Utah became a state on condition that Mormonism renounce polygamy. So does this invalidate Utah's statehood?
Perhaps we can replace Utah with Puerto Rico. That way we keep the same number of stars on the flag!
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Statehood for Puerto Rico!
Utah senators unanimously pass bill to decriminalize polygamy. The diehard fundamentalist/polygamist Mormon cults held out so long that they finally won!
Trophy converts
Stephen J. Graham@sjggrahamAtheists: if you could convert one Christian philosopher to atheism, who would it be?Christians: if you could convert a single atheist philosopher to the faith, who would it be?
1. This is a window into how atheists think. Imagine the damage to your cause if your best general defected to the enemy side. Or imagine the damage to the enemy side if their best general defected to our side.
But from a Christian standpoint, that's not how it works. It's not like gifted Christians are doing God a favor. God can raise up new sons of Abraham from stones (Mt 3:9). Christianity is not elitist (1 Cor 1-3). The fortunes of Christianity don't depend on indispensable individuals. God can replace our generals with a new batch that's just as good or better.
2. However, we could play along for the sake of argument. It's necessary to draw a distinguish between wholesale and retail thinkers. High-level thinkers and influential popularizes. In some cases, these overlap.
On the Christian side, William Lane Craig and N. T. Wright would be trophy converts for atheism. At present, those are the biggest catches. They're both popularizers and intellectually influential. Lennox is a notch below.
Then you have the also-rans. Popularizers like Zacharias, Turek, Strobel, and Licona.
On the merits, you have the high-level thinkers and scholars like Keener, Bauckham, Pruss, van Inwagen, Plantinga, Rasmussen, Dembski, Swinburne. These cater to apologetic junkies and philosophy nerds. Ed Feser is a notch below.
They'd be trophy converts for atheism, although at their age, if Swinburne or Plantinga switched sides, that might well be chalked up to losing their minds rather than changing their minds. Senility rather than seeing the light.
On the atheist side, Bart Ehrman would be a trophy convert for Christianity. He's currently the most popular and influential atheist. A scholar by temperament and training, but
nowadays he churns out potboilers. At present he's the leading popularizer.
Dawkins used to occupy that distinction, but his star has faded. Carrier is a social climber who used rival atheists as a ladder in his ruthless effort to reach the top rung, but he never achieved the following of a Dawkins, Hitchens, or Ehrman, and he suffered a precipitous downfall. A washed-up wannabe.
There's also a rising generation of YouTube celebutantes who trade in starpower rather than brainpower.
On the merits, Oppy would would be a trophy convert to Christianity, followed by guys like Shellenberg, Tooley, Wielenberg, and Sober. But they only cater to cerebral atheists, a fraction of the total fanbase.
Again, though, this is judging the stage of play from a worldly, secular standpoint. The success of the Christian movement doesn't rise or fall on winning or losing trophy converts. Some have a larger role to play, some a smaller role to play, but everyone is expendable in the sense that God is never at a loss for the necessary resources.
How to listen
Over the years I've noticed a pattern regarding respondents to Christianity, social conservatives, and sectarian theological debates. My impression is based on the following sample groups: YouTube commenters on public Christian/atheist debates. The Q/A session after a Christian/atheist debate. The Q/A session after a Ben Shapiro speech. Comments on Catholic videos. Internet Arminians commenting on Calvinism. Reddit atheists/Facebook atheists. Based on this, I'd do a breakdown of different kinds of respondents:
I. The cheerleader
Blind partisans. Loyal teammates. They rubber-stamp whatever someone on their side says. They will quote or applaud a bad argument for their position so long as they agree with the position.
It's not about the content but the label and group solidarity. They don't listen. They're partisans rather than ideologues. It's not about the position, but belonging to the club.
A classic example is pollsters who ask trick questions. They will identify a respondent as a progressive or Democrat. They will quote a statement by a social conservative which they attribute to a progressive or Democrat. The respondent will enthusiastically agree, even though the statement is diametrically opposed to the identity of the political respondent. The respondent doesn't listen for content or consistency. They just wait to hear the label. Does it have the approved label?
II. The seeker
They are undecided. They want to hear both sides of the argument. Some are ripe for conversion while others are temperamentally noncommittal. Some seekers always want to keep their options open. But others want something to believe in.
III. The smart ass
This is the counterpart to the cheerleader. They go to a public debate with a prepared question (or screed). They plan to stand in line after the debate and spring their question on the spokesman for the opposing side. They don't listen. They tune out everything the spokesman for the opposing side says during the whole debate. They don't think it's possible that he could have anything intelligent to say. His position is self-evidently wrong, stupid, and evil.
