The pedophile project

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/21/pedophile-project-7-year-old-next-sexual-revolutions-hit-parade/

Global warming in the cosmic simulation

https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/02/01/19/billionaire-musk-releases-all-tesla-patents-to-help-save-the-earth

Isn't this the same guy who thinks the universe is a cosmic simulation? How do we combat global warming in a cosmic video game? If humans are just artificially intelligent virtual characters, we can't rewrite the program from the inside. Is that up to the aliens who designed the video game we inhabit? 

Moral Responsibility and the Wrongness of Abortion

Bernstein, C & Manata, P. "Moral Responsibility and the Wrongness of Abortion" in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Volume 44, Issue 2, 16 March 2019, pp 243–262.

The Age of Terrorism Meets the Era of the Troll

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-age-of-terrorism-meets-the-era-of-the-troll/

Debating the sacraments

On the question of the sacraments, Baptists are at a tactical disadvantage. There will always be people who are drawn to sacramental realism because they like the idea that infant baptism creates the presumption that their child is now heavenbound. Or that weekly communion is a quick fix. Spiritual shortcuts have a psychological appeal for many people. We see that in Baptists circles, too, where the "sacrament" of the altar call is functionally equivalent to Catholic sacraments. The primary exception is Reformed Baptists, who are more consistent. This is one reason why debates over credo/paedobaptism make so little headway. It's not just an exegetical question but a psychological question. In that respect, the Baptist position is an uphill climb. Sacramental realism has perennial appeal for many people.

Notice that what I've said is irrelevant to truth and evidence. I'm just making a sociological observation. Theological debates often stall because the underlying motivations are psychological. And there's not much that can be done about that. 

It's like ecumenists who have a deep yearning for "unity". They seem to be temperamentally wired to long for "unity", or a sense of continuity with the past. That's why some of them convert to Catholicism–drawn by the mystique of Christian unity and continuity (even though Catholic reality is something else entirely). 

I'm not saying this is a reason to forego debates over the sacraments. But we should have low expectations about achieving progress in that direction. It's more a case of peeling away occasional individuals. 

Paradigm shift

The doctrine of creation runs deeply through Scripture and Christian theology. It may not be the gospel itself, but creation is entangled with the gospel through Paul’s teaching on Adam. How we understand creation is also intertwined with how we understand the rest of Scripture, from which we Protestants gain most of our theology. Changing my view on creation requires a reconfiguration of a large part of my understanding of theology, which is not something I take lightly.

You might argue that the science of evolution is entangled with the very foundation of biology and geology and that science cannot be science without evolution. Obviously, I don’t agree with that at all. I see a great deal of flexibility in science, which you do not. Over the centuries, many theories that seemed so obviously true were abandoned for better models, and I have no doubt that trend will continue. Humanity has barely begun to explore God’s creation. We can hardly imagine what discoveries are coming right around the corner.

I also won’t change my mind because I have lingering doubts about this or that issue. I don’t want to adopt a position merely as a way to escape intellectual anxiety. That’s not faith at all. That’s acting in doubt. Every position has unanswered questions. No one gets to understand it all here and now.

http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/2019/02/a-letter-to-the-heretic/

Censorship provokes vigilantism

If you don't give citizens a peaceful outlet for political grievances, the alternative is vigilantism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pawij9XrZjQ

David Wood and Robert Spencer on Christchurch Mosque Massacre

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

Parenting tips from Richard Dawkins

"The universe doesn't owe us condolence or consolation; it doesn't owe us a nice warm feeling inside" 

"I was driving through the English countryside with my daughter Juliet, then aged six, and she pointed out some flowers by the wayside. I asked her what she thought wildflowers were for. She gave a rather thoughtful answer. 'Two things,' she said. 'To make the world pretty, and to help the bees make honey for us'. I was touched by this and sorry I had to tell her that it wasn't true…What are flowers and bees, wasps and figs, elephants and bristlecone pines–what are all living things really for?…The answer is DNA," Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable (W.W. Norton 1997), 256,268.

Speaking at the Cheltenham Science Festival, Dawkins, a prominent atheist, said that it was ‘pernicious’ to teach children about facts that were ‘statistically improbable’ such as a frog turning into a prince.

