Wednesday, March 25, 2020
"Neutral bystanders"
An exchange I had on Facebook:
Mike
As to the case against Jesus Christ and the New Testament I have heard from critics that there is no reliable outside written references that would support the existence or life of Jesus Christ other than those written sources within the believing community. The claim is that trust and reliability in the New Testament and the words of Jesus Christ do not pass historical scrutiny. Putting this to the test then this claim is here stated in form of a question : Are there written references outside the scope of church writings , specifically outside writers of the believing Christian ✝ community , that validate that Jesus Christ was a historical figure ? Furthermore , can the claims of the New Testament and life of Jesus Christ solidified by asking dates of these writings fall between 60 AD to approximately 250 AD ?
In other words please provide support in the reliability of Jesus' Christ life and existence and that of the New Testament Scriptures by providing early outside ( secular ) sources between 60AD to 250AD.
Hays
There are outside sources. However, it's necessary to challenge the premise of the objection. Critics are making the contradictory demand for unbelievers who said Jesus was who he claimed to be. It's like demanding that you will only accept evidence for a murder by an eyewitness who says they saw the murder but doesn't believe it happened!
Mike
No . I would disagree with your objection. Critics are asking for testimony or references ( relatively close to the time of Jesus' historical existence ) from writers who are neutral and have no dog in the race. It's only fair , in my view , that , along with the witness and testimony of believers who have thrown all their chips in this cause , to also provide neutral testimony or outside testimony of folks " not in our club .
Hays
"Neutral bystanders" in what sense? That they have no prior bias going in? But they can't stay neutral if they know what happened. Asking for testimony from observers who have no dog in the fight at that stage is is nonsensical. Either they know what happened or they don't. If they know what happened, then they have to take sides. At that point they have a dog in the fight.
Mike
Still disagree with the premise of your argument. So , in the case of the New Testament - the writings of the believing community is testimony of Jesus Christ after the writers have already cast in all their lot in favor of Jesus Christ and made a decision to be in the believing community. In other words all the writings that are testimony in favor of Jesus Christ and the reliability of the New Testament are post conversion. Neutral writers / neutral references to validity of Christ Jesus are pre conversion or no conversion at all which means we have sources to testify of Jesus Christ who are on the outside " looking in."
Hays
The question at issue isn't bias but the source of bias. What makes them believers? If the evidence makes them believers, then their bias is justified. Once again, you can't be neutral if you know the facts. You could be neutral prior to conversion if you don't know the facts, but in that case you're a useless witness because you're uninformed.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
"Biblical violence and moral/cultural relativism
@RandalRauserMany Christian apologists are strident defenders of objective moral knowledge. And yet, they defend readings of biblical violence that suggest moral relativism. For example, genocide is objectively evil today but it was not objectively wrong in ancient Israel. That's a problem.
1. Rauser says Christians should steelman the opposing position. Improve on the argument for the position you oppose, then knock it down. But Rauser routinely does the opposite when attacking evangelical theology. He picks the weakest arguments. He resorts to caricatures.
2. One tactic is to manipulate definitions. He tries to use a rubbery definition of genocide that covers both OT holy war and modern examples. Of course, if you invent a definition that's sufficiently indiscriminate, that makes the comparison easier. But that's just verbal sleight-of-hand.
3. The argument is not that "genocide is objectively evil today but it was not objectively wrong in ancient Israel." Sure, he quote some Christian layman somewhere who will say that, but that's the tactic of an intellectual bully.
4. The consistent, defensible argument is what God commanded ("biblical violence") ancient Israel to do wasn't objectively wrong, and if he commanded an analogous action under analogous circumstances today, that wouldn't be objectively wrong, either.
5. Finally, these aren't just particular "readings" of sacred text. Rather, that's what it says and what it means. Rauser understands that, which is why thinks the texts are false when they attribute such commands to God. In reality, he interprets the texts on "biblical violence" the same way his opponents do. He doesn't think the interpretation is wrong; instead, he thinks the message is wrong. If he were more honest and forthcoming, he'd admit from his perspective that the original text is morally relativistic.
Coping with the pandemic
I was asked how Christians should cope with the pandemic.
