He Lives

Stomping Grounds

2012-01-21T18:23:00.001-05:00

This is a present-day picture of a fund-raising event--the Stepathon. It takes place in Pittsburgh on the city's Northside, in the area where I grew up. (And where, apropos nothing, Jehovah's Witnesses began.)

I can't believe that there was a time when I wouldn't have given the staircase (we called them "city steps") a second thought. I lived on a hill, in a neighborhood called called Fineview because it had a "fine view" of the city's skyline. City steps were ubiquitous.

Dispensationalism and The Sermon on the Mount

2012-01-21T14:07:00.002-05:00

The Sermon on the Mount is one of the most important passages of scripture. It is interesting what the different systematic theologies make of it.

Dispensationalism's long-time rival, Covenant Theology, teaches (wrongly and indefensibly, in my opinion--although I am in general a great fan) that Jesus was correcting Pharisaical distortions of Mosaic law, or perhaps clarifying misunderstandings.

Classic Dispensationalism (Left-Behind-ism) has a particularly interesting and equally indefensible position. They teach that the Sermon, while perhaps offering good advice for Christians, is actually the rule of life for the Millennial Kingdom. We read, for example:

According to both Old Testament and New Testament, righteousness and peace are the great words of the [millennial] kingdom. The Sermon on the Mount is the expansion of the personal righteousness, which is required in the [millennial] kingdom. The great words in this present dispensation [the church age] are believe and grace. Not once do these words appear in connection with the [millennial] kingdom teachings of the Sermon (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace the Glorious Theme, p. 164).

another example:

In His early ministry to Israel the Lord Jesus gave none of the great heavenly truths for the present Church dispensation. He but mentioned the Church, giving no explanation. Nor were these vital Church truths revealed to the Twelve.

Paul is the declarer of the Gospel of the grace of God to us - Take Romans to Philemon out of the Bible and you are bereft of Christian doctrine. For instance, if you were to take Paul’s Epistles out of the Bible, you could not find anything about the Church, or the Body of Christ; for no other Apostle even mentions the Body of Christ (W. Newell, Peter vs. Paul, p. 6).

We see then that according to classic Dispensationalism the law (rule of life) for the church comes from the Pauline epistles, not from the Lord's great sermon.

New Covenant Theology--a nascent movement primarily in Reformed Baptist circles-- has a third view: that Jesus is replacing the Mosaic law, including if not primarily the Ten Commandments, with a fuller (and final, prior to the end of human history) revelation of God's moral law. Moses' law is a type or foreshadowing of Jesus' law--much like virtually everything in the Old Testament is a type of what was to come in the fullness of time.

Thus when Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery. But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

The Covenant Theologian has to argue, absurdly, that Jesus is "correcting" some manner of bad teaching of Moses' law, when in fact Jesus quotes the exact words of the commandment and then contrasts his teaching against the exact words. The dispensationalist must argue that this teaching is not intended for the church, but the inhabitants of a future millennial kingdom. The New Covenant Theologian has the cleanest explanation: Jesus is not saying what was taught before was bad, but what he is offering now is new and better--befitting a new and better covenant and a new and better priesthood.

Guest Post: Michael Heath

2012-01-15T05:48:00.000-05:00

Below is Michael Heath's response to my preceding post.

---------------------------
David,

You’re conceding a certain descriptive to make a leap into the prescriptive. I think such a leap will guarantee a sub-optimal dialogue on the prescriptive since the descriptive premises required for an optimal dialogue aren’t well-established, at least on my end and between both of us. I’ll play along on this post, but I strongly suggest we spend future energies more on the morality of people celebrating the existence and nature of a god who punishes eternally – where I presume you belong to this group. Additionally I would love to see a defense of God, as you understand the Bible describes him that asserts he is not evil in spite of his promising to punish some eternally. Unless of course you concede the point he is incredibly evil, which I doubt you, do.

In addition I don’t conclude, at least yet, that Christians who celebrate a god they believe will punish humans for eternity are therefore evil themselves. I’ll play along here, but that’s not a conclusion I’ve reached. I’ve just started this line of thought and read nothing on the matter so I won’t go there because I’m confident others far smarter or better-informed have taken positions that would greatly expand my perception of this issue, and hopefully present compelling arguments I’d never come up with myself. So I’m far more interested in considering your position on these descriptive points.

I also disagree the ball is in my court, I find that analogy doesn’t work here at all. I’d argue for a plethora of responsibilities some owned by me and more owned by you given your a member of the set who believe in this type of god. So I would instead suggest we consider the degrees to which each of us is associated with those acting badly.

As a fellow human and ultimately, an American, I do take some responsibility that people celebrate a biblical god who punishes eternally based on their fealty to an inerrant Bible because I think the premises lead to the following conclusions:
1) The primary premises allowing this belief system have primarily been falsified or lack empirical evidence. And because this type of belief is based on certain biblical passages where the Bible is asserted to be both inerrant and the word of God, incoherent. That train of thought is problematic for all us because I think this incoherent reasoning continues to enable our culture in its pervasive celebration of faith as a beneficial human attribute. I instead find faith to be an infantile character defect which impedes human progress while increasing human suffering.
2) This belief coupled to the association of believers into various religious denominations and other religious-centric groups have caused and continue to cause increased human suffering.
3) Because the U.S. has over the past five decades experienced a merging of believers in this category with political conservatism and this religious-political movement has come to significantly influence policy, this suffering has extended beyond these believers and their close associates and now harms all U.S. citizens while also threatening the well-being of all humans. [Re the future threat of all humans: American Christian conservatives are the primary voting base that allows the Republican party to successfully obstruct even confronting the fact of climate change along with the grave threat it poses to human wellbeing and life on this planet.]

I do take my responsibility seriously. I don’t just comment in Ed’s blog, I write and advocate elsewhere. Just recently I had an on-going private dialogue with the local editor of our local newspaper. We are on good terms. He’s a social conservative in a rural red-state area so red it’s uncommon for us to have Democrats running for local office. Yet he writes columns as if Christians are persecuted when people criticize Christians for acting out their faith in the public square. The people criticizing such public acts were not demanding these public demonstrations of piety end; they were only criticizing them for making such demonstrations. My motivation here was first to get him to make better arguments given that as editor, he writes opinion columns. He’s a young guy where he graciously accepted my offer to read two books I recommend which teach how to identify bad arguments and build good ones, qualities I would have thought he’d have learned getting his degree in journalism.

A few years back we had our state representative, Kevin Elsenheimer, make a very Rick Santorum-like argument regarding gay rights in our local newspaper. His argument was that his church’s teachings (Catholic) condemned gays. He then argued that his personal religious beliefs were justification for him to legislate in a manner that denied gays their rights. He never mentioned his constitutional obligations or even mentioned any regret on how his position would harm the gay people and their family members in his district. I wrote a published letter to the editor conceding his right of conscience to believe this, but how it violated the principles inherent to the enlightenment, Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the plain meaning of the Constitution as well. I also made a policy argument he had an obligation to represent the interests of all his constituents, not just those who were heterosexual. I received two death threats from that letter, calls to my home. Thank goodness I answered the phone both times rather than my wife.

I received my first death threat for defending a local family when their gay son’s wedding announcement was published in the local paper which caused a ruckus, largely centered on people objecting to such an announcement being published, “in a family newspaper” (actually it’s our area’s paper of record). Of course these arguments were predominately based on the critics Christian beliefs. My letter defending this family and arguing we should celebrate gay people taking on the responsibilities of family was worthy of our admiration, not an event that justified shoving gays back into the closet in a manner that enables gays to be persecuted precisely because the larger Christian community seeks they continue to suffer being ostracized.

These are merely a few examples; as a human and an American I am actively engaged at the local, state, and national level advocating for policies that are based on our country’s secular founding values where we leave religious beliefs at the door if those beliefs are contra to the first principles of this country (freedom, equal rights, rights of conscience, and pursuit of happiness to name a few of a long list). That has me calling my U.S. representatives office, writing letters to my governor and Congressional members, and contributing to organizations like the ACLU, Americans United, and politicians I think have the character to govern on behalf of all their constituents without seeking to ostracize some as a way to gain political advantage, power, and money.

I also personally lobby (in-person, never email) my extended family advocating they differentiate their obligations to their church and how that can conflict with their obligations in our free society as U.S. citizens. These conversations are decreasing for obvious reasons, they’re committed and by attribute, incapable of adapting. [A close family member and many of her fellow church members continue to advocate for the current president’s death because they’re convinced he’s a covert Muslim operative and member of al Qaeda, where they get this idea because of their religious association.]

While I would never directly advise my nephews and nieces on religion, most have no idea what I believe, I do present my siblings, their parents, with arguments their obligation to their children should have them considering those kids getting the best education possible rather than merely indoctrinating them as they prefer. That such indoctrinal tactics are ultimately selfish and limit their children’s future. They of course seek to save their kids souls by lying to them about what is and what is not true, and paying “teachers” to do the same.

This issue is not my primary concern however, that’s because unlike you David, I’m not so directly associated with these people as you are. In addition I’m currently become far more concerned about what I perceive is a far greater threat, that of climate change. So my free-time energies are often spent more on that topic than others.

I don’t think there is a cookie-cutter response to your question and therefore find it some nonsensical. Some people work to reduce the suffering of animals, should they stop and all focus on children? We each have to judge if we’re doing enough. However that doesn’t deny our respective responsibilities, I’ll gladly carry that burden and do what I think is the best I can.

I do find your responsibility to be far more immense so I don’t think you do yourself any favors raising this question. So, I’m in a rhetorical corner? Hardly, I’d argue you’ve instead done that to yourself. To concede one is evil doesn’t remove the responsibility I think you have for the planet and humanity so I can’t follow the logic, “the ball is in my court.” Your closer association to this evil should obviously put a far bigger burden on you than on me.

David writes, “What action do you advocate against evil such as I am, or do you just stand by and then, by similar reasoning by association, become a guilty accomplice?”

If we belong to a group with fundamental issues which harm others, and they all do to some degree, I think each of us has a personal responsibility to always do the following:
1) Vociferously seek reform
2) Quit. I admire people who work for authentic reform even when their odds are nil to low. I spent 5 additional years in the Republican party advocating for reform, finally leaving the evening of the 2008 National Convention delegates unanimously approved Sarah Palin to be their VP nominee. I don’t have the wisdom necessary to create and offer a formulaic method on when to stop seeking reform from within and quit. I don’t regret quitting the GOP because I don’t see a candidate, officials, or even voters who even remotely approaches past Republicans I admired, like MI’s long-time governor, Bill Milliken.
3) For those issues we find have a grave impact on us and/or others, own responsibility and continue to advocate for reform on those where you think you have the talent and resources to make a difference.

When I was young I actually thought hard and long about remaining in the denomination I was raised and seeking reform. I decided that the very structure set-up by evangelical and fundamentalist organizations makes any such efforts nearly impossible, both within the denominations and their so-called colleges. That’s because they reject the journey seeking objective truth; they instead demand members submit to a set of “truths” where there are few viable if any viable options to seek reform. At least I thought that, growing up in a small rural area I was never exposed to the fact some local faith communities do change denominations because influential members convince enough of the others. But still, what’s the odds of and uneducated (at the time) late-teen/early-twenty convincing his church that not only was the Bible not the inerrant word of God, but it wasn’t even rational to believe in a judging triune god who has us destined for either Heaven and Hell.

And while I left that church, I continued to study religion, formally at university and even more ardently informally after university, from 1985 to the mid-2000s. That was in order to authentically test fundamentalist/evangelical truth claims and later in this time period, make better arguments to convince people to abandon faith, seek objective truth using the best methods possible, and do what morally right rather than act out in a way you can justify with Bible verses. I was especially motivated to change minds due to the persecution of gays I encountered either by conservative Christians, or enabled by them. This wasn’t merely due to what I read in the news, but persecution I personally encountered where I got involved to stop. (Public school bullying that was defended by the principal, a certain Board Member, and an elder of my church. Where the Board member was the Board’s president and my pastor and the elder was a close relative. Only the superintendent was empathetic to the persecution gays were subjected to in our school.)

So I don’t see our responsibilities ending if we sought to reform and failed and quit. I do think it’s not easy to calculate the level of effort we should expend and claim we acted with integrity. I will assert with confidence you have far more responsibility to act on this matter than I do precisely due to your association being degrees closer than me.

And while I’d find a response to my points here interesting, if you have limited amounts of time I’d much prefer getting into believers’ moral culpability for celebrating a god who punishes eternally. Especially given the nature of this reality and God’s supposed powers and role in the development of this reality

If I am evil, what then?

2012-01-14T12:43:00.001-05:00

Ed Brayton (and many others) are posting on the ugly comments/threats/harassment faced by the high-school girl Jessica Ahlquist, who won her lawsuit over a large prayer mural on display at her public high school.¹ The mural will be removed. I agree with the decision. I am not sure why any Christian thinks we are mandated to post doctrine, theology, or prayers in public areas. There is nothing in the New Testament that instructs us to make such in-your-face empty gestures. There is no precedent. If we are to offend, it is only by presenting the gospel, when it is welcomed. Otherwise dust off your feet and move on. It is certain that we are not to offend by vulgar displays of power (which we have enjoyed in the US over the years--arguably not to our benefit) over what is displayed in the public spaces we share with unbelievers and advocates of other faiths.

I expressed my contempt for the hate with this comment:

I truly despise, with what I hope is a righteous anger but what I suspect is garden-variety revulsion, those Christians who made such hate-filled comments. It demonstrates the truth, yet again, that the church has nothing to fear from atheists–they are impotent in their ability to harm us–we can only harm ourselves. One of these vile comments does more damage than a sea of gnu atheists. What an utter embarrassment, disgrace and humiliation.

Dispatches superstar commenter Michael Heath² responded to my comment:

Your post rings hollow for two reasons: 

1) Your refusal to own to up to the reality and I think, your own personal responsibility, that it is your form of biblical inerrant beliefs that enables, justifies, and maximizes people who believe and think like this.

2) That you too celebrate the existence of a god who promises to punish eternally. These people’s very role model is no different than the OT god who hates and the NT god who promises eternal punishment and to bring a sword. Yes it requires the avoid certain biblical verses to so, but there’s also ample verses that also support such a position.
Whether you like it or not heddle, you are far more closely associated with this reprehensible behavior than you are to those who condemn such beliefs. As I wrote in my previous post, believing such, mourning this perception, and working to save others because of this belief is a moral high ground. But celebrating such a reality as you do should have us seriously considering whether such behavior is also demonstrably evil. I do not yet weigh in because I've just started considering this and have read little on the topic to weigh others’ good arguments.

I then have the following question for Michael:

Let's grant your argument or at least your potential argument. Let's accept that my brand of biblical-inerrancy, hell-affirming Christianity—even if I do not commit acts such as those described in Ed’s post—even if I unambiguously condemn such acts-- is inherently evil.

That then leaves the ball in your court, does it not? Are you going to be the proverbial good man who does nothing, allowing evil to win? What action do you advocate against evil such as I am, or do you just stand by and then, by similar reasoning by association, become a guilty accomplice? Do you think blog-commenting is a sufficient response to evil? What are you going to do about it?

