AD Robles responds to 9Marks's Jonathan Leeman about John MacArthur

While recently I've mentioned how I believe MacArthur's position in March will be used against him now that his position in July is to resist the unconstitutional demands of California, I do want to make clear that MacArthur's current position is the correct one.  For that reason, I want to highlight a response to the rather weak post Jonathan Leeman wrote for 9Marks criticizing MacArthur's latest stand against Californian overreach.  AD Robles does a good job of going over the main issues here:



The only thing I would add that is not in the video is just how flimsy I found Leeman's article to be.  By that, I mean that Leeman seemed to be trying to please every side while simultaneously trying to take a position against MacArthur, so it ends up being a real mash of chaos in the end.  The basic gist of Leeman's point appears to be, "MacArthur shouldn't have done that, but, I mean, I guess it's private judgment if you want to do it--but you shouldn't want to--but if you do it's okay, except that it's not."

Also, while Robles did mention this, I want to echo one of the more problematic arenas of Leeman's post.  Leeman said: "I personally wonder if defying government orders for the sake of a pandemic is the most judicious opportunity to exercise those muscles. The politics of LGBT tells me our churches may have more occasions to defy government requirements in years to come. Do we want to spend down our capital on pandemics?"  Robles spent a good deal of time critiquing the aspect of "capital" that Leeman references, so I won't belabor that point here.  I would merely add: "The politics of evangelical churches tells me that most of our churches won't bother to defy government requirements regarding LGBT issues, should they arise, given how many churches are more than happy to capitulate to them now."

So to conclude, while I did disagree with MacArthur's views in March, his current position should be defended, even against the rather weak and mostly incoherent attack Leeman gave.

Is it too little, too late?

John MacArthur says Grace Community Church will not obey California's ban on indoor worship services.  To that, I say, good job. There is only one problem.

Having taken this long to stand up to the overbearing, unconstitional, and immoral commands of California, it's going to be that much harder to argue in court that now it's an undue burden when four months ago it wasn't.  Having capitulated to the state before, it will be that much more difficult to take back the ground you previously surrendered, and the state most certainly will use your previous capitulation against you now.

It's almost like there's a reason one should always resist tyranny, even over so-called "trivial" issues.

The noble lie

In this post I'll outline how I approach the global warming controversy. 

1. Appeal is made to "scientific consensus". That's an argument from authority. The argument from authority can be valid or invalid depending on the assumptions. Appeal to scientific consensus in general is fallacious inasmuch as most scientists lack expertise in climatology and atmospheric sciences. 

2. Apropos (1), appeal is made to expert opinion. That, too, is an argument from authority, but a more respectable version. It's often rational to defer to expert opinion. 

Sometimes we defer to expert opinion, not because that's an epistemic virtue, but because it's a practical necessity. There are situations in which deference to expert opinion is a forced option.

3. There are, however, other situations in which we have the luxury of suspending judgment. Just as it's often rational to defer to public opinion, there are other situations in which it's rational to withhold judgment. If I'm unqualified to render an informed judgment on a particular issue, suspending judgment is sometimes the most responsible course of action. Taking drastic actions can be reckless and harmful. 

4. Apropos (3), it isn't a binary choice. It is, for instance, possible to be a global warming skeptic rather than a global warming "denier". And there can be good reasons for skepticism (see below).

5. Proponents of global warming will say the fact that most folks aren't qualified to have an informed opinion on global warming is precisely why they should defer to expert opinion. And, all things being equal, deference to expert opinion is often rational. 

However, the argument from authority crucially depends on trust. It presumes that the experts are acting in good faith. That their stated positions are uncoerced. That their position isn't skewed by an ulterior agenda. 

Unfortunately, there's abundant evidence that "climate science" is heavily politicized. Evidence that scientific dissent is blacklisted. Data is manipulated. Scientific counterevidence is suppressed or destroyed. 

It's no secret that global warming zealotry is the spearhead of an underlying philosophy. Environmentalism is an ideology. A worldview. A secular religion. Environmentalism is hostile to human exceptionalism and anthropocentrism. 