It's an opportunity for us to take seriously what we sing about in hymns. Life is precarious. Not something to take for granted. We should be mentally prepared for death because it comes to everyone sooner or later. What are we doing with our lives? When we look back on our lives on our deathbeds, what will we regret that we neglected? What can we do now to avoid neglecting those things? Also, meditate on the world to come.
Another way to put it, if a Christian is diagnosed with terminal cancer and given 6 months to live, what will he do with his remaining time? What will he do differently? Why wait until we're diagnosed with a terminal illness to prioritize and focus on what ultimately matters? If you were doing everything for the last time, what would you be doing?
The Implausibility and Low Explanatory Power of the Resurrection Hypothesis
I'm going to quote and comment on a long academic article attacking the Resurrection:
Robert Greg Cavin & Carlos A. Colombetti, "The Implausibility and Low Explanatory Power of the Resurrection Hypothesis —With a Rejoinder to Stephen T. Davis." SHERM 2/1 (2020): 37‒94.
The article is somewhat challenging to comment on because the authors are responding to a variety of Christian philosophers and apologists, viz. Craig, Davis, Plantinga et al. I don't necessarily formulate the case for miracles or the Resurrection the way they do, so in some cases I may reframe the argument.
The authors also use abbreviations: (R=the Resurrection); (SM=the Standard Model of particle physics); (LCE=the law of conservation of energy)
About that exponential growth curve
i) I notice commentators in social media who think the necessity of radical social distancing via lockdowns, curfews, and self-quarantine is vindicated by an "exponential" transmission rate when the pandemic spreads to a new area. The quote statistics about the daily expansion rate of infections.
I'm no expert, but I assume the pattern is for an outbreak to initially spike, then taper off once the most susceptible members of society have been infected. It's not a continuous upward curve until everyone is infected inasmuch as individuals vary in their susceptibility to infection as well as their natural ability to recover. If so, it's not an uncontrolled pandemic but naturally plateaus.
ii) On a related note, there's a widely expressed concern that unless radical social distancing measure are enacted and enforced (lockdowns, curfews), the elderly and immunodeficient will be disparately impacted by the pandemic. While that's a morally admirable concern and consideration, policies that lead to economic collapse will also have disastrous effects on the elderly and immunodeficient. It will lead to pension plans going belly up, retirement investments drying up, acceleration of entitlement programs like S.S., Medicare, Medicaid becoming insolvent–not to mention bankrupting hospitals. Quality medical care depends on economic prosperity. Policies that cause economic devastating are not a way to save the elderly.
Chinese wet markets
Someone on Facebook is arguing it's "racist" to criticize Chinese wet markets. My response:
1. Culture is not equivalent to race/ethnicity. For example, look at the cultures of groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, or the Taliban. They're predominantly a religious culture (Islam). They draw from Muslims of any race/ethnicity as long as the Muslims agree with their ideological views. Yet there's no doubt these are evil cultures. And there's nothing wrong with saying they're evil cultures.
2. True, wet markets exist in China and in America. However, the difference is we have certain food safety standards to meet, and we crack down when they violate these standards. What food safety standards exist in China?
3. What's more, China has an authoritarian government that literally could and in fact has used force in the past to crack down on its own citizens. Look at how they've used draconian measures in attempts to quash the coronavirus. If China is going to use force and even violent force against their own people, China could bring force to bear in order to enforce food safety standards or even shut down wet markets if they wished.
4. Of course, I'm not suggesting China should violently quash wet markets. Rather I'm suggesting China has the will and ability to do so, but they don't seem to do anything about wet markets. And that's likely due at least in part to the fact that wet markets are a fixture in Chinese culture. So this aspect of Chinese culture is problematic to say the least. And it's not "racist" for me to say there are problematic aspects in Chinese culture any more than it's "racist" for me to say there are problematic aspects in Muslim culture.
5. There are other people-groups with wet markets. Many Africans eat "bush meat". That's how some diseases have crossed over from animals to humans. So I wouldn't limit my criticisms to Chinese wet markets alone. I could criticize Africans for eating bush meat. How would that be "racist" if I'm criticizing the practice of eating bush meat? I'm not singling anyone out by their race.
