equality" propaganda react? Do they reverse position now that they were proven wrong? No. They practice amnesia. They act like that development is consistent with their original position. It doesn't even register that they are contradicting their original position. They erase the old line and draw a new line. 

2. When critics of "marriage equality" asked proponents where they draw the line, using pedophilia and pederasty as comparisons, proponents became incensed at the comparison. They said consent was a key difference.

But now the cultural elites are promoting boy drag queens. And the constituency for boy drag queens consists of adult sodomites. That's the leading edge of pedophilia and pederasty. Sexualize young boys to make them erotic objects for gay men. That's the spearpoint of pedophilia and pederasty. 

Are the voters who supported "marriage equality" protesting this development? Not that I'm aware of. Once again, they practice amnesia. Like sleepwalkers who erase the old line and drew a new line. They aren't even conscious of how quickly they shift positions. What they deny and denounce yesterday, they defend and celebrate today. They have absolutely no moral or intellectual independence or guiding principles. 

Bible translation philosophies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZJysYu47CM

Agnosticism

I'm going to expand on a point made by philosopher Christopher Kaczor in a recent interview. A problem with agnosticism is that either we live as if God exists or we live as if God doesn't exist. So the agnostic is living out the answer to that question just as much as the Christian. 

Even if, intellectually, the agnostic suspends judgment, he can't suspend judgment in practice. He must live as if one answer is true while the other is false. Although he can be agnostic in his head, he can't be agnostic with his feet. 

To be consistent with how he must live, an agnostic should try harder to resolve the indecision. His actions ought to match his beliefs, and vice versa.  

Dr. House

I'm going to expand on something Christopher Kaczor said in a recent interview. He was responding to a distinction between intellectual obstacles to Christianity and emotional obstacles to Christianity. 

In the TV series House, Dr. House in a willfully obnoxious, insufferable person. He's disrespectful to everyone: friends, colleagues, administrators, interns, and patients. In the series, he can get away with it because he's a medical genius. He's the best physician in an elite hospital. Normally, patients would quit after the first rude encounter. But because the patients are desperate, and he's the only physician who can cure them, they put up with him. 

Now, I don't think the series is very realistic. I doubt any physician, however gifted and "indispensable", would keep his job if he insulted everyone. But part of the appeal of the show is that he says what some people wish they could say but don't dare.

The point, though, is how this example illustrates a difference in the way people judge religion. Even if a patient has an unpleasant experience with a doctor, they don't boycott medical care. They may boycott that particular physician, but they simply find a different doctor. That's because they depend on medical care to survive and thrive. It's too important to let their emotions get in the way. And even if they couldn't stand a particular doctor, if he was the only physician who could cure them or cure their child, they'd suck it up and endure him because a cure is more important to them than their feelings about the source of the cure.

But that illustrates how irrational people are to walk away from the Christian faith, or never consider it in the first place, due to emotional obstacles. They have a different standard for religion than medical care. Yet your physical wellbeing is infinitely less importune than your eternal wellbeing.