Yes, I'm trying to paint Michael in a corner--but he is quite formidable so I fully suspect I haven't.

--------------
¹ One cannot rule out the possibility that some of the comments are from non-Christians, designed to make Christians look bad—but at the same time we must admit the likelihood that most of the comments do indeed come from professing Christians. We are good at making ourselves look bad.

²I mean that in a sincerely complimentary fashion. No Dispatches commenter is as noted as Michael Heath for a sustained record of well-reasoned responses.

I am Richard Carrier. I have demonstrated this. I have refuted that.

2012-01-13T14:24:00.000-05:00

It boggles the mind when people claim, definitively, that they have refuted the bible. If they were to say: Here is a serious problem for those who affirm biblical inerrancy--well that would be one thing. But to claim to have demonstrated error--not just to have made a decent case for error--well that takes an especially small mind.

Such a mind is that of Richard Carrier.

Here he has a post concerned with a well-known problem, the mention Luke makes of a census:

¹ In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. ² This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (Luke 2:1-2)

The problem being that this reference to Quirinius is anachronistic; the census when Quirinius was governor is known to have taken place in 6AD. There are various suggestions about solutions to this problem--frankly none very satisfying, but the problem, as I say, is well-known. It is not a "gotcha."

If you read Carrier's post you will see he characterizes this problem as "Matthew versus Luke." That is, he says Matthew places Jesus' birth at ~4BC and Luke around 6AD. That would indeed be a problem if it could be demonstrated.

That is where my exchange with Carrier begins. My first comment was:

You really are a dishonest piece of work. Or else just plain dumb.

Yes, convenient of you to couch the problem this way:

Haha! Matthew says one thing; OMG, Luke says something entirely different!

When in fact, Luke says exactly the same thing as Matthew. In Matthew we read:

Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king (Matt 2:1)

Luke write[s], in agreement with Matthew,

In the days of Herod, king of Judea (Luke 1:5)

Luke also writes, as you [Carrier] point out:

In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration when Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:1-2)

And furthermore Luke also refers to the despised ca. 6AD census:

After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. (Acts 5:37)

Just in case this is too complicated for you, let me summarize. An honest person would not pit Matthew v. Luke. An honest person would have at least pointed out that Luke wrote:

1) The birth of Jesus was during the reign of Herod (consistent with Matthew.)
2) Luke also talks about the census of ~6AD in Acts.
3) Luke mysteriously talks about a census at the time of Christ’s birth

Why would an honest person do that? Because all the information from Luke paints a more complicated picture. Luke, like Matthew, had Jesus born in the time of Herod. Luke also mentions the hated ~6AD census. But Luke also puts a census at Jesus’ birth. Perhaps Luke is completely nuts and he refers to the same census twice—once placing it at its correct time and once placing it ~14 years earlier. Or maybe he was referring to two different events, at least in his mind. Who knows? It is still a problem, for which no satisfying solution is known, but it is not the trivial “Matthew says one thing Luke says another” problem that you stupidly portray. It is more nuanced than you explained. Or perhaps can handle.

Then you also (I can hardly believe it but why should I be surprised?) invoke the tiresome canard of playing “gotcha” with Christians with this problem of the early census and leaving them dumfounded. Why atheists, especially of the pseudo-intellectually variety, fantasize that they surprise us with their awesome biblical knowledge, is a great mystery. This problem is in the notes of any study bible of the kind most Christians own. It is discussed in Sunday schools and mentioned in sermons whenever these passages are discussed. We know the problem. You are not surprising us. Get over yourself.

Carrier responded with:

Heddle: Your argument makes no logical sense. Luke mentions the same census twice; how do you get out of that that he meant two different censuses? Luke doesn’t say Jesus was born under Herod the king, but that John the Baptist was. And Herod the Great was not the only king named Herod. Judea was ruled after Herod the Great’s death by Herod Archelaus, whom even Josephus designates a king. Luke does not tell us which Herod John the Baptist was born under. In fact, as he never mentions this Herod dying and being replaced by another before Quirinius arrives (whereas Matthew does), we should assume Luke means Archelaus. Luke also contradicts Matthew on numerous other points: e.g. the family of Jesus never goes to Egypt and even goes to Jerusalem every year in Luke; but they flee to Egypt and then never go to Judea at all until decades later in Matthew; Jesus’ family comes from Nazareth in Luke, but does not come from Nazareth in Matthew, they only settle there years later; etc. If we saw this in any other pair of histories, we would conclude they are contradicting each other and that one of them is surely wrong (if not both). But the contradiction as to the date is worst of all, because Luke places the birth in the 6 A.D. census, and Matthew places it before the 4 B.C. death of Herod the Great. Every attempt to argue Luke meant a different census is based on ludicrous arguments and embarrassingly incompetent historical claims, as I have extensively proved.

If you cannot think of anything new that I haven’t already refuted, please don’t waste people’s time here.

Well alllllrighty then. He has "extensively proved." He has "already refuted."

The debt the world owes to an intellect such as Carrier's--well if it weren't too silly to contemplate, we'd be tempted to thank god for a blessing of such incalculable worth!

And then I commented, which at the time I posted is still in moderation (the real purpose of this post is to preserve my second comment in case it never gets out of moderation) this:

heddle says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 13, 2012 at 10:41 am
Luke mentions the same census twice; how do you get out of that that he meant two different censuses?

I never said that. I said he mentions the census in a way that is a well-known problem, not sprung upon us by the enlightened Richard Carrier. I did not offer any solution to that problem, because I don’t have one. You are being dishonest again, claiming that I offered a discredited solution, when in fact the gist of my post was that you, with malice aforethought or plain ignorance, mischaracterized the situation as a trivial Matthew v. Luke problem.

Luke doesn’t say Jesus was born under Herod the king, but that John the Baptist was.

Oh my gosh. In Luke 1:39 Luke places Jesus in Mary’s womb at the same time John is in Elizabeth’s womb. So if John was born in Herod’s time, so was Jesus. Can you not put two and two together?

Luke doesn’t say Jesus was born under Herod the king, but that John the Baptist was. And Herod the Great was not the only king named Herod. Judea was ruled after Herod the Great’s death by Herod Archelaus, whom even Josephus designates a king. Luke does not tell us which Herod John the Baptist was born under.

Well if is not even Herod the great, then why did you make the feeble argument that Luke doesn’t say Jesus was born under Herod, but only that John was? That makes that point not just dumb (which it is, since they were born within months of one another) but also irrelevant.

But really, are you out of your mind? In v3:1 Luke mentions, at the time John the Baptist is about to start his adult ministry,

Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis

Here Luke demonstrates the practice that when Herod is not “the” Herod, one must give specifics. Yet you claim Luke referred to Archelaus simply as “King Herod”—even though he was never awarded that title—without distinguishing him from Herod the Great. But why would he not refer to Herod Antipas simply as King Herod, especially when, given the other references, such as to Pilate, there is no chance of confusion? Why the specificity for one and not the other. Why the incorrect title, causing more confusion due to the temporal proximity of their reigns? That is your argument? Seriously?

So let me recap your “argument.”

1) Luke doesn’t claim that Jesus was born under Herod, but only that John the Baptist was—and we’ll ignore the fact that he also claims that they were in the womb at the same time.

2) But that doesn’t matter anyway, because Plain “King Herod” in Luke 1 actually means Herod Archelaus. Who was never officially king.

Is that a fair representation?

But the contradiction as to the date is worst of all, because Luke places the birth in the 6 A.D. census,

No he doesn’t, you are full of crap. He places it at the same time. Because your argument that “King Herod” in Luke 1:5 is Archelaus cannot be supported. A fair criticism, which you seem to be incapable of making, is that Luke also, inexplicably, refers to a census at the time of Jesus’ birth. But your claim that he places Jesus’ birth at 6 AD is asinine.

If you cannot think of anything new that I haven’t already refuted, please don’t waste people’s time here.

You haven’t refuted anything, except in your own mind.

Bad to Worse

2011-12-10T14:18:00.003-05:00

Incredibly, the quality of criticism from new atheists seems to have deteriorated.

First there is Richard Carrier who, if his let-me-talk-about-myself-in-the-third-person blog purports to demonstrate “quite conclusively” mathematically sound results pertaining, negatively, to god’s existence. He does not tell you (at least on his blog) what his assumptions are, their validity, or that he is doing nothing more than using those assumptions in a simple theorem accompanied by seventh-grade Algebra-1 manipulations.

And then, also under the freethoughtblogs domain, there is the much heralded and apparently famous (although I had never heard of him, but I lead a sheltered life) John Loftus, whose cv trumpets the exceptional qualification that he studied under the rather regrettable apologist William Lane Craig. Loftus’s blog is titled Debunking Christianity. At least that sounds interesting. And a much better name than “Richard Carrier Blogs” for the blog on which, well, Richard Carrier blogs. (Which reminds me of those NASCAR segues: we are happy to bring you the Coca Cola 600, proudly sponsored by Coca Cola.)

Debunking Christianity. Famous debunker. Studied under William Lane Craig. What could go wrong?

Let’s begin with a recent post. Top Seven Ways Christianity is Debunked by the sciences.

Philology (scientific textual criticism.) As Loftus points out, philology "proved" (more accurately: in conjunction with other supporting evidence demonstrated with high confidence--but Loftus, as we'll see, habitually oversells) that the Donation of Constantine was forged. Loftus fails to mention what the hell that has to do with Christianity (as opposed to ecclesiastical history and shenanigans.) Answer: nothing. Nothing debunked here. He also alludes that the same (imprecise) science might have something to say about books in the canon. He’s right, it might—and as Christians we embrace these studies given that the original autographs are lost. We, more than anyone, have a stake in learning about possible additions and redactions. But Loftus gives the absolutely false impression that these studies are conclusive—when they are merely suggestive. Also he does not address how Christianity would be “debunked” if, say, in his dream of dreams, 2 Peter was shown to be a forgery. How would that effect Christian theology? Answer: In no significant way. Christian theology is the gospel. The gospel is presented in a redundant and fault-tolerant manner. You would have to more or less destroy the entire bible. But Loftus preens at the end: That’s science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to. As a quibble, it is not actually science, it is a science based approach. And Loftus again oversold what it has taught us as “debunking” Christianity. The only thing apparent here is his commitment to false braggadocio.
The Copernican astronomical revolution as defended later by Galileo showed us that we do not live in a geocentric universe. Never did. The Biblical viewpoint, supposedly coming from a divine mind, did not understand this basic fact. Sigh. Now we know we are dealing with a lightweight, because only a lightweight would repeat such a tiresome canard. The bible does not teach geocentricism—there is not one verse in the bible that does—not one verse that is not similar to current figures of speech (The sun rose and moved across the sky) that also do not teach geocentricism. The fact that, prior to the advent of modern science, many believed in geocentricism is irrelevant—they were wrong.
Evolution/biology. Perhaps his strongest point, and the only one of the seven that is at least causing a great deal of concern among Christians. As he points out, however, some Christians are adopting a theistic evolution viewpoint and others are at least accepting that viewpoint as withing the pale of orthodoxy. Of course even here he can't resist, and once again screws up badly, writing: But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. It is perhaps true that ultimately there will be nothing left to explain, only time will tell. But in the real world there is a little matter of abiogenesis.
Archaeology. Loftus: "Archeologists have discovered several ancient Mesopotamian texts that predate the ones in the Bible and tell similar superstitious stories of the origins of the universe." Yeah, so what? Is there a verse in the bible that states: this is the first time this was written down! There is not. If there was a catastrophic Mesopotamian flood, then there is nothing in the bible that states: by divine fiat this was never passed by word of mouth, distorted, and written down prior to the inspired biblical writer. Another Loftus misspeak: "It has also shown us there was no Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt." Gosh Loftus if you had any integrity you would write it in a accurate manner that is troublesome for Christians: There is little (and no undisputed) documentation indicating the presence Hebrew slaves in Egypt, and little or no archeological evidence of a massive exodus. Instead you, once again, take the low-brow approach of exaggeration—that "Archaeology has shown there was no Exodus." Proving a negative John, proving a negative.
What has that great science Psychology taught us? Loftus reports! "Psychology shows us there can be no wrathful God who will punish us forever because of what we believe." I missed that issue of Science where the data were published.
Anthropology has shown us from the fact that there are many different cultures around the globe and with it a great deal of religious diversity. I’m stunned. I don’t know how to reply. Clearly Christianity, which teaches that there are but a few cultures and little religious diversity has be refuted.Totally.
Loftus: A) Neurology shows us there is an extremely close relationship between our beliefs and neuron firings, which can be drug induced, or even surgically removed. B) There is therefore no need for the supernatural explanation of the soul. Yes John it is crystal clear that A→B.

I hate this feeling of being debunked. I feel all violated. Loftus, however, helps us forget feeling dirty by topping this travesty with another post that is mind-numbingly stupid. I mean, it is way beyond the pale.

Scientists to Theologians: Put Up Or Shut Up!

Christian theists love to point out the limits of science, and it does have some. But to focus on them to the exclusion of the massive amount of information we have acquired from science is being extremely ungrateful for what it has achieved. To me that is one aspect of the denigration of science. The limits of science are based in 1) the limits of human imagination, and 2) the limits of that which we can detect. That which is undetectable does not fall within the realm of science, although, with further advances in our scientific instruments we can detect things that were previously thought undetectable. If science does reach its limits in the future, there won’t be any cause for theistic celebration because scientists may not know they have reached its limits, and because there are probably some things they might never know. Why should that conclusion, if they reach it, be preferred to an evolving God concept in a sea of god-concepts without any means to settle which one is to be preferred as the best explanation of the same data? What is the theistic alternative method for squeezing the truth out of the universe? What is it? Until theists can propose a better method than science to learn about the universe, they should just shut up!

First I’ll point out that the title is a lie. It promises examples of scientists telling theologians to put up or shut up. It gives no such examples. The phrase “Scientists to Theologians” in the title should, if truth means anything to the writer, be replaced with “Me, John Loftus, non-scientist, to Theologians:”

That aside, the post is incoherent. It lacks the charm of a mushroom-induced hallucination and/or the redeeming naiveté of a all-night freshmen bull session. It’s just bad. Awful. Sentences strung together. Misunderstandings about science. Non sequiturs about theology. No theme. No connections. Garbage. One of the worst essays I have ever read about science and religion. Ever. Including posts written by fanatical YECs.

John, you don’t know what science is. Science is an agnostic methodology. Nothing more, nothing less. It is a very successful agreement on the rules for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data, rules that serve as checks and balances against bias. It actually has no limits—because it is a process. Its success may come in fits and starts but it can be done indefinitely. Theology is not in competition with science. Christian theology does not argue that it can teach you all about quarks. Christian theology readily defers such questions to science.

I see why such thoughts as Loftus's are "free." Carrier and Loftus are among your best and brightest? Sucks to be you.

Richard Carrier: Worthy winner of the Jerry Coyne Lidless Eye Award

2011-12-07T20:09:00.004-05:00

Richard Carrier wins the coveted Jerry Coyne Lidless Eye Award which, as you may know, was created to celebrate and recognize exceptional stupidity in writing about the intersection of religion and science.