Speaking about his early childhood he said: “Is it a good thing to go along with the fantasies of childhood, magical as they are? Or should we be fostering a spirit of scepticism?’

“I think it's rather pernicious to inculcate into a child a view of the world which includes supernaturalism – we get enough of that anyway,’ the 73-year-old said. “Even fairy tales, the ones we all love, with wizards or princesses turning into frogs or whatever it was. There’s a very interesting reason why a prince could not turn into a frog – it's statistically too improbable.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10875912/Reading-fairy-stories-to-children-is-harmful-says-Richard-Dawkins.html

Responding to domestic terrorism

Predictably, progressives are exploiting the NZ mosque massacre as a pretext to score political points about "Islamophobia", "racism", "hate," and gun control. For instance: 

@liamyoung

I see the mass murder of 49 innocent people at their place of worship is not being called a terrorist attack by a host of mainstream outlets. They’re also asking how this sort of crime can be stopped. About time they took some responsibility for peddling hate and misinformation.

Islamophobia is not just tolerated, it is actually encouraged by many. It has, disgracefully, become an acceptable form of racism and hate. Solidarity to my Muslim brothers and sisters today. And all my strength to those who have lost those that they love #Christchurch

A few quick observations:

i) I don't mind calling the attack an act of domestic terrorism. I don't shy away from the word "terrorism" in this situation. 

ii) From a Christian perspective, we should practice friendship evangelism with Muslims. 

iii) Liam Young is one of many dupes who turns a blind eye to the obvious. Is he equally incensed by Muslim atrocities? For instance: 

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270677/germany-muslim-migrant-beheads-baby-robert-spencer

iv) The primary threat to Muslims comes from fellow Muslims. 

v) Notice that when Muslims are attacked by some angry, alienated loner, that's immediately connected to rightwing ideology, but the mainstream media never connects Muslim atrocities to the theology of Islam. 

Mosque massacre

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/03/new-zealand-murders-repercussions-and-perspective

Microcosmic judgments

Christ states that John is to write ἃ εἶδες καὶ ἃ εἰσὶν καὶ ἃ μέλλει |γενέσθαι| μετὰ ταῦτα “that which you see [Aorist as a perfective aspect, not past tense], that which is and what is destined to take place” in v. 19.  “That which is” is typically understood as referring to the present judgment of Christ concerning the churches in the letters and then “that which is destined to take place after these things” refers to the future. This is not completely false, but may need some nuancing. What is likely being said is that the microcosmic events occurring now and the macrocosmic events occurring in the future are what John is seeing and writing about throughout the book. They are combined and one is being placed in the context of the other rather than seen as two separate events that don’t have much to do with one another. The judgment Christ renders of the churches now is part of the judgment to come. The salvation He gives to the churches now is part of the salvation that is to come. Hence, John is told to write in the typical framework of the apocalyptic genre. What is now is placed in the context of what is to come as though what is to come is, to a smaller degree, taking place now through the microcosmic event occurring in the present. This is made clearer by understanding that John has split the scene in Daniel, where the Ancient of Days opens the books to render judgment. The Son comes to render judgment upon the churches and receive His kingdom in the present, but will ultimately not receive it from the Ancient of Days until the final judgment (i.e, John's "already-not yet" framework is on display in Revelation as it is in his Gospel).

http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/2019/02/notes-on-revelation-112-20.html

This interpretation has potential relevance for the debate between preterists and futurists. Two kinds of judgment are both in play: microcosmic judgments stand for macrocosmic judgments, and in Revelation, these are blended. Those who say Revelation reflects a failed prediction about the timing of the Parousia fail to appreciate the distinction. Past judgments are microcosmic reflections of the macrocosmic judgment to come. In Revelation, the judgments blur, both because one kind mirrors the other, and because this is a visionary medium about what the prophet sees. Like a dream in which the imagery is fluid. 

The police can't protect you

Reports of the NZ mosque massacre are still preliminary, but there seems to be one perennial lesson: the police can't protect you. Snipers target gun-free zones. A bit of background:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/new-zealands-gun-laws-last-updated-in-1992

Boys will be boys

Sequel to this post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/03/biblical-warfare.html

Fraternite  

So my wife invited another stay-at-home mom and her 4 year old boy over today while I was at work.