They only go to the debate to embarrass the speaker by posing a snarky question during the Q/A. Online, the smart ass will pose one-liners on YouTube videos and Facebook comment threads mocking Christianity.
The smart ass has no deep firsthand knowledge of Christian theology, philosophy, church history, archeology, science, or apologetics. Moreover, they don't read the most sophisticated representatives of atheism. That's way over their heads. They get their objections and applause lines from hack atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins, Dillahunty, YouTube celebutantes. It's all about projecting a flattering self-image of moral and rational superiority. They are the mirror-image of the anti-intellectual "fundamentalists" they disdain.
This has parallels with internet Arminians and Catholic apologists who always recycle the same stale objections and argument. Catholics who rarely invest in mainstream Catholic scholarship on Scripture and church history. Arminians who rarely study the philosophical literature on freewill. They just go by the seat-of-their-pants.
IV. The intellectual atheist
There's a fraction of atheists who think atheism is true, but they are genuinely curious to hear the best Christian answers to their questions and objections. They acknowledge that there are some very bright, astute Christians. They are open to the possibility that there may be good answers to their questions. When they go to a debate, they hope the Christian debater will be intelligent. They want an opportunity to ask probing questions. They don't want to embarrass him. Rather, they are hoping for an intelligent exchange of views. They still think they may have something to learn. They are willing to changing their views.
I've been picking on particular types, but as I've pointed out in the past, this has a counterpart in the "confessional Calvinist" mentality, who just check the right boxes.
Tuesday, February 25, 2020
Hell's back door
Logan and Liam were hellraisers long before they died and went to hell. When they were still alive, they thought hell was a big joke. Even so, they quipped about how, if hell was real, they'd rather end up there because it was way more fun than heaven and all their friends would be in hell. The wisecracking was enjoyable until they died together in a car wreck.
For some newcomers, hell was initially exhilarating. They were finally in their natural element. However, it didn't take long for the rush to wear off.
To their everlasting consternation, hell had no women. Or, for all they new, hell had women, but hell was sexually segregated.
In addition, hell consisted of roving, marauding goon squads who periodically captured and tortured members of opposing goon squads. They'd skin you alive or pull your teeth out or bury you up to your neck, pour honey over head, then empty a jar of fireants on your head. Fun stuff like that. And the damned rejuvenated, so the cycle continued ad infinitum. Maybe all of hell wasn't that bad, but for hellraisers like Logan and Liam, that's what they experienced.
Demons were the prison guards. Damned humans made deals with the fiendish guards. Hell was the ultimate place where everyone had his price.
A basic job of demons is turning humans to the dark side. New arrivals in hell had intel on the living, intel on their classmates, coworkers, and other suchlike. In exchange for demonic favors, newcomers would debrief demons on the vulnerabilities of their classmates, coworkers, and the like, giving the demons an opening.
Newcomers demanded different things in exchange. If, say, you were killed by a rival gangbanger and wanted to exact revenge, you could have a demon arrange a freak accident. Soon you assailant found himself in hell with you, and you had the element of surprise.
There was an ancient, immemorial rumor that hell had a back door. That it was possible to escape if you could find the back door.
Some of the damned had long memories because they'd been in hell for so long. The quest for the back door to hell, if it existed, was a diversion and preoccupation of the damned. Was it just a legend to give the damned a perverse sense of false hope? Only the demons knew for sure, but demons were notorious liars.
In hell, the only disincentive to lying is that if you wanted to make a deal, you had to keep up your end of the bargain. If you had a reputation for reneging on a deal, you couldn't be trusted to do a favor in exchange for a favor.
According to one rumor, the back door to hell was hard to find because it moved around. It might be in one place one week and another place another week.
By calling in a lot of chips from gambling debts, Logan and Liam finally got an up-to-date map to hell's back door, drawn in demon blood. When they got there, at the end of a dimly-lit tunnel, sure enough there was a door. But was it the door out of hell?
Using a one-time key, they unlocked the door and went through it. The door closed and locked behind them.
It looked like they are back on earth, above ground. Indeed, it was a trail through the woods, on the edge of the small down where Logan and Liam grew up. They made it!
They went inside the local bar to rustle up some beer and broads. But no one was there. Just the jukebox wailing and echoing in the abandoned tavern. The whole town was deserted. Every house was empty. A ghost town. And the sun never rose. Just the glaring street lights. And a howling, dusty, bitter wind.
They were still in hell. The backdoor was an ambush. A trap.
A coronavirus vaccine on the horizon?