Richard, you see, has, um, --well it is best to use his own words:

"In fact, I show how the fine tuning of the physical constants actually proves God doesn’t exist. Quite conclusively in fact."

Quite conclusively? Really?

This is of course complete nonsense, which I pointed out on his blog. He has threatened to treat my comments as spam because I haven't actually read his chapter in some book that contains this "proof." I have read other such proofs, such as from Ikeda and Jefferys. I know exactly how they work.

I wonder if Carrier agrees with many of his FTB colleagues who argue that it is OK for Dawkins to criticize absurd theological arguments without actually studying them? Because I am using the same argument against him--I don't have to read his chapter to recognize it as utter nonsense. Can you say "Courtier's Reply?"

Now one can argue that under the assumptions of fine-tuning (the habitability of the universe is sensitive to the constants) and a low probability of the constants (something which nobody actually knows--but you can assume it for the sake of an argument) that multiverse explanations are more plausible, from an Occam's Razor sense, than supernatural design. But even then neither Carrier nor anyone else can prove "quite conclusively" that God doesn't exist. Total Kool-Aid. And he doesn't need Bayes' theorem--which if you don't know is a simple theorem in probability that freshmen learn--but like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is disgustingly abused in the hands of the intellectually challenged/dishonest and the mathematically illiterate.

In this kind of argument, Bayes' Theorem--which is incredibly powerful when used properly--is merely obfuscatory, in a Sokal-like sense.

So... let's image an incredibly fine-tuned universe:

1. This universe has only one physical constant, C.

2. The universe is only habitable if C is within its measured value by one part in 10²³.

3. The laws of this universe predict the value of C.

Now here is an extremely fine-tuned universe! I challenge Carrier to prove that such a universe precludes the existence of a god.

If you believe he can, there may be a lidless eye award in your future!

Spew the Woo

2011-11-26T13:48:00.001-05:00

Nobody can spew the woo like secularists/rationalists/materialists trying to explain free will. Behold (via wikipedia) the woo-master himself, the old fraud Daniel Dennett:

The model of decision making I am proposing has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision.

No theologian would dare write such nonsense. On a smaller scale, consider this new-age crapola from freethought blogger Daniel Fincke:

Further, I do not believe in an undetermined free will. I do think we have a will that makes genuine choices as expressive of who we are, but who we are is still ultimately determined by physical, chemical, biological, and psychological laws (and social determinants) in ways that make it ultimately impossible that we might have done otherwise than we chose to do. I just think that since we are these beings who are determined in these ways, what we do is a genuine expression of us.

Of course, not all atheists vomit up woo to explain the inexplicable. Some are quite honest. One well-known example is Cornell biologist William Provine who writes:

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly.
1) No gods worth having exist;
2) no life after death exists;
3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists;
4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and
5) human free will is nonexistent.

Provine is quite right. The problem for the atheist crowd always has been and always will be that there is no physical mechanism for free will. In terms of quantum mechanics, the wavefunction of the universe at time t, which tells us all there is to know about the universe, is determined by the wavefunction at t = 0 and the Hamiltonian (Energy) operator H.

Ψ(t) = e^-iHtΨ(0)

Free will demands that by some thought process (evaluating and choosing) you can affect Ψ(t) by altering the Hamiltonian. Ψ(t) ends up different than it would have if you hadn't made that choice. But the only way that can happen within the laws of physics is if your choice was already built into the Hamiltonian of the universe. But if so it wasn't a choice at all.

The only way that free will is possible is for something to affect the system from the outside. By altering the Hamiltonian through an intervention. There is a term for that: supernatural.

Provine understands this. Woo-masters like Dennett do not, or they do and they choose to lie about it. So they obfuscate due to ignorance or malice aforethought by penning impenetrable gobbledegook about "consideration-generators" and the like.

That is the only choice they have, short of being honest like Provine. Because nothing, ever, can rescue them. Ever. No philosophical solution, no matter how jargonized and obscure, can obviate the need for a physical mechanism which the laws of physics don't allow. You cannot, through mental processes, change the Hamiltonian in situ. It is what it is. It is, in fact, determining your mental processes, not vice versa.

The religious agree with Provine. The natural world cannot accommodate free will. Only the supernatural world can. Provine rejects that solution, we accept it, but we agree that it takes an intervention from outside to redirect the time evolution of the universe—which is precisely what free will represents.

It's only a harmless bunny!

2011-11-25T12:25:00.003-05:00

The unbearable mind of the "truly intelligent." If Pharyngula didn't exist, you'd have to.. well, you know.

So here PZ posts a comic designed to show how stupid the religious are. Alas, poor PZ, who's been slipping of late, did not properly vet the cartoon. He should have run it by Greta or Ophelia or one of the few other souls enlightened enough to examine anything, anything at all, for blatant, latent, or vestigial sexism. You see, the cartoon has two bunnies. The smart, rational bunny is a boy. (Danger Will Robinson, danger!) The dumb, religious bunny is a girl. Uh-oh. You don't have to be Fellini to figure that one out!

Predictably, the monster PZ has created reared its ugly head—no longer in the control of its maker. PZ enabled an atmosphere on his blog wherein Richard Dawkins becomes a "sexist pig" for using man and female in the same sentence. PZ nurtured and encouraged this hideous insanity, one that painted even mildly non-conformists as gender-traitors (if they were women) and rape-enablers (if they were men.)

So much so that now on Pharyngula a comment from a man often comes with a preemptive strike. The supplicant first acknowledges and apologizes for his unspeakable male privilege, doubly so if he is white, triply so if heterosexual. He announces, like a good re-educant, that he has learned a lot from the gurus and their moderated-by-intimidation discussions. He is, oh joy, much more sensitive to his own cluelessness. While he will still make mistakes (he is, after all, still a man--his bad) he stands ready to be corrected by the thought police. After all that self-flagellation he is tentatively and humbly prepared to offer a comment—but he'll "keep his finger on it" like kids do to a valuable piece when playing chess. If he gets the slightest whiff that it was a bad move, if he has disturbed the web and the spider is heading toward him ready to devour, he can still withdraw. Mulligan!

Poor PZ. You can almost feel sorry for him. He had this great cartoon bashing the religious as bumpkins (how original!) and instead of basking in its reflected glory he finds himself—PZ of all people!—at the heart of yet another sexism pogrom. On his blog! With PZ himself, P freakin’ Z, partially to blame for not seeing the evilness of this cartoon! Unthinkable!

So PZ starts a new thread, saying a bunny is sometimes just a bunny and that you can't judge from a sample size of one. This in spite of the fact that PZ has turned judging from a sample size of one into something of an art form.

Of course, trying to maintain his feminista street creds while at the same time refusing to acknowledge his error is not easy, and it is not surprising that PZ becomes relatively incoherent. The "Yes, but..." defense will eventually wear anyone out. So he writes mystical woo like:

Equality does not mean that the smart bunny in the dialog will always be the one in the dress.
It does mean that the bunny in the dress isn’t always the dumb one.
There is a difference between those two sentences, you know.

Oh, PZ, surely you know that's not good enough! (And it isn't, read the comments.)

The über-rational. They sure know how to throw a party.

What would you choose?

2011-11-23T12:57:00.000-05:00

If you could have one vexing biblical verse or passage explained and clarified, which would it be?

I would choose James' passage on the effectiveness of prayer:

¹³ Is anyone among you in trouble? Let them pray. Is anyone happy? Let them sing songs of praise. ¹⁴ Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. ¹⁵ And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. ¹⁶ Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective. (James 5:13-16)

I have heard and read many discussions of this passage from admired pastors and respected theologians. None of them satisfy. The plain reading of the text is that prayer can make the sick well. This is, quite frankly, neither demonstrable or logical. Not demonstrable because we pray for sick people all the time--and they sometimes recover and sometimes not, at normal rates. Not logical because it is our destiny to have our three score and ten and then, to first order, get sick and die.

No, I wouldn't choose having creation, or the end-times, or infant vs. believer's baptism, or the problem of evil, or anything else-- given one opportunity to have my eyes opened on one item--I would use it on the question of prayer. This passage in James bothers me so much I confess I sometimes wonder if James is really canonical. I will continue to go on the assumption it is, given I know that for the most part I'm an idiot. But I will probably never understand its straightforward teaching on the tangible effectiveness of prayer.

PZ is blowing a gasket

2011-11-22T17:08:00.003-05:00

PZ Myers has always been an ass, but lately you can see the effects of a universal law: If that’s how you make a name for yourself, you have nowhere to go but to ratchet up the asshat-edness. People become inured to a constant level of self-righteous anger and banal antics.

Today, PZ is very angry. Clenching tiny fists O’ fury and gnashing teeth angry. He is a wee bit angry with a Christian who did something dumb. But he is head-exploding angry with some of his fellow atheists. Because they are not marching lockstep. He hates when that happens. It's just not fair.

Some background.

There was a Skepitcon conference (essentially now an atheism conference) in Springfield, Missouri. A thin-skinned Christian proprietor of an ice cream shop was unnecessarily offended by some silly atheist comedian. He placed a sign on the door to his shop: Skepticon is NOT welcome in my Christian Business. He was then subjected to understandable criticism via blogs and the like.

So this man apologized. A apologized again. And, lo and behold, in a very un-PZ like display of good manners and common courtesy, a significant fraction of the atheist community had the temerity, without PZ’s blessing, to accept the man’s apology. Bad form, that.

Now some did not—some questioned whether his motive was self-serving—and that’s fair. But quite a few, even some marquee atheists, decided that the apology was probably sincere, or should be accepted as sincere, since the man’s mind can’t be read, and the apology did not contain weasel-like “notpology” phrasing.

Fair enough—but not good enough for PZ!

Those who behaved PZ-like went further. For example, they drove down the internet ratings for the guy’s restaurant. Whereas writing about what the guy did is fair game, whereas organizing a boycott is fair game, whereas making a personal decision never to darken the doors of the restaurant is fair game—dissing the quality of the fare is not—given that it was not, in fact, consumed. It is the moral, or rather the amoral equivalent of writing a bad review on Amazon for a book you never read, just because you despise the author’s politics. The PZ-ians, long noted for their lack of morality and common sense, had no trouble with this tactic, and PZ himself smugly declared:

Check out online reviews of the place at google/yelp. It’s getting trashed, plummeting to one star everywhere. This is atheists exercising their clout.

What a dick.

Anyhow, PZ then gets a direct email apology from the ice cream man. He uses it to throw his fellow atheists under the bus in a post entitled Fair Weather Atheists and Sunshine Skeptics. PZ is always going down the True Atheist™ path. He, of course, is pure as the driven snow. But the others, you see, the others--well they are often only “dictionary” atheists (if you can’t offer a cogent enough defense of your atheism) or “Fair Weather” atheists (if you are not sufficiently belligerent). The dogmatic always have a minuscule radius to their circle of orthodoxy.

Of course PZ rejected the apology. That goes without saying. He wrote back to the poor schmuck:

Apology not accepted. What I see in you is a person who hates me for not believing in the nonsense of your religion; while you may now be in a panic because your actions were unethical and illegal, and you were caught out, and face economic consequences for them, I don’t see any sign that your attitudes have changed in the slightest.

You’ll just have to live with the fact that I won’t be buying your ice cream on the rare occasions I visit your town, while I have to live with the fact that I live in a country where my rejection of your religion makes me a pariah. There’s absolutely nothing you can do to make up for that.

Did I mention, what a dick?

Now the rejection was just a pro forma move, a gambit setting the stage for PZ to unleash the Spanish Inquisition on his out-of-line brethren.

He segues by weeping the usual persecuted-atheist tears. The nation is so hard on him. Tough having a job that guarantees the upper middle class for life—he’s a tenured professor. Tough having a position of privilege where he can dictate who gets to speak and who gets invited to atheist conventions.

Tough when some of his fellow atheists for whom he has done so much, blazed so many trails, been feted with so many beers in pubs around the world—it is just so tough when they don’t see the truth.

So then…so then he attacks.

Go read his rant at the apostate. It is really very, very – pathetic.

PZ is on the verge of becoming a caricature of himself.

Hideous

2011-11-18T07:18:00.000-05:00

Not for those with a weak stomach: Something best described as the LDS version of the Westboro Baptists. At least I hope the views represented on that blog are as much ouliers of The Church of LDS as Phelps's gang of apostate idiots are to Christianity.

Jason Rosenhouse at CNU

2011-11-14T08:54:00.001-05:00

Jason Rosenhouse, mathematics professor at James Madison University and well known for his writings at EvolutionBlog, will be at CNU this week. He'll be giving two talks.

The first, on Tuesday, is sponsored jointly by the biology and math departments:

The second, on Wednesday, is a mathematics colloquium:

Both are open to the public.

Time to come out of the closet

2011-11-09T07:14:00.007-05:00

It's true. It is time to come clean. I cannot keep living a lie.

I am a devoted acolyte of Scientism. A Scientismite (is there a better word?) More of a True Scientismite™ than most of the people my fellow Christians like to label, pejoratively, as Scientismites, if they use that word.

That is, if we define Scientism as this: The way we really know most everything that we really know, is through science.¹

I am not going to define "know". I am going to use the working definition: I know (yikes!) it when I see it.

I know, for example, that General Relativity works because of the experimental tests of predictions of General Relativity.

Well, on second thought, maybe I'll define it this way: science gives me the most confidence in the things I think I know.

If we define Scientism as "That's all there is," then I am not a Scientismite. But that definition never works, even on paper.

Now, some of my best friends are philosophers, with proper oxymoronic blog names, BUT...

Seriously--I am not a big fan of philosophy. However, apart from science, the only things I know come from that discipline. For example, assuming it is proper to treat logic and the logical fallacies as products of philosophy, I know them to be true (valid?). Although it is a love-hate relationship. Who doesn't like to engage in the occasional false dilemma? I certainly indulge now and then. I would even go this far: It is philosophy, not science, that has revealed the law of the universe, the Law of Noncontradiction. I say that because a Christian I believe that this the only law that God himself is beholden to. God cannot be A and not-A, where A is some godly attribute, in the same time and in the same place, etc., etc., etc. Or maybe it is even broader than that: God himself is subject to the laws of logic.

In any case we don't say the same of science. We say that God can suspend/violate/ignore the laws of science. He is capable of physical miracles--but not whatever the equivalent would be in logic. He does not walk on rhetorical water.

But beyond the trivial--"owner" of the law(s) that even God must respect, what has philosophy done for me lately? Not much that I can enumerate. Philosophers write impenetrable papers with vague conclusions. Sometimes they invoke Baysian analysis.³ Sometimes they invoke Heisenberg. If they invoke both in the same argument I am sure they can prove that Goldie Hawn does not exist and she is God.

Other things I don't know, I believe. Viz.: That God exists, that the bible is his word, that my wife loves me, that science is worth pursuing. These things I believe.

And that science and religion are compatible. I believe that science and religion are compatible. I can't prove it, like I can prove that if you launch a rocket with this design, at this time, from this location, and with this series of burns then you find yourself zipping about with these orbital parameters. So I don't know that science and religion are compatible, I believe it. I can't know it because, as a devotee of Scientism, I only know things via science.