The scope of OT holy war
Here's an exegetical article by an evangelical OT scholar who argues that the scope of the holy war passages has been traditionally misinterpreted:One may or may not agree with his conclusions, but it's carefully reasoned.
Spreading fear, intentionally or unintentionally
 |
| Is there really a plague upon us all? |
From the look of it, it appears as if there is “a plague upon us all”. Certainly uncontrolled outbreaks of novel (new) viruses can get that way, and they have, historically, in real life, been incredibly damaging, and incredibly frightening.
But some charts and maps (like this one) aren’t helping us really to understand what’s going on, and where we are in real life.I think that the way the graphics are set up, they are more inclined to spread fear, than to explain things accurately.
It’s true that we don’t yet have all the best numbers, because not everyone’s testing is either accurate or adequate. I trust that’s a situation that is correcting itself as things move forward. In some cases, such as South Korea, we do have that kind of numbers. In other places, maybe not.
But as better information becomes distributed, we can expect that we’ll be able to see more clearly those locations where the curve is flattening, and where it is not, and the things they are doing to help things along. The video here, though it’s a few weeks old, will give you an idea of what to look for.
Exponential charts can’t work in real life.
Here’s a video that shows why that’s so, and when and how to expect and understand when things begin “flattening”.
How Exponential Growth Charts Work
Many curves are flattening (2020-03-24 -- UPDATED)
Update -- apparently there were far more new cases around than just the 2411 initially reported here. The site that I've linked to is a new site intends to keep a running total of the new cases and deaths in each state. It relies on official sources (seems like state departments of health), but unfortunately, these do not always update in the most timely way, and nor does this site update in an automated way. So the numbers are somewhat behind. From what I can tell, there were actually 13000 new cases in the last day or so, not the 2411 that were named in the original post (which I got from a source that I trust). Sorry for the confusion. Comments are closed at this point.
From this morning on Facebook: 2355 of the 2411 new Coronavirus cases Monday [in the US] were in New York. 26 of the 29 new deaths were in NY. Most states didn’t record a single new case.
HT: P. Andrew Sandlin
Source: Worldometers (scroll down for actual numbers and granular sources).
From this morning on Facebook: 2355 of the 2411 new Coronavirus cases Monday [in the US] were in New York. 26 of the 29 new deaths were in NY. Most states didn’t record a single new case.
HT: P. Andrew Sandlin
Source: Worldometers (scroll down for actual numbers and granular sources).
How God Operates
I’m not an expert in Old Testament. But I want to relate some thoughts from the Prophet of Isaiah, as I understand them from our Sunday School teacher, who is a Cambridge guy and head of the Old Testament department at Grove City (PCA) College here in western Pennsylvania.
The commentator Alec Motyer calls the first 2/3 (chapters 1-37) of Isaiah “The Book of the King”. My Sunday School teacher suggests it can be related as “a tale of two kings”: Ahaz and Hezekiah, who were successive kings of Judah, the Southern kingdom. Ahaz was king of Judah (the Southern Kingdom) from 735 BC to 715 BC; Hezekiah, his son, was king from 715 BC to 686 BC.
These individuals and events are confirmed by sources outside of Scripture, by the way. As Kenneth Kitchen relates in his masterful “On the Reliability of the Old Testament”:
During those days, the middle east was a cauldron of anxiety, as kingdoms made war on other kingdoms, and kings made alliances based on who they thought was going to be “the winner” in the various struggles over time. Of course, all of these changed over time, and the records of these kings and their emissaries is long and complicated.
The message of Isaiah to these kings of Judah was, “who are you going to trust? Are you going to trust in foreign kings and alliances? Or are you going to trust me?”
Here is how Ahaz handled things:
The commentator Alec Motyer calls the first 2/3 (chapters 1-37) of Isaiah “The Book of the King”. My Sunday School teacher suggests it can be related as “a tale of two kings”: Ahaz and Hezekiah, who were successive kings of Judah, the Southern kingdom. Ahaz was king of Judah (the Southern Kingdom) from 735 BC to 715 BC; Hezekiah, his son, was king from 715 BC to 686 BC.