Just yesterday news broke about a company called Moderna (working in conjunction with our government) that's rapidly developing a novel coronavirus vaccine. My thoughts:
1. The fact that Moderna is going to phase 1 trials in approximately 3 months of obtaining the coronavirus' genetic sequence is super fast. Perhaps a record. By contrast, SARS took around 20 months before it got to this point.
2. It looks like the phase 1 trials are set to begin in April. They'll occur at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) facilities in Bethesda, MD. This will involve around 20+ volunteers.
If these trials are successful, they'll move onto phase 2 trials. This would involve hundreds of participants.
Phase 3 trials would involve hundreds to thousands of participants.
Given the coronavirus epidemic, which is already verging on a pandemic, it's quite possible the gov't will fast track the trials.
3. In any case, I think it would still take at least half a year from April (and that'd be fast!) before a vaccine could be publicly available. So, even if (big if at this point) the trials are successful, that could still mean a vaccine won't be out until late 2020 or early 2021 at best.
And most likely health care professionals will get it before the general public.
4. How do vaccines work? Let's consider what normally happens. This will be simplified, but I can get into technical details if needed. Scientists will take a weakened or dead virus, inject it into our bodies so that it provokes an immune response from our immune system. That is, our immune system will take the virus, flag it, then produce antibodies against it. That's what normally happens.
However, Moderna is trying something different. Scientists at Moderna are instead injecting a sequence of foreign genetic material (mRNA) directly into certain immune system cells of our body. This (eventually) should provoke these immune cells to develop antibodies. It's a more direct approach because it bypasses the initial events.
5. Will it work? Who knows. It's never been done before. There could be significant side effects. The clinical trials will tell us in time.
6. By the way, the government (like the NIAID) often asks for the help of and even contracts with private companies (like Moderna) to help with vaccines in epidemics. They can't do it themselves. This is for vaccine development as well as vaccine production if development is successful. Something to keep in mind when you hear about the evils of private capitalist companies and so on.
Comrade Bernie
Many people, including many conservatives, believe Bernie is authentic. A man of conviction. That he's always been sincere in his convictions about socialism. Sure, one may vehemently disagree with comrade Bernie, but at least he's the real thing. Or so it's often claimed.
1. I'll certainly grant comrade Bernie is more forthright and honest than Obama or Hillary. However, that's a pretty low bar! The latter two are snakes in the grass; it's always a challenge to sink lower than a snake.
2. At the same time, there's no virtue in being courageous and true to oneself if one is also a fool. One can be courageous and true to oneself, but rush headlong into disaster. Consider all the Muslim suicide bombers who believe they'll obtain 72 virgins if they die killing infidels in the name of Allah. They're true believers in Islam, and it takes some courage to kill oneself with a suicide vest, but that doesn't mean they weren't idiotic or stupid. As the saying goes: fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
3. If someone wants to be a fool, then I guess "whatever" for them. The real tragedy is when their foolishness harms or kills others. That, again, can be seen in Muslim suicide bombers who murder others. However it can just as well be seen in comrade Bernie. If his socialist vision was ever fully implemented, there's good reason to believe it would severely harm our nation if not worse.
4. All that said, I'm skeptical about Bernie truly having the courage of his convictions these days. If comrade Bernie is truly a man of his convictions, then why doesn't he live like it anymore?
Let me take a step back. I think there are at least two ways to test a person's convictions. Either make it cost him significantly to stick to his beliefs or bait and entice him away from his beliefs. See if he will withstand sufferings or see if he'll be drawn out by temptations.
For example, as Christians know, that can be seen in our faith either when we suffer for being Christian (e.g. friends and family turn against us, we lose our livelihoods) or when we're tempted away from Christianity (e.g. wealth, sex). Satan is both dragon and serpent, persecutor and seductress, murderer and liar, dark angel and angel masquerading in light.
Along similar lines, I think comrade Bernie may have been true to his socialism in his marginalized years. True to his socialism when he had little. When he was a no-name senator on the sidelines. When he was no-one and had nothing. So I'd agree it does say something that comrade Bernie could cling onto his socialism in these lean years. His socialist faith was not a fairweather faith.
However, where hardship and adversity didn't work, it seems to me charms and beguilements did. That is, it seems to me comrade Bernie used to be a man of his convictions, back when he was relegated to obscurity and irrelevance in American politics, but now that he's become the popular leader of an ever-growing movement that has helped line his pockets, he's caved to the bourgeoisie life. For example, Victor Davis Hanson recently noted:
Oddly, Sanders’s rivals on the debate stage never really hit the presumptive leader where he is most vulnerable: his reprehensible past empathy for the genocidal Soviet Union, and his praise of communist dictatorships such as those in Nicaragua and Cuba. Then there remains the embarrassing paradox of a die-hard socialist redistributionist eager to cash in on his political career—to the extent of setting up his wife as an in-house, well-paid consultant (with her past failed career as wheeler-dealer small college president who bankrupted her institution and for a while won the attention of the FBI), while becoming a millionaire with three homes. Mention that, as Bloomberg did in the recent debate, and Bernie becomes livid, in a fashion that appears dangerous for a septuagenarian who recently survived a heart attack.