Not so with many of the people we charge with Scientism. They are actually Scientism apostates. Scientism Mormons, Scientism Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientism Whores of Babylon and Scientism Westboro Baptists. They argue that they know science and religion are incompatible. But they don't know this through science. There is no experiment they offer as a falsification test.⁴ No, they know this by philosophy. Which is to say: they don't know it at all, they believe it.

For example, on atheist-philosopher-writer Russell Blackford's blog, I pointed out that Coyne--so devoted to science--makes an utterly unscientific argument for incompatibility. To which a Coyne supporter replies:

[Coyne] wasn't making a "scientific" case for the incompatibility 'twixt S & R. He was making a philosophical and circumstantial case, describing the irreconcilable differences in the two pursuits' assumptions about reality and methods of testing truth, while denying there is some special realm of knowledge in which religion has expertise - a burden, BTW, it lies with religion to bear in the affirmative, which it has reliably and abjectly failed to do. Religion merely asserts that such special super-truths exist, and that theology is uniquely equipped to discover them. It's not up to Coyne to "scientifically" disprove their unsupported and largely unintelligible claims. He needs only show that whenever they have made intelligible, testable claims, science has routinely blown those out of the water. His message is "Will we get a clue, at long last, that there is nothing there, when the arguments and demonstration of religious truths are so bereft of meaning and validation?"

Well al-righty then! He even used scare quotes on the word scientific. The burden of proof is not on Coyne, who rants continually on incompatibility, and on how those who see, not even compatibility but mere orthogonality, as demons advocating the end of the free world. And not just the Ken Millers of the academy. Even celebrity skeptic Michael Shermer. But he (Coyne) has no burden of proof.

These folks need to look-up and read (and understand) Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

¹ For the purposes of this discussion, I am lumping math in with science. Living in both worlds, math and science, I don't know if I have insulted both, neither, or just one--and if just one, I don't know which.

² Forget that worthless Law of Identity. That it gets a name is sillier than Atwood's Machine getting a name.

³ Baysian analysis is especially powerful. A corollary of Bayes' Theorem should be: with ill-defined assumptions made to sound meaningful you can use Bayes' Theorem to prove anything. And then prove that it is wrong. A good example are Ikeda and Jefferys who use assumptions about the inscrutability and power of certain deities and Baysian analysis to "prove" that the more fine tuned the universe is, the less likely supernatural intervention is the cause. And of course others used Baysian analysis to prove them wrong.

⁴ For any newcomers, I have offered two: 1) Motivated by skeptic James Randi's challenge, a blind study where someone could read a collection of peer-reviewed scientific articles and separate them, accurately (with statistical significance) into two piles: those written by believers and everyone else. And 2) Devise a scientific experiment (or data analysis), just one, that would be impossible for a believer to do.

⁵ Who [Russell Blackford] by the way, has given no evidence of being a liar, in spite of being called one by PZ Myers. These folk like to eat their young. See this. But I warn you, if you start down that path you will trundle across the mother-of-all internecine wars in the atheist/skeptic community, an Armageddon known as "Elevatorgate". A war being fought over, in some sense, whether Richard Dawkins is a sexist pig. I kid you not.

There's that myth again

2011-11-07T07:27:00.007-05:00

Eric MacDonald, former Anglican Priest¹, is a previously unknown (by me) rich vein of bad new-atheist thinking expressed in especially bad new-atheist writing. With the exception of PZ, most of these white boys cannot turn a phrase. But where Coyne's niche is childishness ("Thinking Christian--that's an oxymoron!") MacDonald's approach is: the more words you take to say something trivial (On the Haught-Coyne debate: Coyne won!) the truer it must be. And you also get to ingratiate yourself with the master:

I swear, I wish Eric MacDonald would take up debating theologians on the stage rather than on his website. As a former Anglican priest, now an atheist, he knows all the tricks and evasions of theology

Debate aside, I want to zoom in on one of MacDonald's snarky comments (I know about snark) on his own post. In addressing another comment on Haught v. Coyne that stated "the days when they [theologians] could expect to get their rings kissed in the ideological marketplace are behind them," MacDonald regurgitates:

[Well said.] I do think this is precisely what annoyed Haught the most. Of course, there’s intellectual arrogance involved. He just thinks that his arguments are so watertight (as he says at one point!) that he can’t conceive of anyone seriously doubting that they are. But I think more important is the fact that religion is no longer being given a kind of instinctual respect in the public sphere, and this is very unsettling. They will have to get used to not having their rings kissed in the ideological marketplace. It must be a bit of a shock.

Leaving aside the obvious strawman, that I suspect it is not true that Haught can't conceive of anyone doubting that his arguments are watertight--and if he does MacDonald can't know this--I want to address the ring kissing reference.

This is a common new-atheist fantasy, dovetailing nicely with their persecution complex. Here is the fantasy: It is only now, well into the 21st century CE, due largely to the efforts of the valiant new-atheists, that religion can be attacked, ridiculed, mocked and disrespected.

What a load of bull. Religion has been attacked, ridiculed, mocked and disrespected in the west for centuries. At least since the Enlightenment. By intellectuals, (e.g., Bertrand Russell) founding fathers (Thomas Paine), celebrities, and garden-variety common folk including, in my experience, public school teachers at all grade levels.²

I don't know what fuels this new-atheist delusion of grandeur-- that they are Rosa-Park-like trailblazers. I can only speculate that feeling "special" is worth perpetuating a myth that denies their own heritage.

The difference between the old (previous generations) atheists and new-atheists is not that new-atheists are boldly going where no atheist has gone before. Hardly. No, the difference is that the old atheists did it so much better. Who on the scene today can compare with Russell or Paine or Camus? Nobody.

I know I can't persuade any new-atheist that it is a myth that we are shocked and appalled that they dare to criticize. They enjoy the fantasy too much to let go. I can only hope that they improve their game. But there is no sign of that-- instead we get the same reprocessed crap over and over. Like from Eric MacDonald.

¹ Granted, "former Anglican Priest" often indicates an improvement in one's spiritual acumen. Not this time.

² With the exception, at times, of works of art. It is true that art critical of religion sometimes gets suppressed. It is also true that art supporting religion occasionally gets suppressed. Something about art can bring out teh stoopid.

Abortion: My Views

2011-11-04T16:15:00.000-04:00

Discussion on another blog has pushed me to lay down my views on abortion. I think they need to be broken into three categories: theological, ecclesiastical, and civil.

Theological

I think a strong biblical case can be made that as Christians we are to consider the fetus to be a complete human being with a soul and an eternal destination. The humanity of the fetus is expressed most explicitly by the reaction of the en-wombed John the Baptist in the presence of the even less developed Christ.

The aborted child, however, is not the theological focus. Arguments that the child might have grown up to cure cancer are essentially arguments that the will of God can be thwarted by the abortionist. May it never be. The theological argument is, as it always is, about glory to God. How is the glory of God revealed and sought among those who live, work, counsel or for whatever reason fall into the abortion sphere? The focus, theologically speaking, is on those who involve themselves, one way or another, in the abortion.

Another theological point is that there is nothing in the bible about "age of accountability" as it pertains to salvation. And if it were so, then abortion would have to be viewed at some level as mercy killing. The bible describes an age of accountability in Jewish criminal law, but not in terms of avoiding God's judgment. We are born in rebellion and conceived in sin. We can have hope, as King David expressed, that we will see dead infants in glory as a result of God's mercy--but in fact the bible is silent on the matter.

Ecclesiastical

It is a mistake if fighting abortion approaches anything like a raison d'être for a church. The church is not in the business of fighting abortion. It is in the business of making disciples and tending to the saints. Infanticide was present in the Roman world--primarily in the form of abandonment: taking unwanted newborns (usually girls) to the wilderness and leaving them to die. This would have been known to Paul, yet we find no instruction to any church that they should adopt fighting this atrocity as a primary mission.

Individual Christians should and did rescue abandoned children when they could. But that is quite different from making abortion a "cause".

Civil

Adultery is a sin. Adultery is not against the law. At some level we have to acknowledge that it is not our responsibility to make sin illegal for unbelievers. It is our responsibility to hold each other (in the family of believers) accountable for our behavior.

That doesn't mean that we should not vote for candidates who share our views. It does mean that in doing so we are participating in the secular government, and have to respect and obey the laws that are passed.

If a non-believer wants to have an abortion then we can offer, without subterfuge or misrepresentation, counseling and the gospel. We should offer the same services post-abortion. In fact, we should double-down on the love we show post-abortion. I am happy that the organization our church supports is well known for maintaining the relationship it has begun even when the woman decides to have an abortion.

For believers--we need sensitivity as well. We can all agree that abortion of a healthy baby in the birth canal, when there is no risk to the mother, is murder. That establishes the principle. How far back into the pregnancy you can extrapolate and what is the effect of extraordinary circumstances (rape, incest, severe deformity, etc) is problematic. What would I say to a sister in Christ who had an abortion? I would say: "I love you, and what's done is done. Let's move on." What would I say to a sister in Christ who was raped and contemplating a first trimester abortion? I would say: "I cannot pretend walk in your shoes." I would tell her to pray. I would tell her that if there is a clear right or wrong answer here I don't claim to know it. I would tell her that her salvation is not dependent on her making the correct choice here. I might hope she chooses to keep the child but I would not berate her into that decision.

I would support a law that made abortion (with no mitigating circumstances) illegal after some point in the pregnancy in the same manner that I support making murder illegal. How far I would push that I don't know. At some point I would rather be inclined to leave it between the woman and God.

Eric MacDonald: Jerry Coyne Lidless Eye Award Winner

2011-10-26T10:17:00.001-04:00

Writing about the New York Times article The Evangelical Rejection of Reason by Karl Giberson and Randall Stephens has garnered Eric MacDonald the coveted Jerry Coyne Lidless Eye Award which, as you may know, was created to celebrate and recognize exceptional stupidity in writing about the intersection of religion and science.

The premise of Giberson and Stephens article is sound: that the bible and science not only must be reconcilable but that we should attempt, at all costs, a rational reconciliation.

This is obvious. God is not a god of confusion.

There are two groups who join together in opposition to this level-headed approach. Fundamentalists who say that we should never let the bible be dictated by science. And atheists, especially the so-called New Atheists.

The opposition from the first group, the fundies, is obvious.

The second group's opposition?--not so obvious. Shouldn't they welcome Christians who say that science is good? Shouldn't they embrace Christians who say that we may have to modify beliefs in light of science? Should they be pleased with evangelical Christians who say that evolution and not ID or creationism should be taught in schools?

You would think so, if they were rational, but often they are not. Instead they attack this group (pro-science, pro-reason evangelicals) with pit-bull ferocity. In their world, one in which no accommodation is acceptable, the most dangerous Christian is one who appears to be accommodating. Can't have that! So it is not uncommon to read someone like Coyne arguing that we pro-science evangelicals do not know our bible, and the fundamentalist caricature is the true expression of our faith.

But reconciling the bible with science is a good thing. Demonstrating that the bible did not in fact, as was long believed, teach geocentricism--which was spurred on by the overwhelming scientific evidence for heliocentricism--was a good development, not an abandonment. It is not scripture that we modify, but fallible interpretations.

Back to award. MacDonald was vying for it from the start, but he landed it with this whopper:

There is no more scientific basis for the belief in life after death than there is for the outlandish suggestion that humans and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together.

The statement is trivially true. It is the implied equivalence that is monumentally stupid. This can be seen two ways. The first is by substituting other conjectures for which there is no scientific basis (if by basis we mean actual evidence.)

There is no more scientific basis for the belief in multiple universes than there is for the outlandish suggestion that humans and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together.

There is no more scientific basis for the belief that the fundamental constituents in nature are cosmic strings (String Theory) than there is for the outlandish suggestion that humans and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together.

The lack of equivalence can also be seen by flipping the sense of the argument:

There are millions of pieces of evidence (the fossil record) that men and dinosaurs did not walk the earth together.

There is no piece of evidence that a soul does not survive death.

So clear space on the mantle! Congratulations!

Jerry Coyne, Slug

2011-10-25T17:40:00.004-04:00

Twice now, most recently here, Jerry has referred to the title of my good friend Tom Gilson's blog Thinking Christian as "oxymoronic". Gee Jerry, we got it the first time. Har, har. You want to make sure that we notice you have cleverly recognized that "thinking" and "Christian" are antithetical. Thanks for using the same joke again. Just in case it was too high-brow. (Which might be true for some of Jerry's fanboys.) I can imagine you squirming in your seat and giggling as you typed it in. A second time. Dare we hope for a third?

Seriously. Is Jerry in middle school? Who could possibly think such an insult is funny or clever? It is on par with calling Dembski, "Dumbski". Speaking of Dembski, it is on par with morphing Coyne's picture onto Herman Munster, as Dembski once did. The two, it would appear, have about the same level of sophistication in their humor.

Tom Gilson and I have experienced another aspect of Jerry Coyne's slugness first hand. Both of us can no longer post comments on Jerry's blog. Dembski, when he banned me from Uncommon Descent (for sarcastic anti-ID comments) at least had the cajones to say that he was banning me. PZ Myers, for all his faults, gives people repeated warnings and then places them in a dungeon. He posts, for posterity, the reason they were banned and, amazingly, a courtesy link to the banned person's blog, if there is one. Not Jer. When the mood strikes he, slug-like, either places a filter or simply stops approving your comments. (He may then address your last comment in an attempt to convince his fanboys that you are so devastated by his repartee that you have slithered away, licking your wounds.)

Jerry doesn't like Tom Gilson much. I am referring to Jer's recent post: It’s about morality, stupid: why Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig. It was in this post that Jerry first unleashed the devastating "Thinking Christian is an oxymoron" uber-insult.

The post was ostensibly about why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig. As an aside, like many I am not a fan of debates. For that matter, as a presuppositionalist, I am not a big of William Lane Craig's apologetics, either. But Coyne reports that Dawkins's reason for not debating Craig is Craig’s reprehensible defense of the slaughters ordered by God in the Old Testament.

So Dawkins won’t debate Craig because Craig defends the slaughter of the Canaanites during the conquest of Palestine. I don’t get it—why would the fact that someone holds a position that you find reprehensible cause you not to debate them? Shouldn't it, if anything, stoke the flames of outrage and encourage you to debate?

I say that this is an aside because it is the only on-topic (i.e., related to the title of the post) discussion Coyne provides.

You see, Coyne doesn't really want to discuss why Dawkins won't debate Craig. He sorta, kinda wants to discuss the Euthyphro Dilemma. The old "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" conundrum.

And it is not even that. The actual reason for the post is nothing more than this: Coyne wants to criticize Tom Gilson who gave him a less than favorable (but in fact way too kind) review of an atrocious op-ed piece Coyne wrote for USA Today.

The USA Today piece is stupid from top to bottom, beginning with its title (which of course may not have been written by Coyne): As atheists know, you can be good without God. This plays on Atheist Victimhood, which along with all other types of victimhood (including Christian victimhood) is an American epidemic. The title attempts to address what is never charged: that atheists cannot behave morally. Indeed, I suspect my fellow evangelicals will confirm that what their pastors complain about in the pulpit is not that atheists cannot behave morally, but rather that our behavior is not noticeably better.