The women are drinking coffee, the boys are dressed up to play fight (the neighbour as a ninja, my kid as a knight in armour), and apparently my kid says to the other kid -- in earshot of both moms -- "Come! I will feed your flesh to the birds".

I wish I could have seen the look on that poor woman's face.

P.S. The bedtime story being read right now as I type this is Absalom charming Israel and declaring himself king -- I bet the kids will love the ending.

Freddoso on open theism

On the risk-taking account of providence, God lacks exact and infallible knowledge of the contingent future. Yet given His thorough familiarity with present causal tendencies and His clear grasp of His own providential designs, He is almost sure about how the future will tum out. In fact, He is even pretty sure about whether or not we human beings (including, presumably, Jesus Christ) will do freely what He intends us to do; but He is strong enough to make us do it anyway, if it suits Him. As Hasker puts it, "God is perfectly capable of making someone an 'offer he can't refuse'" (p. 196). So even if the world begins to go really badly, God, though disappointed, is fully capable of controlling the damage. What's more, His prophecies about future free actions-including sinful ones, such as Peter's denial of Christ-are almost sure to be fulfilled; and, once again, even if the improbable happens and God turns out to have been mistaken in so prophesying, He is powerful enough to put things back on track. Likewise, even allowing that some of His ends (e.g., the triumph of grace over sin) depend crucially on specific free actions being performed by specific human beings (e.g., Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Mary the Mother of God, Peter, Paul, etc.), He can be almost sure, given His unusually high degree of knowledge and power, that those ends will be realized. And if all this strikes you as excessively anthropomorphic and as coming dangerously close to turning God the Father into the Godfather, then according to Hasker you have not been sufficiently dehellenized. 

Not content simply to promote his own watered-down account of providence, Hasker heaps scorn upon the traditional account, according to which "our most ennobling achievements are just the expected printouts from the divine programming" (p. 199). In his zeal, he even resorts to the "Hitler" defense. (One can imagine a medieval Hasker conjuring up the "Genghis Khan" defense.) After running roughshod over hundreds of pages of the best scholastic theology by declaring ex cathedra that those who adhere to the traditional account cannot distinguish what God intends from what He merely permits, Hasker concludes that they "cannot avoid saying ... that God specifically chose Hitler to become leader of the Third Reich and instigator of the Holocaust" (pp. 199-200). Really now. More to the point, ask yourself whether Hasker's risk-taking account fares any better with regard to Hitler. Once Hitler accedes to power and gets the Holocaust rolling on its grisly way, even the risk-taking God, who is after all pretty knowledgeable, should have a crystal-clear idea of the further specific evils that are almost certain to occur. So if He does not intervene early on to stop Hitler, this can only be because of some worthy (though very hidden) purposes He has in mind. In that case, would it not be just as true on the risk-taking account as on the traditional account that "God has deliberately and with full knowledge chosen that these good purposes shall be fulfilled through a plan that entails the actual occurrence (not just the possibility) of specific evils" (p. 200)? Let's face it. Hitler is a problem for everyone. Finally, after implicitly saddling the traditionalist with Eleonore Stump's incredibly strong suggestion that the sufferings of each human person are outweighed by a greater good which those very sufferings produce for that same person, Hasker endorses Michael Peterson's more congenial 'risk-taking' theodicy, according to which a world created by God might be literally teeming with genuinely gratuitous evils. I would have thought-with, say, Aquinas-that the most plausible theodicies lie somewhere between Stump's and Peterson's. 

https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol10/iss1/10/ 

The ethics of having kids in a warming world

Just a reminder that every human being alive today exists because their ancestors had children under conditions -- pestilence, famine, war -- that would beggar the modern imagination.https://t.co/pjGyVgGqtD

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) March 12, 2019

Prima Donna

A friend drew my attention to the DL today. White spent a few minutes near the start attempting to refute my "hit piece": 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO5MbkGC-Ro

He's reacting to this post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-status-quo-frozen-in-place.html

On the DL, he suggested that I didn't have anything else to post on that day, so I went for the low low road. Unfortunately, his counting leaves something to be desired since there were no fewer than 7 posts that day. 