In short, I think comrade Bernie's life mirrors what happens to socialists and communists once they've achieved power. They willingly suffer through long marches and bloody revolutions, but once they're in charge they begin to bask in their newfound position and power.
Look at the lives of Stalin, Mao, Castro. Consider today's communist leaders like Xi Jinping (China) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). All of their lives have been marked by far more affluence and even opulence than what their compatriots endure day by day.
Of course, that's not to say socialist and communist leaders will ever stop claiming to be bona fide socialists and communists. Quite the contrary. They'll instead willingly break the backs of their supposed working-class comrades for their own ends or pleasures. They're like the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm who used and abused the horse Boxer then sold him off to a glue factory once his strength was spent. They'll engage in doublespeak to justify themselves: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Rape in the OT
Rapists often come to sticky ends in biblical narratives.
— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) December 8, 2018
Ammon rapes Tamar (2 Sam 13) and so gets murdered by his half-brother.
Shechem rapes Dinah (or does abduction marriage, Gen 34). Consequence: tricked into circumcision & killed while his offending body part is in pain.
Men of Gibeah rape the concubine (Judges 19:25) and their entire city is destroyed.
— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) December 8, 2018
Lot foolishly offered his daughters for non-consensual sex (Genesis 19:8). No act is carried out, but he's repayed by non-consensual sex with them in Genesis 19:31-35.
Conclusion: even though biblical narratives usually do not directly comment on the morality of actions, they often emphasize poetic justice in ways that we miss.
— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) December 8, 2018
When the Bible rubs us the wrong way
1. The Bible contains some teachings that rub modern readers the wrong way, including Christian readers. Including devout Christian readers. How should we respond?
I've been a Christian for 44 years. I became a Christian when I was 16. For as long as I can remember, I've always taken the position that Christianity (shorthand for biblical Christianity) is a package deal. Take it or leave it. To be a Christian at all involves prior commitment to certain things. That's the buy-in. You know what you're getting going in. The Bible isn't classified. Certain things are priced-in. That's the nature of a revealed religion. If you're not prepared to accept it, then the alternative isn't to reinvent Christianity, but to drop the pose and admit that you don't think it's true. Don't try to change it.
2. When the Bible teaches something that rubs us the wrong way, that's an opportunity to think hard and find the wisdom in something that we'd ordinarily reject without giving it a second thought. One of the problems with "progressive Christianity," apart from incoherence, is that it has no capacity to learn anything from the Bible because it rejects out of hand anything in scripture that challenges its prejudices.
3. There's nothing necessarily wrong with finding certain biblical teachings disturbing or bothersome. The opposite of progressive Christianity is a passive unthinking piety that's afraid to wrestle with these issues for fear it will result in loss of faith.
But it's good to grapple with these issues, from a standpoint of faith, because probing the rationale for biblical teachings that we may find shocking or unnerving may force us to achieve a better understanding of the wisdom behind biblical teaching. Don't push it away. Sometimes hard truths have the greatest potential for enlightenment. To revolutionize our superficial assumptions.
4. Take OT ethics. Many readers find certain OT teachings repugnant. And they never get beyond their repugnance. They wince and turn the page. At best the file it away as something incomprehensible.
People who object to OT ethics are apt to be intellectually frivolous. They lack the intellectual patience to seriously explore and work through the issues. They're just dismissive. They don't think there's anything true or good to be understood in such teachings. They don't find anything worthwhile because they don't expect anything worthwhile and they're not looking for anything worthwhile. So I can't say that I'm terribly sympathetic to their lazy reaction. I understand what they find objectionable, but they don't make a good-faith effort to go beyond that snap judgment.
5. As I've said before, even if you don't believe in the Bible, it would be prudent for atheists to approach the OT from the standpoint of a cultural anthropologist. An academic field archeologist who lives with a tribe or people-group to understand their society from the inside out. He brings critical sympathy to the task. He may initially find some of their customs baffling, barbaric, and irrational. But he makes a good-faith effort to learn what motivates the customs. Perhaps, on closer examination, the customs are understandable adaptations to their circumstances. They may not be great customs, but if they were living under better circumstances, they'd have better customs. They've been thrust into a particular situation, and it isn't easy to cope.