Coyne's poor logic is demonstrated by the last sentence in his op-ed, which simply reiterates the title: Clearly, you can be good without God. But of course Coyne has demonstrated no such thing--all he has demonstrated (which nobody disputes) is that you can be good without believing in god. He has not established the non-existence of god, and has not demonstrated that god could never be the source of goodness for all men, believers or not. (Common Grace).

Recent studies about American students' mathematical abilities place them near the bottom in actual ability among industrialized nations. But there is good news: they are at the very top in terms of their math self-esteem. Atheist mathematician Jason Rosenhouse who, unlike Coyne, writes with intelligence and integrity, commented on this phenomenon here.

What these students are to math, Coyne is to religion. He is a complete and utter idiot, yet his self-esteem regarding his religious acumen is stratospheric. The first time I realized this is when I was astounded to read that he took the proof of God's nonexistence by Epicurus (God cannot be omnibenevolent and omnipotent, ergo no god) seriously. I'm a presuppositionalist primarily because I cannot take any of the proofs of god seriously--and yet some of those constructs are superior to Epicurus' proof. Coyne can dismiss (rightly so) arguments from Aquinas on the existence of God with a wave of his hand, while at the same time write with all seriousness, and irony meter intact: earthquakes kill people, ergo no god.

Speaking of irony, Jerry's little joke about "oxymoron"in a post about debating is particularly ironic. Tom Gilson, in a debate on religion, would utterly decimate poor Jerry although Jerry, blinded by his misplaced self esteem, probably wouldn't notice.

Thank You for your Social Consent

2011-10-18T21:38:00.001-04:00

I came across an atheist blogger of whom I was not familiar. Her blog is the self-named Greta Christina's Blog

I found her short recent post, Religion Relies on Social Consent interesting.

I’ll admit this up front: her post is generic (religion) but my response will be, for the most part, specifically Christian.

One thing I didn't like in her post--but is unfortunately quite common--is the use of the Reductio ad Hyperlink argument. This is where a bold assertion is hyperlinked, giving the impression that a substantive, on-target argument awaits you on the other side. For example, she writes, about religion,

“At best it’s almost certainly wrong”.

The "almost certainly wrong" there, as here, is a link. Surely it is a scholarly article arguing convincingly that religion is "almost certainly wrong." No, it is a link to one her own posts—a "top ten list" enumerating the reasons, all very common, why she doesn’t believe in God.

She uses the Reductio ad Hyperlink argument again, here:

Religious beliefs are either unfalsifiable — in which case we should reject them on that basis alone — or they’ve been falsified. It has never, ever, ever turned out to be the right answer to anything.

The link, you may have guessed, takes you to another of her posts which does not, in fact, demonstrate that religion has never, ever, ever turned out to be the right answer to anything.

Of course it is not only religious believes that are unfalsifiable. I have pointed out before you can, on lucky occasions, encounter internecine warfare on the atheist uber-rationalist sites over questions like "Is animal testing ever ethical?" Or heated brouhahas on gun control, veganism or (perhaps especially) libertarianism. When one atheist uber-rationalist argues with another over animal testing it is because in their "hearts" one holds belief A, that people have no more value than, say, a lab rat, and the other holds belief B that people are at least slightly more valuable than lab rats. Beliefs A and B are unfalsifiable beliefs--not based on rational thinking (othewise they wouldn't disagree!) but on irrational presuppositions that they obfuscate by calling them "values"--which are of course indistinguishable from religious beliefs. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Now, as to Greta Christina's thesis, which she has been “kicking around for sometime,” it is this:

Religion cannot stand on its own—it relies on social consent. Remove the social consent and religion, it is be believed and hoped, will collapse under its own weight. She tells us:

So those of us who think religion is a bad idea — mistaken at best, flat-out harmful at worst — have to deny our consent.

Let us examine how the consent is to be denied. How does Greta Christina argue that religion is perpetuated?

It perpetuates itself through people not asking hard questions

Well, if this is true you have to blame the gnu atheists--because they ask the least challenging, and most utterly boring questions. Ever. For example Dawkins's seminal question of religion is: if god made everything, who made god? Still, if they did ask good questions, I doubt it would have the desired effect. Because the old atheists, like Betrand Russell, did ask hard questions. Yet it did not seem to harm Christianity or "deny consent" when there were smart atheists asking hard questions. On the contrary I would say it strengthened Christianity by forcing self-examination. No need to be a Berean when, say, PZ Myers's intellectual contribution, in terms of challenging Christianity, is to take pictures of communion wafers in a trash can. Russell caused Christians to dig into the bible to address is criticisms. Myers and the gnus cause us to scratch our nether regions and click on espn.com to search for something, anything, interesting. Continuing:

It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that asking questions about religion is sinful and will result in punishment, and that trusting religion without evidence is virtuous.

Examples please? I have never witnessed, in either evangelical Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, any admonition that asking questions is sinful and will result in punishment. Indeed, building on the point above regarding the failure of gnu atheists to ask anything challenging--the difficult questions for Christianity are asked by only one group: Christians.

The second point is also wrong. At least for Christianity. It--understandably because almost all atheists get this wrong--treats faith as something that one musters up and is therefore virtuous. The bible, of course, teaches that such a notion is utter nonsense: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God (Eph 2:8) Faith, in and of itself, is not virtuous. It's a gift.

But even if it were true--where does social consent come in? Are you graciously allowing us to have faith? What action would you take that would result in a denial of social consent if this entire point were true?

It perpetuates itself through dogma saying that joy and meaning and morality can only be found in religion, and that leaving religion will automatically result in a desperate, amoral, pointless life.

Actually I never was taught that morality is found in religion, even Christianity. Religion is man-made. Religion can't do squat. Instead I have always been taught that God provided a moral compass for all people. So unbelievers and believers, given that the source of their morality is the same (God, not religion) have, to first order, the same morality. Nor have I ever heard that leaving Christianity will automatically result in a desperate, amoral life. On the contrary, what is common to hear in a Sunday sermon is an admonition that our behavior is indistinguishable if not worse than unbelievers--who often live admirable lives.

As for pointless--I'll concede that point.

But again even if it were true--where does social consent come in? Would you make it criminal for us to argue that morality comes from religion? What act are you proposing to counter this form of perpetuation?

It perpetuates itself through parents and other authority figures teaching it to children, whose brains are extra-vulnerable to believing whatever they’re taught.

And what do you propose? That it is illegal to teach your religion to your children? If so, would you stop there? Or would other ideas that parents indoctrinate their children with come under review? Children adopt the politics of their parents too. I adopted my father's Ayn Randism (Objectivism). Until such time as I jettisoned it--about the same time many of the kids of religious parents were walking away from the faith of their parents. Could parents teach their kids to be Objectivists? Communists? White Supremacists? Vegans? Meat lovers?

It is true that my child-brain was vulnerable and readily aligned itself with my father's politics. But it didn't stick. God or evolution (or both) seems to have wired people to, as they approach adulthood, start thinking on their own. That may be why in any given church you will find a great diversity of pedigree. Some come from religious families. Some, like me, from non-religious families. Some kids stay in the church. Some leave.

It perpetuates itself through social and even legal protections that keep religious leaders and organizations from suffering consequences when they behave despicably.

It would be hard to argue, especially given the scandals in the Catholic Church, that there is not some truth here. However if the solution is to vigorously enforce all laws, and to exact appropriate punishment for any member of any church that commits a crime, and to punish the church officials who cover up such crimes--there were do I sign the petition?

It perpetuates itself through religious communities and support systems that make believing in religion — or pretending to believe in religion — a necessity to function and indeed survive.

My counter to this is that I have the greatest job in the world. Tenured professor. And most of my colleagues are atheists. Many are vocal. In the bible belt. They seem to be doing quite well. I don't see the evidence for your claim.

Still, I'd like to know, once again --what do you propose?

So those of us who think religion is a bad idea — mistaken at best, flat-out harmful at worst — have to deny our consent.

But how? Most of what you described is self-perpetuation. All I can see for you to do, given you list of what perpetuates religion is:

Get the gnus to do something useful beyond self-aggrandizement and preaching to the choir
Criminalize teaching religion to your children
Prosecute criminals and those who harbor them in the church

Is there something I missed?

Based on this essay, I won't lose any sleep over a denial-of-consent attack.
--------------------
Addendum:

I actually missed the end of her post. There she writes that denying social consent is one of the biggest reasons for atheists to come out of the closet. Somehow this, in and of itself, denies social consent. I don't see how, but I am all for atheists coming out of the closet. The numbers of self-identified Christians in the US is absurdly high. No doubt a great many of them are closet atheists. It is a win-win if they would come out of the closet. Atheists masquerading as Christians because of family or peer pressure is no good for anyone. So I completely support her call for more atheist billboards, clubs, etc. Anything that reduces the stigma of being an atheist.

The difference is that she thinks this would hurt the church (religion), whereas I see it as an invaluable service to the church.

The Jerry Coyne Lidless Eye Award

2011-10-17T12:23:00.011-04:00

We are pleased to announce the Jerry Coyne Lidless Eye award, which will be given, as appropriate, to celebrate and recognize exceptional stupidity in writing about the intersection of religion and science.

The inaugural award goes to, of course, Jerry Coyne. We do feel the necessity for making a solemn promise: while he certainly provides more than enough material, we pledge that the award will not always go to Jerry Coyne.

But today it does.

Today he attacks the Washington Post writer Charles Krauthammer. The title of Jerry’s post is “Charles Krauthammer gets science wrong.”

Krauthammer writes about the buzz over the faster-than-light neutrinos.

Here is what Jerry quotes from Krauthammer’s article:

Krauthammer : “The world as we know it is on the brink of disintegration, on the verge of dissolution. No, I’m not talking about the collapse of the euro [describes more political turmoil]

I am talking about something far more important. Which is why it made only the back pages of your newspaper, if it made it at all. Scientists at CERN, the European high-energy physics consortium, have announced the discovery of a particle that can travel faster than light.”

And here is Jerry’s criticism:

Jerry: "This is of course an exciting finding, one that could possibly revise all of 20th century physics. The likelihood is, though, that’s it’s wrong, and even the scientists who found this have strong doubts about its veracity and have called for replication. In a move that would do credit to a creationist, though, Krauthammer uses this doubt as an attack on scientists themselves—that our doubt comes not from the confidence that has accrued, though experiment and observation, to Einstein’s theory, but from scientists’ dogged refusal to even consider that relativity might be wrong, leading to their conclusion that the experiment itself must be wrong". (Boldface added)

What a sleaze you are, Jerry. A sleaze that would do credit to Duane Gish. Where has Krauthammer "attacked" scientists? He has not. Not in what you quoted, and not in the complete article. We continue:

Krauthammer : "The implications of such a discovery are so mind-boggling, however, that these same scientists immediately requested that other labs around the world try to replicate the experiment. Something must have been wrong — some faulty measurement, some overlooked contaminant — to account for a result that, if we know anything about the universe, is impossible.

And that’s the problem. It has to be impossible because, if not, if that did happen on this Orient Express hurtling between Switzerland and Italy, then everything we know about the universe is wrong.

. . . This will not just overthrow physics. Astronomy and cosmology measure time and distance in the universe on the assumption of light speed as the cosmic limit. Their foundations will shake as well.

It cannot be. Yet, this is not a couple of guys in a garage peddling cold fusion. This is no crank wheeling a perpetual motion machine into the patent office. These are the best researchers in the world using the finest measuring instruments, having subjected their data to the highest levels of scrutiny, including six months of cross-checking by 160 scientists from 11 countries.

But there must be some error. Because otherwise everything changes. We shall need a new physics. A new cosmology. New understandings of past and future, of cause and effect. Then shortly and surely, new theologies.

Why? Because we can’t have neutrinos getting kicked out of taverns they have not yet entered."

All perfectly acceptable for a popular piece. Indeed the ramifications if the result stands are staggering. Robespierre Jerry, however, sees sinister, apostate forces at work:

Jerry: "This all sounds good to the non-scientist, and yes, we scientists suspect that something was wrong with the CERN experiment, but Krauthammer is right for the wrong reasons."

Yo Jerr, the piece is intended for non-scientists. It should sound good to them. Note that as even Jerry admits, Krauthammer is correct, just not correct with sufficient piety. In Jerry's Sermon on the Mount, Jerry says: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not write inaccurately.' But I, Jerry, say to you that everyone who writes with non-Coyne-esque motivations has already committed plagiarism in his heart. "

The pulling stuff out-his-butt continues:

Jerry: "We are doubtful not because we desperately need to cling to a paradigm that has seemed successful, but simply because overthrowing such a paradigm requires very strong evidence. Scientists love findings that overturn what we thought we knew, for that opens up whole new areas of research and understanding. It’s what keeps us interested in the world. But before we put what we thought we knew into the dustbin, we must be very careful."

And where did Krauthhammer suggest that scientists are desperately clinging to paradigms? He didn’t say it—and if he had, he’d be partly right. Can you say “steady state universe”? Can you say “String Theory”? Yes, we require strong evidence to overturn a prevailing theory (Krauthhammer does not say otherwise--again Jerry, what a sleaze you are) but it is also not unheard of for some to hold on to cherished theories far beyond their expiration date. Fortunately the discipline is always more than the sum of its parts, and progress and peer-pressure will (usually) wear down even the most vested and stubborn. All of which is not relevant, were it not for Jerry’s paranoia/dishonesty, because Krauthhammer did not write what Jerry claimed.

Jerry: Krauthammer’s editorial, which sounds so reasonable, actually profoundly mischaracterizes the nature of science.

It sounds reasonable because it is. (Well actually it is kind of boring—but it is not unreasonable.) And it absolutely does not mischaracterize the nature of science. Let alone "profoundly" so.

But all this was just bluster. The true stripes are about to be revealed:

Jerry: And I think he’s saying these things because he’s trying to diss scientists as adherents to a form of faith. Ten to one he’s either religious or an accommodationist. (I’m just guessing here; I have no idea.)

There we have the lidless eye! Nothing can escape Jerry’s fixed stare of orthodoxy. This is what Jerry wanted to say. This is his main point. The rest was just a very weak setup so that this last paragraph would appear to have legs to stand on. Fail. Ten to one Jerry is mendacious. (I’m not just guessing here, the evidence is clear.)

The Lidless Eye is an appropriate name for the Jerry Coyne award. Like a John Bircher, Coyne sees his accommodationist bogeymen hiding under every bed.

UPDATE: It is always amusing to look at the commenters on Jerry's posts, many of whom try to outdo one another in their efforts to seek his approval. A few of the numerous chowderheaded comments:

"Krauthammer is a devoted follower of a faith-based ideology, conservatism, and is therefore incapable of comprehending science, which is neither faith-based nor an ideology."

and

"This is too familiar

Something happened that science didn’t predict. Therefore science is wrong and evolution is refuted. Therefore ID and creationism are true."

and

"Krauthammer absolutely knows he’s lying about science."