This is a moral crusade. Environmental ethics. "Environmental justice".  

Environmentalists are convinced that "sustainability initiatives" are a good idea even if global warming is bogus. For them, global warming alarmism is a noble lie. Even if the threat is widely exaggerated, that's justified by a larger principle. Global warming alarmism is a means to an end. 

That destroys the prima facie deference to expert opinion. Once we realize that the experts aren't offering disinterested information, it becomes rational to suspend judgment. 

The flip side of expert opinion is the ability to do a snow job on the non-specialist. Because the non-specialist is unqualified to evaluate the evidence, experts can abuse their authority to deceive the public with a blizzard of factoids. 

6. Ironically, the global warming establishment is antithetical to scientific inquiry. Carl Sagan made the optimistic claim that science is self-correcting. However, once the party line gets enacted into law, as official policy, climate science ceases to be a self-correcting process (if it ever was). At that point, scientific scrutiny is criminalized. 

7. The reputed threat of looming environmental catastrophe is not the only threat we need to consider or guard against. Another looming threat is the clear and present danger of totalitarianism. Consider how, under the Obama administration, the EPA abused its mandate. Consider how, during the Obama era, attorneys general were poised to prosecute global warming critics. Consider how the climate science establishment is an arm of the UN (IPCC). Consider how Google censors politically incorrect searches, which makes it increasingly impossible for the general public to fact-check global warming and other political orthodoxies of the liberal establishment. 

In our own time, totalitarianism, whether secular or Islamic, poses a far greater threat to the quality of life than global warming. Totalitarianism, whether secular or Islamic, poses a far more verifiable threat to the quality of life than global warming. 

Because I'm not qualified to make an informed judgment on global warming, I'm a global warming skeptic. I withhold judgment.

Given a choice between the hypothetical threat of global warming and the existential threat of totalitarianism, I prioritize opposition to totalitarianism. And not coincidentally, global warming zealots are totalitarians. 

Out of the mouth of babes

The medical ethics involved in the Charlie Gard case are a significant issue. However, the more looming issue is the illicit power of the state. The UK will be taking Charlie Gard off life support at a time it deems best. At the same time the UK has forbidden Charlie Gard's parents from traveling with their baby to our shores to seek potentially life-saving experimental treatment even though it'd all be on the Gards' own dime.

I wonder if one reason UK bureaucrats and other agents of the state are acting so immorally isn't because many of them - and indeed many UK denizens in general (excepting Muslims) - don't have kids and so aren't able to empathize with parents who by definition do? Perhaps for these agents of the state it's essentially an intellectual exercise. An abstraction with a poor footing in reality.

Maybe in their minds it's more akin to putting down a favorite pet animal.

Why We're Losing Liberty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIfgD6_hofI&feature=youtu.be

The drift toward despotism

"The Drift toward Despotism" by Mark Steyn.

What is a dictator? Understanding the complexities of governments today

What is a Dictator?

Dividing the world in black and white terms between dictators and democrats completely misses the political and moral complexity of the situation on the ground in many dozens of countries. The twin categories of democrats and dictators are simply too broad for an adequate understanding of many places and their rulers -- and thus for an adequate understanding of geopolitics. There is surely a virtue in blunt, simple thinking and pronouncements. Simplifying complex patterns allows people to see underlying critical truths they might otherwise have missed. But because reality is by its very nature complex, too much simplification leads to an unsophisticated view of the world. One of the strong suits of the best intellectuals and geopoliticians is their tendency to reward complex thinking and their attendant ability to draw fine distinctions.

Fine distinctions should be what geopolitics and political science are about. It means that we recognize a world in which, just as there are bad democrats, there are good dictators. World leaders in many cases should not be classified in black and white terms, but in many indeterminate shades, covering the spectrum from black to white.

More examples:

Ben Stein:

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured...but not everyone must prove they are a citizen." Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they ARE citizens."