This is a problem with White. He makes snide off-the-cuff comments that come back to bite him. 

Let's comment on something he said earlier on Facebook, which he copy/pasted onto my post:

I really have no idea why Steve has to run over to spit at me about every six months or so, but I guess I was due my spittle today. Absurd out-of-context argument. Maybe Steve doesn't understand Twitter? This was the beginning of what is called a thread. There was more---much more. And, of course, I have sort of said a great deal about this topic over the past year, inclusive of hours of material on the Dividing Line, editing the Statement on Social Justice and the Gospel, and speaking at the G3 PreConference on the topic as well. So, isolating a single tweet, ignoring the rest of the thread it was a part of, and the entire context of what I've said---well, good job, Steve. Really helps polish up the ol' credibility as they say! For those who do not have a regularly scheduled "spit at James White" thing going on, nothing in what I said for a moment is an argument against pursuing righteousness in God's creation. It does, however, argue against a worldview that does not begin with the divine decree---i.e., intersectionality, that random, chaotic thought process that sees us all as victims of impersonal forces that shape us RATHER THAN image bearers who are called to faithfulness no matter what God's providence sends our way. If Steve can't see that, I feel sorry for him. But I think he can. Only problem is, when you keep spitting in the wind, it ends up in your eyes.

1. Notice how emotional White gets over intellectual criticism: "Steve has to run over to spit at me about every six months or so, but I guess I was due my spittle today…For those who do not have a regularly scheduled 'spit at James White' thing going on…Only problem is, when you keep spitting in the wind, it ends up in your eyes."

For the life of me I'll never understand why some grown men act like Prima Donnas. White is reacting like John Loftus, Richard Carrier, and Dave Armstrong. If you're that thin-skinned, you shouldn't be a Christian apologist. Intellectual criticism comes with the territory. And if you're that self-important, you need to take a break and reset your priorities. The more seriously we take ourselves, the less seriously we take the Gospel. 

2. It's hypocritical to use Twitter, then whine about people judging what they say on Twitter. And yes, I read the entire Twitter thread before I wrote the post. And no, the rest of the thread didn't "completely change" what I said in the post. 

3. I'm very selective about viewing podcasts generally. I dislike the medium. And White's DL marathons are really bad. He rambles incessantly, veers off into chronic digressions, like a random association test. He's ad libbing the whole time. It's a very lazy, inefficient form of analysis. He should rediscover the art of writing. How to express himself in compact, organized fashion. 

Moreover, his complaint is an exercise in misdirection because I wasn't evaluating his overall position on social justice and intersectionality. So that's neither here nor there. 

4. Let's go back to what he originally said:

Let me put this simply.

Intersectionality is utterly incompatible with a belief in the sovereign kingship of God and His divine decree.

It is God who makes men to differ, God who makes the lame and the blind and the rich and the poor.

i) To "put it simply" is to summarize his position. That's his position in a nutshell. Needless to say, if you think your position can be succinctly stated in two sentences, then that moots the claim that no one can understand your position unless they listen to hours of your exposition. Conversely, if you think a two-sentence summary is too simple, too liable to misunderstanding, then don't put it simply. What you're not entitled to do is to put it simply, then complain that readers oversimplify your position. Isn't that obvious? 

ii) And notice how the two sentence are juxtaposed, so that the second sentence illustrates the principle enunciated in the first sentence. The problem is that his formulation is classically fatalistic. He makes it sound like you can't do anything, and shouldn't try, to change the status quo since God decreed the status quo. If God decreed who is rich and poor, then who are we to try and help the poor out of poverty?

But if that's not what he intended to convey, if belief in the sovereign kingship of God and His divine decree is compatible with improving the status quo for the lame, the blind, and the poor (to take his examples), then where does that leave his original antithesis? 

Put another way, if that's not what he intended to convey, then he should be able to reword what he said to avoid the fatalistic formulation. Just rewrite it. Present an alternative formulation that avoids the fatalistic dichotomy which his original statement erected. 