Krauthammer is, I gather, a conservative. But the problem for these Coyne-Lemmings is that he also is a non-religious Jew who has written forcefully against creationism and Intelligent Design. These pinheads simply followed Jerry's lead: Jerry sez this be a bad man, so surely he is a Templeton Prize winner and an ID super-advocate and a god-bot.

But fittingly the dumbest comment is from Jerry himself. A rare dissenting commenter slipped through Jerry's nixplanatory filter and asked:

So where is the science that Krauthammer got wrong?

To which the Jerr replied:

I didn’t say he got the science wrong;

Um, Jerry, you might want to check the title of your post.

The Law, Lesson 2: What is the Question?

2011-10-15T10:50:00.006-04:00

We start here with a lighthearted verse:

¹³ “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Lev 20:13)

Fast-forward to the 21st century and you have the repulsive Westboro (unfortunately) Baptist Church. And their loathsome (worse than unfortunately) Calvinist pastor, Fred Phelps.

Phelps and his sheep use Lev 20:13 to justify all manner of attacks on homosexuality and anything they see deriving from our nation's tolerance thereof. This leads them to, most notoriously, protest at the funerals of fallen US soldiers. In order to justify their noxious protests they somehow connect the dots from our ignoring Lev 20:13 to the American military.

But what about Lev 20:13? It is certainly a commandment from God. And, it appears, a lasting (as opposed to a one-off) commandant intended to stand for at least some duration (how long?). And God is not making an exception--it is not situational ethics as discussed earlier. God is not saying: do not summarily execute practicing homosexuals *unless* they are overly flamboyant and flaunt their proclivities and corner the market on nice city apartments. Furthermore, as will be relevant for later discussion, the commandment appears to be, or at least is arguably, moral in nature as opposed to civil or ceremonial. A plain reading of Lev 20:13 is: Homosexual activity is immoral to the point of being an abomination. Kill them.

If the problem for us is not apparent, atheists are ready, out of the goodness of their hearts, to put the issue into stark relief. In my post Internet Atheists Facts O' Fun I enumerated some laws of internet atheist apologetics. One of these laws was The Law of Bright Darkness:

The Law of Bright Darkness: The worse the behavior of a Christian, the more honest the Christian is. For example, this comment from a reader on Ed Brayton's blog:

If you really want to see the most honest adapation [sic] of what the bible and Christianity really stands far if you follow the most literal interpretation of the bible, go to Phelps.

What this atheist commenter is alleging is that Phelps is more honest than the rest of us. The rest of us are so-called "cafeteria Christians." We, à la carte, pick and choose from the Old Testament what verses we like and let the inconvenient verses sit untouched well beyond their expiration date. According to this commenter (who is merely representative) we should call for the death of gays, blasphemers and disobedient children--were it not that we, unlike Phelps, are too cowardly and not true to our faith. The intent of the commenter, if it is not obvious, is not to redirect our faith but to demonstrate how hateful Christianity is.

As an aside, atheists will bristle if you say "Phelps is not a true Christian!" This will immediately earn you a charge of having committed the dreaded "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy:

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.

Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!

Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

(It can be, be needn't be, a legitimate charge--but almost never is it legitimate as atheists use it. They tend to use it as misapplied rhetorical language obfuscating their true position: anyone who claims to be a Christian, is. Legitimate examples of the fallacy are, alas, easy to find in the family: I don't see how you can be a Christian and yet believe that the earth is billions of years old.)

The fact that if we say Phelps is not a Christian¹ we are committing a logical fallacy while an atheist can say Phelps is a truer Christian than we are without his irony meter exploding--well it is consistent with the fact that atheists have been given a sort-of blanket immunity from the No True Scotsman charge. All this is codified in three additional laws of internet atheism:

The I-Say-Therefore-I-Am Law: Questioning the sincerity of self-identified Christians such as Fred Phelps (or the Big H—-you know, that guy with the funny little mustache) is immediately dismissed as a No True Scotsman Fallacy. The definition of a Christian is: "anyone who claims (or ever claimed--if no explicit renouncement is available) they are a Christian."

Exception to the I-Say-Therefore-I-Am Law: Anyone questioning the atheism of an inconvenient self-proclaimed atheist (such as students who gun down their classmates) is granted blanket immunity from the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It's only fair.

The Ipso Facto No Atheist Is That Bad Law: Stalin and Mao were not atheists. They were demigods of the religions Stalinism and Maoism. We know this because mass murder on such a scale can only be committed by religionists.

Now, hilarity aside, we must ask ourselves the question: was that commenter correct? Does he have a point? Should we be calling for the death of practicing homosexuals? And if not, why not?--and why not biblically, not just "because people would not like us."

Some Christians, in fact, agree with the commenter. Most of us do not--but we may not how to make the argument scripture based rather than emotion based. One of the goals of this course will be to equip us with the tools to a) tell the commenter he is full of crap, which he is, and b) to back up that charge.

--------------------

¹ I for one would not say that Phelps is not a Christian. Instead I would say this: showing no perceptible fruit, the basis upon which we who claim the title Christian are supposed to judge one another, I refuse to regard him as a Christian and instead, as instructed, consider him worse than an unbeliever. If he came to my church (other than for repentance) I would not serve him communion, and would in fact toss his Ichabod-Crane-like skinny ass out of the building.

New building on the way

2011-10-14T11:34:00.001-04:00

Virtually every building on our stunning campus is new.

All new dorms (and more on the way).
New (and, while still new, nevertheless already expanded) sports/fitness complex.
New library (with a Starbucks!)
New I. M. Pei designed performing arts center.
New student union.
Two new ginourmous academic buildings.
Our first night football game.

Alas our building, which houses computer science, computer engineering, physics and my new department, mathematics, is the last old, decrepit academic building. It's a bit like the movie Up, where the old house was surrounding by shiny new buildings.

But no worries! the new building, Luter Hall, has broken ground and will be ready for Fall 2013. I'm sure you'll want to follow its construction here on the Luter Cam.

When the building opens, I will go to the biology, chemistry and psych departments, which are in the brand-spanking-new building (Forbes Hall) that just opened this semester and ask: "How can you stand being in this old, out-of-date facility?" Can't wait!

Jerry shoots and scores!

2011-10-13T11:44:00.000-04:00

Jerry, puffing himself up for winning a debate, writes

"As to why the universe is comprehensible, well, I fail to see how that provides evidence for God. In fact, if there were a theistic God—and Haught is indeed a theist who thinks that God intervenes in the world—I would expect the universe to be not comprehensible"

Here we find two thoughts, illogically strung together. But both follow the standard "proof by the fact Jerry sez so." We are familiar with this construct:

Q: Science and Christianity are incompatible because:

A) It has been demonstrated that peer-reviewed publications from believing scientists are detectably "different" from those of atheist scientists. A clever person can detect which papers in, say, Phys. Rev. Lett. are published by believers masquerading as scientists.

B) Theists must allow "it was a miracle" as an explanation for anomalous data. They say they don't--they say that they follow the scientific method--but we know what they are really thinking.

C) Certain experiments are simply impossible for theists. Which ones are unimportant--some just are.

D) Only faitheists and accomodationists disagree, and we all know that they are big fat dummies.

E) Jerry sez so. Oh, he throws about words like "epistemology" but the bottom line is: Jerry sez so.

The correct answer, of course, is E.

So here Jerry writes:

As to why the universe is comprehensible, well, I fail to see how that provides evidence for God.

Now of course the comprehensibility of the universe is not direct physical evidence for god or anything else. But one can argue that of all we know about the universe it is the best apologetic for God. Better than anything ID has mustered. I wrote about that here, in The Unreasonable Success of Physics. In that post I quote Feynman, commenting on the success of science:

What is it about nature that lets this happen, that it is possible to guess from one part what the rest is going to do? That is an unscientific question: I do not know how to answer it, and therefore I am going to give an unscientific answer. I think it is because nature has a simplicity and therefore a great beauty. Richard Feynman, "Seeking New Laws," pp. 143-167, in Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, New York: Modern Library, 1994. Quote is from p. 167.

Feynman recognizes that the success of science is due to something metaphysical: nature's simplicity and beauty. Others recognize it as exactly the kind of universe that God created and told us he created. We see it as prima facie evidence or at least faith affirming.

Not the Jerr. The Jerr goes on:

In fact, if there were a theistic God—and Haught is indeed a theist who thinks that God intervenes in the world—I would expect the universe to be not comprehensible"

Thank you Jerry. Inventing a view of god that is incompatible with the universe and then declaring victory because god and the universe are incompatible is surely a scholarly approach worthy of emulation. Well played, sir.

(De)links

2011-10-11T17:10:00.005-04:00

I am in the process of delinking blogs that removed their link to here. (My view of links has always been one of mutual courtesy, not an endorsement). If you want to reestablish links, let me know.

The Law, Lesson 1: Absolute Truth

2011-10-11T17:07:00.004-04:00

In John 18:38 Pilate, interrogating Jesus, asks “What is truth?”

Interestingly there is no agreement as to whether this question was asked in earnest or was asked dismissively. Was Pilate asking a deep question, hoping to connect with Jesus, perhaps to understand him better? Or was he dismissing the concept of truth (“Bleh. What’s this truth thing anyway?”) in a well-meaning attempt to advise Jesus to say anything to save himself? Nobody knows.

The great biblical commentator Andrew Lloyd Webber believed Pilate was asking a serious question. To drive home the point he took poetic license in his opera Jesus Christ Superstar and put these words in Pilate’s mouth:

“ And what is 'truth'? Is truth unchanging law? We both have truths. Are mine the same as yours?”

Here Pilate, insightful at least in Webber’s mind, connects truth with unchanging law. We shall ponder that connection as well. Is God’s law a representation of the truth? Of absolute truth? If the truth is unchanging, does that mean the law is also unchanging? Can the law ever change?

Lest you think this is unimportant, this entire course can be summarized by the question: can the law ever change, and if so which laws?

We have to, in fact, get past the trivial

Absolute Truth → Unchanging Law

or this will be a very short course indeed.

We begin in everyone’s favorite book, Leviticus:

³ “‘If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the LORD a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed. ⁴ He is to present the bull at the entrance to the tent of meeting before the LORD. He is to lay his hand on its head and slaughter it there before the LORD. (Lev 4:3-4).

We could use many other verses to make the same point. But the bottom line is that in the Old Testament God commanded:

If the people/priests sin, there must be an animal sacrificed.

Today, of course, Christians sacrificing an animal as an attempt to deal with sin would be considered an abomination. What was moral has become immoral. What was right has become wrong. So in this case, at least, the law has surely changed—setting the precedent that laws do change. The question of law-changing, it appears, will not be the of the trivial yes/no end-of-the-story variety but the more complicated: which laws change?

But our concern at the moment is for "absolute truth". In agreeing that the law (at least some) can and has changed, we are left with the question: Have we then sacrificed absolute truth?

The answer is a resounding “no”. However, to appreciate that answer we may have to revise what we think of as absolute truth.

Moral Absolutes and Situational Ethics

Most Christians take the view:

Moral Absolutes: good

Situational Ethics: bad

But this is due, I believe, to a kind of false dichotomy. That is, it is perceived that Moral Absolutes and Situational Ethics are in conflict.

Now, contrary to this popular Christian belief, not all moral decisions are absolute. There most certainly are situational ethics in Christianity. Jesus tells us that the Sabbath was made for man, not vice versa. Even the most fundamentalist Christian denominations that take the position that you should not work on a Sunday¹ will say: "No working on Sunday unless, um, you have to." Much of the Mosaic law reads like precedent setting, situational specific, case law: "You may not, willy-nilly, kill your neighbors ox! Unless your neighbor's ox was a serial offender of the goring variety, then you may kill him. The ox, that is."

So the bible is chock-full of situational ethics, not the most pleasant of which is: killing people is wrong, unless God commands you. I am thinking here, of course, of the conquest of Canaan. Now, I believe you can make a more than compelling case that the conquest of the Holy Land was a one-time event in God's redemptive plan and we have reason to expect that God will never command us to annihilate anyone, and we are certainly under no standing orders to take anyone's life or property, but nevertheless the point remains: it is absolutely wrong to commit murder, and yet Joshua was not sinning when he engaged in genocide.

There is no way for a Christian who holds to the simpleminded relationship: moral absolutes are the opposite of situational ethics to reconcile this tension. That is because in my opinion they misunderstand moral absolutes.

They're not in tension. We just need proper definitions:

Wrong Definition of Moral Absolute: If God and any point says it is wrong to commit act A, then it is always wrong to commit act A. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Correct Definition of Moral Absolute: if it is wrong for one person to commit act A in situation S, then it is wrong for any person to commit act A in the same situation S.

The latter definition preserves the proper Christian aversion to moral relativism. In the same situation, it cannot be morally wrong for one person to behave in a certain manner while, for whatever reason, it is morally acceptable for another. Moral absolutism is preserved over moral relativism. At the same time, situational ethics may and indeed must be considered.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, we return to the common (but not necessarily correct) church teaching that is situational ethics par excellence: it is not permissible to work on Sunday, unless it is a work of necessity. (Again, I'm not arguing whether or not this is the correct view of the day of rest. That's a separate topic. I'm just using it here as an example.) In these terms it would mean:

Working on Sunday is, to first order, wrong.

Working on Sunday, if is not a work of necessity, is absolutely wrong.

Working on Sunday, if it is a work of necessity, is acceptable—and it is an example of situational ethics.

Working on Sunday, even if it is not a work of necessity, is permissible for some as long as they don't feel guilty about it is an example of moral relativism, and is wrong.

Of course, some of the ethics are not situational, but absolute. These are the apodictic laws. Apodictic laws are universally binding principles that tend to use the familiar "you shall" and "you shall not" form:

³"You shall have no other gods before Me. ⁴"You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. (Ex. 20:3-4)

Clearly these are not conditional laws, but rather universal absolutes. There is no condition that, if it is met (or if it fails to be met) would allow a person to have another god before God. Under all circumstances, we shall have no other gods before God.

Yet even then, when there is no possibility of dispute, we will find dispute. In particular we will face a tricky question: although apodictic laws are absolutes, can they be nullified in the sense that they are replaced by a fuller revelation of the law? In the same sense that the absolute truths of the proto-gospel and the absolute truths of the messianic prophecies are replaced by the fuller revelation of the finished work of Christ, is it possible that the apodictic laws, though absolute, can be replaced by something better? Are they types of the true law.

A secular example would be, suppose this law:

was replaced by this law:

Was the first absolute, and yet nullified and replaced by the second?

We shall ask such vexing questions.

¹ We make no comment at this point about whether it is proper for Christians to work on Sunday. It is just an example of where situational ethics can be found even in those denominations that would be most violently opposed to the idea.

The Law

2011-10-09T07:25:00.000-04:00

Next week I will be starting a new, long-delayed School on the Law. We'll be looking at some of the ways different schools of theology (dispensational, reformed, and various flavors therein) look at the law. We we also look at a the relatively nascent view of New Covenant Theology.

And the Booby Prize goes to...

2011-04-07T15:13:00.000-04:00

Jerry Coyne, of course.