6. Now I'm not a cultural relativist. I'm not suggesting that we should be nonjudgmental. After immersive study, the anthropologist might well be justified in concluding that some of the customs are willfully stupid and wantonly cruel.
But we need to understand things before we're in a position to render an informed judgment. In particular, an atheist is in no position to just assume that his provincial social conditioning is automatically superior to mine. That's arbitrary and lacks a capacity for critical self-awareness. Village atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens revel in lampooning OT ethics, but from the standpoint of a cultural anthropologist, their knee-jerk reaction is hidebound, ethnocentric, and question-begging. The same applies to "progressive Christians".
7. In that regard, this is an interesting and provocative lecture on OT ethics by a noted scholar:
To summarize, paraphrase, and expand on his explanation:
i) OT law is not utopian. It's not first and foremost about the promotion of virtue.
Rather, it's about damage control. What to do when things go wrong. Where to go from there. Given a bad situation, what are the realistic options?
This is, after all, a penal code. A criminal law code. Something has already gone wrong.
It's like pulling the pin on a live grenade. The options after you pull the firing pin are very different from the options before you pull it. Once you pull the pin, it's too late to go back to kinder gentler alternatives.
ii) OT law has practical aims. It settles for limited, obtainable goods rather than ultimate, unobtainable goods. Curtailing evil. Fixing what can be fixed. Regulating what can't be abolished. Preventing things from getting even worse.
iii) Lawmakers are constrained by what's possible. That's why they forbid theft but they don't command generosity. God has chosen to place himself under such constraints. To some degree, God accommodates himself to our wickedness. OT law is a necessary compromise or concession to our fallenness. Not part of God's ultimate plan for human beings, but about how to God negotiates with this group at a particular time and place (OT Jews) to survive, relatively faithful and civilized long enough for the promise to come to fulfillment.
iv) The purity codes existed to differentiate Jews and heathen Gentiles. That's defunct. Christians properly distinguish which laws are just for OT Jews and which for God's people in general.
8. In general, I think Provan's analysis is insightful and sound. Many unbelievers who blindly rail against OT ethics would benefit from taking these rudimentary distinctions into account. Problem is, many unbelievers don't seek understanding. They are lazy. They just want to feel superior.
9. Having said that, I have some disagreements with Provan. He's an egalitarian, I'm a complementation. So he has a different take on Gen 1 and OT legislation for women than I do.
10. In addition, he seems to be a freewill theist who believes that God must operate under the same constraints as human lawmakers. God is stymied by what is feasible, given the autonomy of human agents to thwart his will.
That's not my own explanation, so I'd reframe the issue. There are constraints on God's field of action, but in a different way. God has different world histories at his disposal. I'm the end-product of a particular past. I exist because I have a particular set of linear ancestors. If God changed certain variables in the past, that would change the future, including my future. I don't exist in that future. So there are tradeoffs.
God made a world designed for second-order goods. Eliminating certain evils has the side-effect of eliminating the compensatory goods. Goods that only exist as a result of prior evils. God didn't create a perfect world, a utopian world, but a world with redeemed losers like me. The ideal lies at the end of the process, not the beginning.
Like a sports team where the coach doesn't pick the best players. These aren't the most talented players. His primary goal isn't about winning every game, but cultivating masculine virtues. Camaraderie, loyalty, and brotherly love. He prefers to work with losers. To reclaim losers. Rescue the lost. Give them a second chance.
11. Finally, it's good to study how to be faithful in trying times. Life is rough. If a remnant of OT Jews could stay faithful despite harsh circumstances, that sets an example for Christians.
Monday, February 24, 2020
Sorry, bud, but your loss isn't my loss
Celebrity apostates are the flip side of celebrity converts. Recently there's been a spate of celebrity apostates. From what I can tell, these are fair-weather Christians who lost their faith (such as it was) when Christianity ceased to be hip and cool. As the power elite turns against Christianity, there's a natural winnowing process.
These most recent, publicized case is Rhett & Link, whom I've never heard of before. I don't have anything to say about them. I just don't care. You're just one of 7 billion people, many unreached, who never had the opportunities you squandered.
I'm simply using it as an occasion to make a general observation: Christianity has some aspects of a team sport as well as an individual sport. The team aspect is the church. The corporate dimension of the Christian faith. The fellowship of believers. Ideally, we drawn strength from one another. Share our joys and sorrows. Pray for each other. Encourage one another. The church is meant to be a spiritual family.
I'm simply using it as an occasion to make a general observation: Christianity has some aspects of a team sport as well as an individual sport. The team aspect is the church. The corporate dimension of the Christian faith. The fellowship of believers. Ideally, we drawn strength from one another. Share our joys and sorrows. Pray for each other. Encourage one another. The church is meant to be a spiritual family.