These individuals and events are confirmed by sources outside of Scripture, by the way. As Kenneth Kitchen relates in his masterful “On the Reliability of the Old Testament”:
Nature of the Sources: The sources themselves show clear affinities in the kind of records used. Ancient kingdoms (large and small) did maintain running records (daybooks, etc.), exactly as were the annals (or daybooks) of Israel and Judah that are regularly cited as references by Kings and Chronicles. … What has survived in the rest of the ancient Near East, as in Kings and Chronicles, is a series of special interest works that have drawn upon the running records… (and he lists them, pg 63, emphasis in original).
During those days, the middle east was a cauldron of anxiety, as kingdoms made war on other kingdoms, and kings made alliances based on who they thought was going to be “the winner” in the various struggles over time. Of course, all of these changed over time, and the records of these kings and their emissaries is long and complicated.
The message of Isaiah to these kings of Judah was, “who are you going to trust? Are you going to trust in foreign kings and alliances? Or are you going to trust me?”
Here is how Ahaz handled things:
Monday, March 23, 2020
Self-medicating for coronavirus
"Man dies after ingesting chloroquine in an attempt to prevent coronavirus"
Since liberals are losing their minds over this:
1. No, this is not Trump's fault. Trump did not tell the man to drink "parasite treatment for fish". This is simple stupidity. Don't be stupid. And don't blame Trump if you're stupid. If anything, Trump should honor you with a Darwin award.
2. Neither chloroquine nor hydroxychloroquine are cure or prevention for coronavirus at this stage.
3. Besides, even if it "worked", it would need to be taken under the supervision of a physician. You can't just go and do it yourself. Well, you could, but if you do, see #1.
Is God malevolent?
Atheist philosopher Stephen Law has been hawking this argument for years:
i) There's empirical evidence for angels, demons, and ghosts.
ii) Is good the price a malevolent deity pays for evil? Why would a malevolent deity give human beings freewill? To make them morally responsible? But why would he care if humans are morally responsible? He just likes to see people suffer for his sadistic pleasure. It isn't necessary that they deserve to suffer. In fact, being evil, he'd take greater pleasure if they suffer for no good reason. If they suffer unfairly.
iii) Law's basic argument, from what I can tell, is that the mix of good and evil in our world is equally consistent with a benevolent God or malevolent God.
One problem with that argument is that moral good and evil are asymmetrical. It's arguable that moral good cannot exist unless it's grounded in a benevolent God. And it's arguable that moral evil can coexist with a benevolent God.
But if that's the case, then moral good cannot exist if God is evil. By the same token, God can't be morally evil if moral evil can't exist without moral good as the standard of comparison.
So Law's argument can't include moral good and evil. At best, he means good and evil in terms of pain and pleasure, happiness, misery, and cruelty.
v) Suppose we try to improve on his argument. Just as certain goods are contingent on certain evils, certain evils are contingent on certain goods. For instance, much suffering is the result of losing something you care about. It maybe something you used to have, or it may be a lost opportunity. Suppose we rehabilitate his argument by saying the malevolent deity gives humans experiences of happiness to make them miserable by when he deprives them of what made them happy? Does the argument go through on those terms?
A problem with that argument is that some human lives are much happier than others. In their case, the pleasant experiences greatly outweigh the unpleasant experiences.
vi) Suppose we grant for discussion purposes that the mix of good and evil is equally consistent with the existence of a benevolent God or a malevolent God. It doesn't follow that if we can't rule out one, that rules out both candidates. Law's conclusion is fallacious.
vii) There's also the question of why a malevolent God would take any interest in human beings. We're so inferior to him, why would he find it enjoyable to torment us? By contrast, it's not mysterious why a benevolent God would take an interest in human beings.
Quaker Catholicism
It's fascinating to see Catholic apologists pivot on the sacraments in light of the hierarchy's response to the pandemic:
Remember when Bishop Robert Barron was tearing his hair out over the fact that most American Catholics don't believe in transubstantiation? Remember how he extolled the value of Eucharistic Adoration?
Now, however, that the Catholic church has imposed an interdict in light of the pandemic, the sacraments turn out to be pretty dispensable. Overnight they've become Quaker Catholics.