Worshiping a Bronze Age sky fairy

1. I'd like to comment on two contradictory objections to Christianity. Before I do that, a preliminary observation: There's a certain dilemma in Christian apologetics. Do we respond to the sophisticated atheists or the village atheists? Normally, you want to take on the toughest opponents of your position. If you focus on the most naive objections to Christianity, that's too easy. It looks like you're ducking the more formidable objections. However, village atheists outnumber sophisticated atheists by a million to one, so there's a problem with ignoring all the dumb objections, if that's the level at which most atheists operate. If we're too elitist, we're ignoring most atheists. Mind you, when atheists start talking about sky fairies and invisible pink unicorns, intelligent dialogue is futile. 

2. Back to the main point: on the one hand, Christopher Hitchens used to recycle an argument as part of his stump speech when debating Christians. It went something like this: modern man is said to be about 100,000-200,000 years old. Yet according to the Bible, God only revealed himself to Abraham 4,000 years ago and Moses 3200 years ago, while the climax of redemption occurred 2000 ago. For 99% of human history, God said and did nothing. 

So his argument is that Biblical theism is too late. If God existed, we'd expect him to intervene far earlier in human history. He wouldn't let humans suffer in darkness for such a long time. 

3. However, it's more common for atheists to raise this objection: why should we believe the stories of Bronze Age goatherds? 

That argument, if you can call it an argument, is just the opposite. The objection is that Biblical theism is too early. Too primitive. Too archaic. If God existed, he'd wait until the era of modern science to reveal himself. 

Of course, both these arguments can't be true. It can't be the case that biblical theism lacks credibility both because it's too early and too late. 

4. In addition to the contradiction, we might assess the objections individually, on their own terms. Genesis is a very truncated history. It skips over many intervening events and periods. We need to be cautious about inferring what God didn't say or do from what he's recorded as having said and done. The fact that Genesis is silent on many fronts doesn't mean God was silent. The fact that most things go unreported doesn't mean God was in absentia. 

5. Is there any antecedent reason to presume God wouldn't reveal himself to Bronze Age goatherds? Does the message of salvation require a grasp of modern physics, set theory, and fractal geometry? Does redemption require a space-age setting?

How future is modern enough? Suppose the Incarnation took place in the 20C, and the Second Coming takes place in the 26C. Imagine a 25C atheist complaining about those primitive people back in 20C Europe and North America.  

Two brothers

Logan's younger brother Nolan was a really nice kid, but he struggled with depression. Despite psychological counseling, nothing helped. He could never put his finger on why he felt that-he just did. He couldn't control it. He couldn't make it go away. Like trying to shake his own shadow. Much of the time he was borderline suicidal.

The only thing that kept him from going over the edge was Logan's constant companionship. He really needed his brother's emotional support.

But depression feeds on itself. He kept comparing himself to his big brother. Logan was so strong and confident. Nolan felt he was a drag factor, holding him back. Logan could go so much further in life if he wasn't tethered to his chronically depressed, suicidal brother. At least that's what Nolan thought.

One day they had a conversation. Logan said that was the wrong way to view it. For one thing, Nolan's depression made them so much closer. If Nolan was more independent, they might take each other for granted. Logan would rather have a depressed brother he was close to than a normal brother who was distant. That was a precious tradeoff.

What's more, the dynamic was paradoxical. Logan was stronger, but he was stronger because he was happy, and he was happy because he had a brother to love, and love him back. So Nolan's weakness was a hidden source of Logan's strength. Logan was happier than Nolan because he had Nolan in his life. They were linked by an unseen lifeline. If Nolan ever killed himself, Logan would begin to die inside.

That was a revelation to Nolan. It never occurred to him. After that, he was still depressed, but no longer as depressed.

A question about evolution

According to the theory, as I understand it, humans evolved from critters like tarsiers. Is there an upper limit on the degree to which an organism can be scaled up given the original information base? For instance, would any amount of selective breeding produce mice the size of horses? Or would that require the infusion of new genetic information? Just in terms of the difference in scale between humans and tarsiers, is it possible for humans to evolve from tarsier-like critters without the infusion of new information?