So that's true up to a point. There is, though, another sense in which Christianity is more like an individual sport. In a team sport, no particular player, even if he's the star player, wins or loses. The team wins or loses.
That cuts both ways. On the one hand, weaker players lower the ceiling of what stronger players could achieve. On the other hand, stronger players raise the ceiling of what weaker players could achieve. If you have loads of athletic ability, there's a sense in which it takes a certain amount of humility to play a team sport because you could go farther on your own. Less able teammates slow you down. They fumble opportunities.
In an individual sport, you win or lose on your own. When you lose, that's not a loss for the team.
I suspect many unbelievers are gleeful about celebrity apostates because they think this is demoralizing for Christians. As if the Christian team takes a hit every time a teammate walks away from the Christian faith. Especially a high-profile figure.
But theologically speaking, that's not how it works. This isn't a competitive team sport. You cross the finish line individually or you drop out of the race individually. The "winners" and "losers" are ultimately independent of each other.
Salvation and damnation are individual outcomes. Tragic for the individual, and sad for onlookers. The apostate will suffer as an individual.
A passenger ship is a traditional metaphor for the church. If you jump overboard, the ship won't sink. The ship won't stop. It will keep right on going to its appointed destination.
Publicly recanting the Christian faith can be exhilarating for celebrity apostates. Temporarily, they get lots of kudos from infidels.
But as you're splashing around in the water, you watch the stern of the ship recede towards the horizon. You're alone. The sun is edging towards the horizon. Soon it will be night. You will splash around in the silence and darkness and isolation.
Unbelievers can gloat all they like over celebrity apostates, but Christianity continues to sail full steam ahead. Christians aren't hostage to apostates. We each have our own pilgrimage.
The ship doesn't wait for you and me. I must be on time or be left behind.
Christians are there to help each other on the journey. But there's always been an attrition rate. Some travelers begin the journey as unbelievers and finish as believers. Others begin the journey as believers, then end up as unbelievers. Some travelers suffer a crisis of faith during the journey, but return to the faith.
Paper thin theology
@RandalRauserThere is no inconsistency between atheism and the existence of objective moral values. So Christians who insist that atheism entails moral relativism or, worse, nihilism, are simply mistaken. Atheists may have various accounts. See, for example, the platonism of Erik Wielenberg.
i) To begin with, Rauser acts like this is just a Christian caricature of atheism. But many atheist thinkers admit that atheism is inconsistent with objective moral values. Is Rauser so uninformed that he doesn't know their own side of the argument?
ii) Then there's his fallacious appeal to "various accounts," including Wielenberg's platonism. But the fact that some atheists subscribe to moral realism fails to demonstrate that atheism is consistent with moral realism. It just shows you what they believe, not that their belief is true. By the same token, the fact that Wielenberg has an argument for secular moral realism fails to demonstrate that atheism is consistent with objective moral values unless his argument is successful.
Assumption: if life doesn't go on forever, life is absurd. But why think that? If God created us only to live for 70 years and then extinguish, would our existence be absurd? No. So it doesn't follow that finite existence is, of itself, absurd.
Notice that Rauser offers no argument for his contention. Although I don't think immortality is a sufficient condition for human life to be meaningful (important, worthwhile), it is a necessary condition. Something I have argued for elsewhere.
iii) But also notice, even by his own reckoning, how little his progressive theology contributes to what matters in life. According to him, God is unnecessary to ground moral realism. And immortality is unnecessary for life to be meaningful. So what does is progressive theology offer that atheism does not? On his view, there seems little to lose if God does not exist. Whether progressive theology is true or false makes little if any difference to what ultimately matters.
It's no wonder that he's so sympathetic to atheism. From his perspective, there's so little at stake if God does or does not exist. It's no wonder that he constantly plays both sides of the fence.
Rauser spends most of his time attacking conservative theology and conservative ideology. Although he's fairly clear about what his own political beliefs are, he has very little to say about what progressive theology stands for.
Should a Christian debater bracket his beliefs?
A recent exchange I had with a fellow Christian apologist:
Rob
It is, of course, possible that one or more of the Gospels is mistaken in this matter.
Hays
Have the two positions evolved and diverged to the point where presuppositionalism is defined in part by commitment to inerrancy while evidentialism is now defined in part by lack of commitment to inerrancy?
Rob
When I say that it is "possible," I am speaking hypothetically and not about my own view.