He has uttered the single dumbest explanation for the alleged incompatibility of science and religion. Ever.

To set the stage, Jerry has the vapors that acclaimed cosmologist (and agnostic) Martin Rees has accepted this year's $1.6 million Templeton award. Maybe Jerry is apoplectic because a scientist with impeccable research credentials won the award as opposed to say, a science journalist. Or maybe his head would have exploded even more if someone like Chris Mooney won. Hard to say--rationality is not one of Jerry's strong suits.

So I came across this topical Science article by Sara Reardon. She quotes Jerry:

If there's no conflict between science and religion, why do I still deal with creationists?

As the saying goes: the stupid, it burns. I think I have quoted before the famously dense anti-evolution argument: If evolution is true, how do you explain PYGMIES + DWARFS? Well, Jerry's argument is no better: if religion is compatible with science, how do you explain CREATIONISTS + BIBLE BELIEVERS?

This argument is so bad that I assumed Jerry was misquoted. Nope--he has the same article linked on his site, with the same quote displayed.

Notice what Jerry is not saying. He is not arguing that dealing with creationists demonstrates that creationism and science are incompatible--he is making the much stronger claim that the fact that he, Jerry Coyne, has to deal with creationists implies that science is incompatible (which is what he means by "in conflict") with religion.

There is no logic the takes you from:

1) Jerry Coyne has to "deal" with creationists, to
2) Science and religion are incompatible

Thank goodness most (all?) theologians are far better at constructing sound arguments.

Man, that star fell fast!

2011-04-07T10:30:00.008-04:00

Alternate title: Virtue has triumphed! The sword of retribution has cut down Pro-fessor Lawrence Krauss!

Just the other day I commented on Lawrence Krauss's guest post on one of (if not the) most popular atheist blogs on the planet: PZ Myers's Pharyngula.

LK was riding on top of the Gnu atheist world!

Then--scandal!

Krauss has a friend. A billionaire friend. More importantly the friend is also a scumbag sex offender of the Roman Polanski genre. This post from skepchick denounces Krauss for defending his friend.

Krauss handled this all rather stupidly. Granted it is tough to be in a situation where you are asked to denounce a friend--but there are non-weaselly ways out. You could simply say: He is my friend. I denounce his crimes, but remain his friend and hope to help him find the professional treatment he needs. Or something like that. Instead it appears that Krauss looked for loopholes.

That's all I'll say about that--because I don't really care about Lawrence Krauss and his piece-o-crap friend. You can judge for yourself should you find the affair interesting. I don't. What I find interesting is the fact that on day one he is a hero to the gnu atheists while on day two he is a goat.

I will say that skepchick's (Rebecca Watson) blog post title: Lawrence Krauss Defends a Sex Offender, Embarrasses Scientists Everywhere is incredibly stupid. Krauss's behavior is not an embarrassment to scientists everywhere. It may reflect on his character and may be an embarrassment to Krauss--but it is not an embarrassment to scientists everywhere. We are not a priesthood-we are people who are lucky enough to do science for a living. We come with all the human foibles found in the professions. If Krauss was a house painter, would he now be an embarrassment to house painters everywhere? Dumb.

As an aside, PZ--having just given LK a big ole' soap box--now faced a dillema--not totally unlike Krauss's situation, though different in scale. In my opinion he approached in a rather cowardly way. Without ever mentioning Krauss by name he made a post about himself (well, no surprise there) with oblique links to other bloggers who were doing the heavy lifting, such as Rebecca Watson. Go on, read his post and tell me, apart from following the links, would you have any clue what the hell PZ was discussing?

Among the Pharyngula regulars there is very little wiggle room granted Krauss due to the circumstance that he was defending a friend. The friend's crime was indeed repulsive--but what really prevented the Gnus from any sort of nuanced look at Krauss (not at the friend who committed the crimes who deserves no nuance, but at Krauss who was dumb and evasive in his lukewarm denouncement) are the feminist-flag-raising overtones of Krauss's attitude. Now the Gnu atheists are a tough crowd when it comes to feminism. On Pharyngula they even engaged in atheist blasphemy: His Worshipfullness Dick the Dawk was deemed sexist¹ because of high crimes such as attributing gender differences too much to biology and too little to culture, and using "man" and "female" too close together. (I don't know if order matters, or if {man, woman} is preferred over {male, female}, but I do know that {man, female} in too close proximity is the Unpardonable Sin.

I'm not sure I worded that clearly, so here is a summary of what I am trying to say:

Krauss has a scumbag friend who has exploited child prostitutes for sex.
Krauss was an imbecile in the manner he chose to defend his friend.
Since the pedophile is Krauss's friend, Krauss's behavior might be looked at through the lens: it is never easy to throw a friend under the bus--even when he richly deserves it.
The free-thinking Gnu crowd is incapable of such nuance, because what Krauss did strikes them as anti-feminist, and nothing anti-feminist deserves a nuanced look.

¹ Much of that discussion can be found by wading knee deep through this thread of pure gnu atheist open mindedness and free thinking. A couple back-to-back examples of free-thinking directed at Dawkins. From free-thinking commenter Ing:

The offensiveness and bad science in some of your [Dawkins's] latest displays is not that there is are differences between the sexes or even currently seen differences in behavior. The problem is that you uncritically contribute those to genetics rather than culture. For one, your million dollar chanalge things ignores the HUGE cultural difference between a women asking a stranger for sex and a random MAN asking a woman for sex. (HINT: ONE SENDS OFF RAPE ALARM BELLS).

This is followed by Phodopus's reply, again directed at Richard Dawkins who foolishly asked "Why is the word 'female' insulting?"

Do you not agree that having women referred to as females while in the same conversation men are referred to as men, has a connotation of the former being a kind of object of study rather than fellow human beings, if only slightly?

Lawrence Krauss: No, I won!!!

2011-04-05T10:32:00.001-04:00

Lawrence Krauss, in a guest post on Pharyngula, is in a hissy-fit over a debate he had with William Lane Craig. I haven't watched the debate—debates are usually unedifying matters of style over substance. Unless I get a critical mass of recommendations to watch, my going in assumption is that any given debate is ignorable.

Furthermore, given that, as I understand it, this debate was not about, say, the self-consistency of a world view assuming the Christian god but rather about scientific evidence for god I would have, reluctantly, been on Krauss's side. I don't believe there is any direct scientific evidence for god or any satisfying philosophical "proofs" for god. Good thing I’m a confirmed presuppositionalist, eh?

Krauss is whining, as near as I can tell, about Craig's post-debate behavior. Apparently LK is miffed that Craig has been going about declaring victory to his own supporters. To counter this unspeakable breach of ethics, Krauss has penned a guest post on Pharyngula to, well, declare victory to his supporters.

If Krauss debates like he writes I am certain he must have lost on style points. His Pharyngula essay is ponderous and sleep-inducing. Prop you eyelids open with toothpicks before reading.

One of several topics about which Krauss declares himself the winner is, unsurprisingly, fine-tuning. His writing on the subject, though better than Coyne’s (at least Krauss knows what he is talking about) is far from laudable. He starts:

The appearance of design is one of the most subtle and confusing aspects of our Universe.

which is bit of a strawman. Fine-tuning is not an "appearance of design" but a question about whether and why the universe's ability to synthesize metals (heavy elements) is sensitive to the values of the fundamental constants and the strengths of the basic forces. Some theists philosophically interpret fine-tuning as prima facie design evidence. Some scientists philosophically interpret fine-tuning as multiverse evidence. But if we stick to just science and ignore philosophy (always a good idea!) fine-tuning is agnostic with regards to any particular apologetic claim. Krauss calls Craig disingenuous—but here it is Krauss being disingenuous—sneakily setting up fine-tuning as, out-of-the-box, a religious argument.

He proceeds down this path, transitioning willfully or ignorantly into the common error of conflating fine-tuning with the anthropic principle. He concludes with a bloody awful example embedded in some hideous prose:

And, beyond this, just as bees are fine tuned to see the colors of flowers which they can pollinate as they go about their business does not indicate design, but rather natural selection, we currently have no idea if the conditions of our universe represent a kind of cosmic natural selection. If there are many universes, for example, as may be the case, and as are predicted in a variety of models, none of which were developed to address God issues, we would certainly expect to find ourselves only in those in which we can live.

Ahhhhhhreh? LK, go to the board and write 500 times: cosmological fine-tuning is not the same as the anthropic principle.

If past experience is a reliable guide Pharyngula's commenters, on the question of fine-tuning, will be as clueless as Jerry's kids, At the time I write this there is only one relevant comment, from a Kevin:

Fine-tuning. Really? In a universe that is 13.7 billion years old and 40+ billion light years across, that required the death of not one but two stars -- one in a supernova -- where humans have appeared in the last 0.00004% of that time, the entire enterprise was built with US in mind? Unbelievable arrogant self-centered narcissism.

No Kevin, what is unbelievable is that you think that the fine-tuning argument is the same as "the universe was made for us" argument.

I guess you can blame Krauss--since he couched his fine-tuning comments in a like manner.

Scandalous!

2011-04-04T11:17:00.002-04:00

When we moved to Virginia and joined our present church, I was tapped almost immediately to teach adult Sunday School. The topic was the compatibility of science and Christianity. My bride, having heard me teach on that topic before, was not all that enthusiastic about repeating the course.

On the first class she arrived late. In no time great laughter erupted from near where she sat. I only found out why later. When she sat down the woman she sat next to (who didn't know us all that well, at the time) said, "You're late!" To this my wife responded, "It's OK, I'm sleeping with the teacher."

Here is another scandalous post involving my wife, from 2005.

Jerry warns us about "those people." Be afraid, be very afraid!

2011-04-04T10:46:00.002-04:00

It is remarkable what a chowderhead Jerry Coyne can be, day after day. His relentless consistency is a sight to behold.

Today he writes on What does it take to blame religion?

His tactic is vintage Coyne: the strawman. Nobody does it more often and with less skill. He does this all the time. His favorite self-made foil is the "omnibenevolent god" strawman. He'll make, every so often, the child's argument: 1) God is omnibenevolent. 2) There is suffering. 3) Therefore there is no god, at least no omnipotent god.

Gee, never heard that one! At least not since the playground.

It doesn't matter that people point out to him that god is not omnibenevolent nor portrayed as omnibenevolent. He ignores that—it's just too inconvenient and doesn't fit his immature world view.

Today his strawman is the “see no evil” man of faith. That is, he argues that people of faith—apart from maybe (and reluctantly) the Crusades, refuse to acknowledge evil done in the name of religion.

What fantasy world does this boy live in?

Coyne writes:

We’re all familiar with those people who claim that no foul deed, no murder, no injury can be laid at the feet of faith

Oh. The dreaded "those people". Who are those people Jerry? Is this like when David Duke talks about "those people"? How many of "those people" are there Coyne? Personally I don't know any. I don't know even one person of faith who would argue that no foul deed, no murder, no injury can be laid at the feet of faith.

In Christianity and Judaism some of our greatest heroes—King David, the apostle Paul—murdered. Paul, for one, surely murdered (as Saul) in the name of faith.

That acknowledgment--that crimes are committed in the name of faith, extends to the present. We all agree that people commit heinous crimes in the name of faith. We would argue, at least in the case of Christianity, that what they do is horribly misguided—but we are not "those people" Jerry.

Again, who are "those people"?

Jerry gives a bizarre example. Apparently "those people" will say this:

The Protestant/Catholic fracas in Northern Ireland? A historical squabble—religion was just a “label” for political opponents.

Nobody argues that it is just a label. Nobody will argue that the respective faith’s have not played a role in Northern Ireland. But pointing out that there are tribal elements to that conflict—that for example it is probably the rare case when Protestants attack Catholics with shouts of "It is not justification by faith, it is justification by faith alone, papist!" does not mean you are absolving religion of any culpability. You are pointing out that it is slightly more nuanced that you (Jerry) seem to have the wherewithal to grasp.

Evil men can not only commit crimes in the name of faith, but can also co-opt faith to justify their hate. And--and I know this is hard for you to comprehend Jerry--there is a difference. Some with evil intentions also, at times, co-opt science to rationalize their hatred.

"Those people" indeed.

What do you propose we do with "those people" Jerry?

Jerry also expresses the recurring Gnu Atheist Fantasy:

And, as I said, people consider it far more insulting to criticize their faith than their politics.

Sorry Jerry, but this is the consummate Gnu Atheist delusion of grandeur. In reality most of us don't give a rat's ass if you criticize our faith. We in fact (as a group) have probably not heard of many of you (especially you) and, if we have, we are more likely to mock you than to consider your fatuousness as insulting.

Jerry then gives a list of atrocities, some of which are legitimately placed at the feet of religion, a few of which, such as "The deaths of children whose parents relied on faith healing" are even problems in some outlier Christian denominations.

Some are just made up Jerry-woo, such as:

The horrible and often lifelong guilt instilled in children by Catholic priests who scare them with thoughts of hell and constant admonitions about sin

You know this is a huge problem, as opposed to a canard, exactly how, Jerry? Because some commenter's deconversion story blames Catholic guilt? Because you know children are coloring scenes of brutal eternal torment in Sunday School?

Or because it sounds right, like "religion and science are incompatible" sounds right. So you unscientifically accept it using the only acceptable methodology outside of the science, the irrefutable "proof by sounding reasonable to Jerry Coyne."

Another religious crime of the century:

Sexual fear and loathing

Really Jerry, are you out of your mind? Are you, apart from your biology, stuck in the sixth grade? Is your biology some sort of savant skill for you, and in everything you are this excruciatingly stupid?

Well Jerry, you can list atrocities done in the name of faith. But I think you lose the numbers game—stupid as it is to play. Without question the most murderous regimes in history are the godless regimes of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. Furthermore Nazism, with its master plan to persecute Christianity, was also arguably godless—although clever enough to co-opt religious themes when necessary. The eugenics movement had some Christian supporters, but ultimately—despite every denial you'd care to make—was fueled not by theology but a godless co-opting of evolution.

I guess that's enough of a rant. One of "those people" has to get back to work.

Jerry and Jerry's Kids are all Tuned Up

2011-04-01T17:26:00.000-04:00

Jerry has again ventured from his narrow area of expertise. Thankfully this time, in a post entitled When Theology does Cosmology he merely introduced a subject and then let his erudite followers do the dirty work. On this occasion he is sly, like the sheriff in Mississippi Burning.

Jerry mentions several subtopics for his readers to mangle, but the one most interesting to me, no surprise, is the topic of fine tuning. His readers manage to display most if not all of the misconceptions about fine tuning.

Here is fine tuning explained in a stone cold, unsexy manner:

The Big bang produced a universe with hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of lithium. Immediately the density of the universe decreased and the temperature dropped. At first blush this would end the naturally occurring periodic table, because the conditions needed for fusion include high density and high temperatures. Nevertheless the universe did manage to synthesize the heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen and iron. The furnaces the universe used to carry out this synthesis are found only inside stars. Yet the conditions under which stars were formed appear to be highly sensitive to the values of the physical constants and the strengths of the fundamental forces. This sensitivity is known as "fine tuning".