Chinese takout
Due to the pandemic, many of the businesses where I live are closed. There's isn't a mandatory lockdown.
There's a ban on dine-in, but takeout and delivery are still permitted. In that regard, two of the Asian-American takeout joints I frequent are now closed indefinitely. I find that odd. Although they had a dine-in option, I assume that was a small part of their business. Moreover, I'd expect whatever they lose in dine-in would be offset or more than offset by increased demand for takeout at this time.
So I'm wondering if all the hysteria about the coronavirus has fomented a backlash against Asian-American restaurateurs. One joint is run by Chinese immigrants. It's not like they just got off the boat. They've been here for years, long before the virus. They didn't bring it with them. The other joint is Japanese. Maybe it's just a coincidence, or perhaps the apocalyptic scenarios have scared customers into boycotting Asian-American takeout/delivery joints.
While the coronavirus is dangerous, there's the danger of collateral damage to the innocent by all the hype and fear-mongering.
Is obesity a factor in coronavirus deaths?
As many know, many people are obese. Hence the question has arisen: is obesity a factor in someone dying from the coronavirus?
Yes
On the one hand, I do think obesity is a factor. Obesity alone does decrease respiratory functional capacity and it does increase oxygen consumption.
In addition, someone who is obese likely has diabetes and hyperglycemia (undiagnosed or diagnosed). The hyperglycemic state could serve as a growth medium for microbes.
And the obese are sometimes immunodepressed.
No
On the other hand, I don't think obesity is the primary or sole factor. The leading cause of death in this coronavirus is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However there are many obese people who have survived ARDS, heart failure, and hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) in the context of active infection.
To be fair, modern medicine can work wonders.
Hypothesis
I suspect there might be a genetic issue involved. There have already been a number of deaths in the coronavirus due to a severe or exaggerated cytotoxic response aka cytokine storm (e.g. here, here). A cytokine storm on top of already diminished cardiorespiratory reserve in the obese.
Point being, perhaps different people's immune systems respond differently to the coronavirus. This could be a decisive factor in these deaths from coronavirus. Perhaps that's what makes a more fundamental difference in life or death at least among the obese.
Just a hypothesis. And hypotheses need to be tested.
Not just older people
The following is helpful to keep in mind, though also keep in mind the majority who are infected with the coronavirus don't need hospitalization. Of course, there are exceptions depending on certain groups. Notably health care providers are at higher risk from getting infected with, hospitalized, and even dying from the coronavirus than the general population.
While vast majority of deaths from #COVID19 are age 60+ many young adults and middle aged Americans are becoming seriously ill and surviving only after prolonged hospitalizations and ICU admissions that have long term consequences. This is a dangerous virus for most age groups. pic.twitter.com/jVYWFatTDM
— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) March 23, 2020
Plasma therapy for SARS-1
1. Recently there's been national news about the use of hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin as an antiviral agent against the coronavirus. For example, see my post here. In the opinion of a nobody like me, I think hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin may be promising - for example there's lots of anecdotal evidence, and there's the now-famous small study out of France - but let's not get out hopes up too much. We need more and better studies, which we can fast track. That's what I'd say anyway.
2. At the same time, I've mentioned convalescent plasma therapy more than once (e.g. this post). Here is a thorough review of the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of convalescent plasma therapy in the first SARS virus back in 2002-2003: "The Effectiveness of Convalescent Plasma and Hyperimmune Immunoglobulin for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Infections of Viral Etiology: A Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-analysis" (2015). It's published by The Journal of Infectious Diseases.
I presume most people likely already know our current coronavirus pandemic was started by the SARS-2 virus (i.e. SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19). But I mention it just in case some don't.
3. Likewise Arturo Casadevall at Johns Hopkins is starting a grassroots organization called the COVID-19 convalescent plasma project.
4. Of course, these aren't mutually exclusive. We can pursue both as well as other viable means to combat the coronavirus (e.g. remdesivir). In fact, we already are pursuing many other viable means to combat the coronavirus (e.g. see this Science article). Ultimately the best solution would be a vaccine. But at this point it looks like a vaccine is at least a year away if not much longer. So we need something in the interim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)