That having been said, if we are to engage skeptical views of the Bible honestly, we must be ready to acknowledge that in some instances there might be a plausible argument for an error in Scripture. As an evangelical, I maintain that if we knew enough about what was going on in problematic passages we would see that there are no errors, but that's different from claiming that we always have enough such information to show decisively that there are no errors.
Hays
i) It's true that inerrancy doesn't require us to have a solution at hand for every difficulty. I think some inerrantists try too hard to explain how apparent errors/contradictions aren't really erroneous or contradictory. The effort can backfire if it the explanation looks strained, ad hoc, and desperate.
Much better to say it's unreasonable to expect that we should have an explanation for every obscurity in Scripture, given our distance from the events.
ii) That said, I'm somewhat unclear on how your statements go together. On the one hand you indicate that as an inerrantist, you don't actually think it's possible that one (or more) of the Gospels is mistaken on this point.
On the other hand, when you tell the skeptic that, hypothetically, it's possible that one (or more) of the Gospels is mistaken on this point, as a persuasive apologetic strategy (assuming that's what you mean), it suggests that you yourself think is wrong. But presumably the job of a Christian apologist is to defend and promote what he thinks is really the case. Our beliefs should map onto reality. We don't want to offer the skeptic an alternative that's not really the case, do we? We don't want to propose, as a fallback position, a falsehood as a substitute for reality. If the Bible, as the word of God, shares in God's infallibility, then our job is to defend that reality, and not an unreal substitution.
Rob
It is a perfectly understandable feature of rational discourse to state that something is 'possible' that one happens not to think is actually the case."=
Hays
But inerrancy derives from a doctrine of plenary verbal inspiration. While the dictionary definition of "inerrancy" is without error, the actual concept is infallibility, by virtue of inspiration. I think "inerrancy" has edged out "infallibility" in common usage because it has fewer syllables, which makes it easier to say. But the traditional orthodox concept is to be without possibility of error.
Rob
When speaking in the context of discussing the historical reliability of the text of an historical narrative in Scripture, where other participants in the discussion do not accept the divine inspiration of Scripture (and certainly not its inerrancy), to say that it is "possible" that a text is in error is to be understood in that context in which no commitment is being assumed with regard to the inerrancy of the text. I'm just not going to be so pedantic as to repeat "If we don't assume biblical inerrancy" before every comment on an apparent problem in Scripture.
Hays
i) Even when–or especially when–dealing with skeptics, it's important for them to understand what the Christian position represents. An apologist is a Christian spokesman, explaining the Christian position. An apologist ought to have a commitment to orthodox Christian theology. That's a given. That's understood. Skeptics should expect that from a Christian apologist.
ii) Of course, that's not their own viewpoint, but that doesn't mean he should accommodate their viewpoint. Rather, he should argue for his own viewpoint. No commitment should be assumed in the sense that he can't expect them to grant inerrancy. And he can't merely assert it to be the case. Likewise, inerrancy/inspiration needn't be the first stage of the argument. Rather, it can be the goal of the argument. The final stage he's aiming for and working towards.
iii) It's not begging the question for a Christian apologist to operate with that presumptive commitment–inasmuch as he does have reasons for that commitment. It's not a bare or sheer assumption, but a well-grounded commitment.
Rob
Even if my immediate purpose is to defend the inerrancy of the Bible, doing so in a way that precludes a priori even considering the possibility of an error is unlikely to be a persuasive strategy. We will come across as refusing to consider any potential contrary evidence to our dogma. I don't think that's a winning approach.
Hays
i) The primary obligation of a Christian apologist should be to uphold and defend theological reality. He ought do his best to make a rational case, but representing and defending Christianity can't be hostage to the plausibility structure of the unbeliever. By definition, the unbeliever is unreasonable to some degree. In many cases, intransigently unreasonable.
ii) The standard of comparison must always be reality–including theological reality–and not what the unbeliever is prepared to accept. In a debate with a Hindu or Buddhist philosopher, is a Christian apologist suppose to bracket empirical evidence just because an Indian philosopher may regard the sensible world or physical universe as illusory or delusive (Maya)? No, you have to stand your ground and defend reality rather than offering him a substitute for reality, an option that doesn't square with what the real world is like.
Consider a debate with an eliminative materialist. Is no commitment to be assumed with regard to consciousness in a debate between a dualist and an eliminative materialist? Hardly. The dualist will argue for his side of the position. He won't bracket consciousness to accommodate the eliminative materialist.
iii) We can acknowledge prima facie evidence against our position. But that in itself doesn't concede the possibility of error. After all, many things are true that may appear to be false. So that by itself creates no presumption that something is false.
Good mythical morning
Apparently Rhett and Link became apostates.
Kenny Boyce offers some observations about their apostasy. I don't entirely agree with Boyce (e.g. I'm not a YEC but I think mature creation may be more defensible than he does, I'd want to unpack what he means by "a less theologically conservative view of the nature of Scripture"), but he does say a lot of useful things. It's worth a read.
Anyway, I highly doubt it's all intellectual for Rhett and Link. It's not just about fundy Christianity, YEC, do we take the Bible "literally", etc. I think it's also about the seductive draw of the world. Moving from rural North Carolina to Southern California. Finding fame and success in the entertainment industry. Meeting Hollywood execs. Gaining wealth and influence. Rubbing elbows with celebrities. Getting invited to attend film premieres and after-parties. It's hard to resist these pulls and temptations. Especially if one's Christian faith is already threadbare. If one doesn't already have deep roots in theology and apologetics.
At the same time, it's not as if Rhett and Link can't reach out to Christians who can offer intelligent answers to their questions. They have more luxury to seek than many other people do. And it's not too late for them even now.
Canonical equivocations
Catholic and Protestant apologists often reach an impasse on debates over the canon due to equivocations. Does the church precede the canon or the canon precede the church? Did the church give us the canon?
As a result, they are talking in circles or talking past each other. To break the stalement and clarify the issues, some distinctions and definitions are in order.
Scripture
Although the Bible is scripture, scripture is not synonymous with the Bible inasmuch as scripture may just be a part of the Bible. Isaiah is scripture, but it's not the Bible.
The Bible
The total collection of scriptures.
A Bible
The OT is a Bible, but not the Bible. The Bible is the OT and NT.
The canon
i. This can refer to the OT canon, the NT canon, or the entire canon.
ii) Depending on the stage of sacred history, the canon may be open or closed, complete or incomplete.
iii) On one definition, the canon is complete or closed in fact when all the scriptures are written. Put another way, at that juncture the Bible actually exists in toto. That's an intrinsic definition.
iv) That's different from the reception or distribution of Scripture, which may be uneven.
v) Scripture entails canon because scripture implies a contrast between scripture and nonscripture. So the concept of ccripture implicitly contains a canonical principle or goal: boundaries in principle and/or practice. Depending on the stage of sacred history, the canon may not have reached its limit. During the period of public revelation, there's an open canon. That true both in OT times and NT times.
vi) Catholic apologists deny that 1C Christians had "The Bible". They say the Church gave us "The Bible". They say sola scriptura is inconsistent with an open or incomplete canon. They say most early Christians lacked access to "the Bible"–because NT books weren't all written or distribution was uneven.
But these are equivocations. Sola scriptura can operate with a smaller canon because the governing principle remains scripture. The church can be governed by a core canon–an incomplete canon because the point of contrast isn't between some scripture and all scripture but between scripture and non-scripture. Put another way, between revelation and nonrevelation. Divine revelation is the final standard, no matter how much or little is available. Nothing else can be higher or equal to divine revelation in Christian theology and ethics.
The Catholic Bible on the eve of the Reformation
The Catholic Cardinal who said books of (the) Apocrypha rank lower than the Old and New Testament...— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
To find out about Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (Cardinal Ximenes, 1436-1517), I took a stroll to a nearby library... pic.twitter.com/NLe9rcEZ3Y
Where there were lots of old Bibles... pic.twitter.com/VgXrSYFtpn— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
I reached for volume 1 of the Complutensian Polyglot... pic.twitter.com/CwD8wsh5uQ— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
Turned past the title page... pic.twitter.com/eQTbcDny6A— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
to the Prologue... pic.twitter.com/vgvqU9xgaN— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
And looked just over half way down the left hand column of the first page... pic.twitter.com/WYuXQlJc8t— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
Where it reads...— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
‘But indeed the books outside the canon, which the church received for edification of the people rather than for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas only have Greek writing [i.e. no Hebrew].’
Thus on the eve of the Reformation, the top cardinal in Spain says in a volume later approved by the Pope that books of (the) Apocrypha are outside the canon & can’t confirm doctrine.— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) November 8, 2018
Protestant rejection of (the) Apocrypha as authoritative goes back to mainstream catholicism.
The paradoxical problem of evil
The problem of evil can generate some paradoxes. Ironically, the problem of evil may appear worse when the situation is actually improving. For instance, there's been a drastic reduction in infant mortality in the west, thanks to modern medical science. In the past, parents expected most of their kids to die before reaching adulthood. Now that's very rare and shocking. That makes the death of a child stick out in a way that wasn't the case in the past. So the fact that the world has gotten better in that respect–far better–can oddly enough make the residual evil in kind seem far worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)