Misconception 1: The term "fine tuning" was invented by religionists and is a loaded term implying an intelligent fine tuner.

No—the term was invented by scientists and merely reflects the apparent sensitivity of the universe’s ability to synthesize heavy elements on the physical constants and basic forces. It meant to convey only this sensitivity—not a designer. It is disingenuous (so right up Jerry's alley, eh?) to blame this term on religionists.

Misconception 2: The term denotes a misplaced anthropocentrism

No—the definition says absolutely nothing about man. It doesn't say that the universe is fine tuned for producing a habitat suitable for man. It doesn't even say the universe is fine tuned for producing life. What it really says, in nontechnical terms, is that the universe is fine tuned for producing rocks.

Misconception 3: The fine tuning is "carbon chauvinistic". That is it assumes that life like ours is the only kind of life possible.

No it doesn't. While it is certainly arguable that life like ours (carbon based) is the only kind of complex life possible, due to the richness of carbon chemistry, the fine tuning argument makes no such claim. The fine tuning implication for life is second order: life of any kind, not just carbon based, requires complex chemistry and complex molecules to store information. That requires the synthesis of heavy elements. As a byproduct of the universe being able to produce heavy elements, it can also potentially produce life. But that's merely a hypothetical byproduct—the fine tuning is all about synthesizing heavy elements. Making rocks.

Misconception 4: The science fiction writer Douglas Adams debunked the fine tuning argument with his puddle analogy:

imagining a sentient puddle who wakes up one morning and thinks, "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" See Wikipedia.

No—once again the fine tuning argument is not related to life at all let alone dedicated to life like ours. The puddle argument might have a place in arguing against the Privileged Planet view—which says that the earth is perfectly fit for life, but is completely irrelevant when it comes to the question of cosmological fine-tuning.

Variants of this misconception don't mention Douglas Adams—they say things like "of course since this is our universe and we evolved here it naturally appears fine tuned." Which misses the boat that nothing would have evolved if the universe couldn’t make heavy elements.

Misconception 5: Victor Stenger has debunked the fine tuning argument.

No—Victor Stenger argued that perhaps the universe is not really fine tuned—that is perhaps its ability to synthesize elements it is not really sensitive to the constants or the forces. A legitimate idea—and one that someday, someone might demonstrate. But Victor Stenger did not. I can't tell you how many times people have provided a link to this nascent, surface-scratching, speculative, disgrace of a paper—not peer reviewed, not published, close to ten years old, sitting stale on a University of Colorado philosophy web site as "proof" that Victor Stenger has debunked fine tuning. Rarely does someone surpass Victor Stenger in getting heaps of credit for producing (in this case) garbage.

Misconception 6: Ikeda and Jefferys debunked the fine tuning argument.

No—they produced some philosophical woo which—like Stenger's rebuttal, is stale and available only on a web site. This is an impenetrable Bayesian argument—which should already set off alarms—that contains, in its introduction, the following paragraph:

In this article we will show that this argument is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but in fact we will show that the observation that the universe is "fine-tuned" in this sense can only count against a supernatural origin of the universe. And we shall furthermore show that with certain theologies suggested by deities that are both inscrutable and very powerful, the more "finely-tuned" the universe is, the more a supernatural origin of the universe is undermined.

Science certainly has a place, don't you think, for Ikeda and Jefferys to quantify "sufficiently inscrutable deities" and prove that the more fine tuned the universe is, the less likely such deities exist.

Misconception 7: The fine tuning argument depends on small probability for the constants, but nobody knows what the a priori probability of the constants is.

No—the fine tuning argument says nothing—absolutely nothing about the probability of the constants.

Misconception 8: Maybe someday there will be a theory of everything that explains the constants. Maybe they must have the values they have.

No—again, the fine tuning argument says nothing—absolutely nothing about the probability of the constants. It not only doesn't require the probability to be small (misconception 7) but also is unaffected if the probability is unity. It only depends on the sensitivity of the heavy element synthesis to the values. Now, from a philosophical standpoint it will be a win for theists if the constants have unit probability—because then we can argue that the necessary conditions were built into the fabric of spacetime. From a secular standpoint is is better if the constants are a random draw (small probability) because that is consistent with the multiverse. But the fine tuning argument is agnostic when it comes to the probability of the constants.

Now let's see what comments Jerry's kids made regarding fine tuning.

Eric Macdonald wrote:

Stenger also has a new book almost out entitled The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us.

I'll wait until this book comes out—but notice how stupid the title is. The fine tuning argument has nothing to do with us. It has to do with producing rocks. (Misconception(s): 2, 3, 5 )

Cody wrote:

What really bugs me about the fine tuning argument is that it implicitly claims that the finely tuned constants could have been something other than what they are, but we have no theory as to why they are what they are. It could be that in the future we discover a deeper reason for them to be that way. (Misconception(s): 7, 8 )

The other part that really bugs me is that it only applies to life as we know it. Calculating which fundamental physics results in a life-supporting universe is an intractable task, we can’t even simulate quantum mechanical systems on a macroscopic scale, let alone the enormous systems that could all potentially ‘grow’ life. (Misconception(s): 2, 3)

Deen wrote:

It also implicitly assumes that the purpose of the universe is to support human life – which is kind of begging the question, isn’t it? (Misconception(s): 2)

Kevin wrote:

The universe is fine-tuned for “no life”. If it were fine-tuned for life, then life would literally be everywhere we look. And yet, everywhere we look, there is no life other than there (so far).
It’s again a part of our human narcissism. We’re just SOOOOOO special that everything must have been built with us in mind.

No, the fine tuning argument is not that the universe is fine tuned for life, but fine tuned for synthesizing heavy elements. (Misconception(s): 2, 3)

JS1685:

In addition to the good rebuttals to the “fine-tuning” argument posted upthread, I take issue with just the name of the argument. The universe wasn’t tuned at all. This is just the way it is. If the universe wasn’t like this, it would be like something else. It’s not amazing that the universe is like it is!
Also, saying it’s “fine-tuned” implies agency of some kind. (Misconception(s): 1, 4)

There are plenty more nonsensical comments more, but I’m tiring.

Imprecatory Prayer

2011-03-30T12:29:00.001-04:00

I was asked, on another blog, about my view on imprecatory prayer. The catalyst for the inquiry was the shenanigans of Gordon Klingenschmitt.

I have written about Mr. Klingenschmitt before. Klingenschmitt is a former Navy chaplain who was discharged for misconduct. The misconduct involved raising funds for religious purposes (in his case, making videos for evangelical Christianity) off duty, in uniform, at the Pentagon. This is violation—and a breech of ethics.

At the time I wrote that Klingenschmitt could have garnered some respect if, like true civil disobedients, he announced that he both expected and accepted his punishment. But no, he whined like a pants-peeing three-year-old and played the Christian persecution card—which he has since turned into a cottage industry.

This embarrassment of a Christian has posted imprecatory prayers on his website, such as:

IMPRECATORY PRAYERS AGAINST ANTI-JESUS BARRY LYNN AND MIKEY WEINSTEIN

"Let us pray. Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus' name. Amen."

Mikey Weinstein is the research director of Military Religious Freedom Foundation. (One who, along with his organization—which in general I have no problems with—is nevertheless prone to unseemly sensationalism.) He is suing Klingenschmitt for inciting violence via imprecatory prayer. Personally I think that is utterly bogus—but that's another matter. And it doesn't diminish the fact that Klingenschmitt is a jackass.

The question I was asked was: what do I think of imprecatory prayer?

I think it has no place in the life of a Christian.

In questions like this, I look for New Testament precedents. Did Jesus employ imprecatory prayer? No. Did the apostles? No. Did the first century church of Acts? No. The recipients of Paul's epistles? No.

Given that there is no example of a imprecatory prayer in the New Testament¹ we can ask: was there an occasion pregnant for its use? A biblical teachable moment which provided a golden opportunity to give an example of an imprecatory prayer?

Of course there were many, beginning with Jesus. He had the opportunity to call the wrath of God down upon his murderers. There was Peter and John, persecuted in Acts 4. They did choose civil disobedience, but unlike the miserable Klingenschmitt they chose neither to whine about their punishment nor invoke prayerful visions of violence and reduced life spans upon their oppressors. Paul had almost continuous opportunity, but (just to take one example) instead of calling for God to smite Nero (arguably the greatest oppressor of Christians of all time) he instead writes that we should pray for those ruling over us, not against them. ²

Assuming for the moment that imprecatory prayer, even if acceptable, is "beneath" the dignity of our Lord during his earthly suffering, we can continue to look elsewhere. Perhaps the single best opportunity occurs in Acts 7, when, ironically, Paul (Saul) is the oppressor. The victim is, of course, the very first Christian martyr, Stephen. (Don’t correct me and say the first martyr was Jesus—you know what I mean.) After giving the most overlooked theologically significant sermon in the bible, where for the first time the idea that Christianity is not Judaism is made explicit, Stephen is stoned to death. Does he call for God's wrath on the Sanhedrin? He does not. Instead he imitates Christ in what can only be called the anti-imprecatory model prayer for the New Testament:

Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:60)

Klingenschmitt is praying just the opposite: Hold their sin against them God—punish them and cut off their descendants—for they know exactly what they are doing!

Yet he portrays himself as a modern Stephen—a persecuted Christian.

Vomit.

¹ The only possible instance in the New Testament is an obscure passage in the most obscure of books: ⁹ When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. ¹⁰They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” (Rev 6: 9-10). But this appears to be eschatological and generic, not specific to an identifiable living enemy. Besides, it’s in Revelation. Who knows what it really means? Not me, and I couldn’t venture a guess. Clearly it is a pretty wobbly nail to hang an "imprecatory prayer is instructed in the New Testament" coat on.

² The closest example I can think of when it comes to Paul is his anger over the Judaizers when he writes: As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! (Gal 5:12.) But he is a) not praying and b) not asking God to castrate the agitators by divine, supernatural surgery.

Earth to Liberty U: "You chose poorly"

2011-03-18T16:26:00.002-04:00

Liberty University is one of those places where the inmates run the asylum. In all my dealings with their so-called science faculty, which thankfully have been rare, the comment I heard most frequently was a disparaging reference to other Christian schools as being "Christian in name only." This would be any other Christian school, no matter how conservative, that did not demand a YEC view. Calvin College, Grove City, Wheaton—CINOs one and all according to chowderheads on Liberty's science faculty.

Further evidence for their ineptitude is their upcoming conference called "The Awakening." The purpose of this conference, according to this CNN article, is to "'empower a new revolution' around issues of faith and core social values."

Also, according to Liberty's Press Release:

Among the topics addressed during the two-day conference at the Lynchburg, Virginia school include "abortion, the economy, religious liberty, marriage and homosexuality, Sharia Law, the Middle East, Human Sex Trafficking, Reaching Minority Communities and Using New Media and Technology to Power a Movement."

Well they got the perfect headliner, as least as much as the marriage topic is concerned. Newt Gingrich has been married three times. He certainly qualifies a world expert on marriage and infidelity. Who better to headline a conference on core values at a "Christian" university than an adulterer?

It's like the yahoos at Liberty woke up and asked themselves: what can we do today to be an utter embarrassment to the Christian community? I know--we'll bring Newt Gingrich into to discuss family values! That's assuming, of course, Ted Haggard is already booked!

24:48

2011-03-16T21:06:00.000-04:00

Not a verse. It was my time today for a 5K run. I started running about three months ago, with a goal to break 25 minutes for a 5K. Nothing spectacular--but it almost killed me. Yesterday I did a truly annoying 25:01. Today I broke through with room to spare.

I'm not going to try to go faster--or even reproduce this time--at least for a while. I am going to shift to slower and longer. In a few months I'll give the 5K another shot.

Jerry Coyne's vexing connundrum: If you think God is possible, how is it there are PAIN + SUFFERING??

2011-03-15T08:31:00.001-04:00

Jerry Coyne's silliness is evident as he takes advantage of the tragedy in Japan to reiterate, for the N^th time, his supposed problem-of-evil smackdown of theism. He writes:

This—the presence of horrible things caused not by humans, but by other features of nature—is the Achilles heel of theistic faith.

"Concern troll Jerry" likes to tell us that our omnibenevolent god would not allow bad things to happen to good people. Therefore, he regrets to inform, our god does not exist.

If that argument held water, Christianity could not have survived the first-wave of first-century persecutions, or the unimaginable slaughter of friends and loved ones resulting from the Jewish rebellion against the Romans.

Of course Jerry—like people who aren't too bright are habitually doing—likes to imagine that his simpleminded argument a) possesses a slam-dunk quality and b) humanity had to wait millennia for someone of his unique intellect to introduce it.

His argument is on par with the nitwit antievolution argument: God made man in his own image, god is not a monkey, therefore evolution does not exist. Or the famous bad antievolution e-argument about "PYGMIES + DWARFS??" that explains the title of this post.

Yes, attempts to develop a satisfactory theodicy have been spectacularly unsuccessful. But the failure in that regard does not constitute a demonstration of Gods nonexistence. It only indicates a failure in that regard.

Jerry always employs, even if by implication only, a crude strawman: the strawman of an omnibenevolent god. But Christianity does not teach that God is omnibenevolent. There are countless examples in the bible of God acting in a manner that is anything but benevolent. Not to mention the supreme act of non-benevolence: consigning some to eternal torment.

God does not promise, anywhere, that people will not suffer. Indeed God, at times, at least in the past, directly intervened to cause, by divine fiat, the suffering of some. And God could always and can always, at the very least, prevent the suffering of everyone.

For Jerry to imagine what we have always read and acknowledged about God is proof that he doesn't exist is only proof that Jerry don't know jack. God promises the inevitability of suffering, not its absence.

For Christians, "God, why did this happen?" is our heartfelt, natural, human, emotional lament when we are faced with personal suffering or human suffering on such as scale as we see in Japan. But it is an emotional appeal--a prayer if you will--not an insoluble theological question. In the theological classroom, when our emotions are in check, we know the unfathomable question is not: "why do bad things happen to good people?" but "why have you shown mercy to me?"

Morgan Shepherd is da Man

2011-03-04T10:13:00.000-05:00

Morgan Shepherd is an evangelist and a 69 year old NASCAR driver.

His shoe-string budget racing team is famous for its paint scheme featuring a "Racing for Jesus" logo. He also operates a charitable organization.

Oh, he is also well-known for his hobby of rollerblading around the track and on pit lane.

The other day Morgan Shepherd acquired a new title: crime-fighter. As reported on Racing News Digest:

As Shepherd was getting out of his car at a Wal-Mart in Las Vegas Monday three young people came running out of the Wal-Mart with security in hot pursuit. Shepherd grabbed one of the kids (he estimated the kid was 18-19 years old) and got him down to the ground.

“I caught one of them just as they were getting ready to hop a little wall at the end of the parking lot,” Shepherd told WMGT, an NBC affiilate in Macon, Ga. “I yanked him down and got on top of him.”

Shepherd said that, in a matter of seconds, a Las Vegas police officer tossed him handcuffs and chased the other two suspects.

“I cuffed him and sat on top of him,” Shepherd told WGMT. “The police department officers showed up and asked if I could hold him a while longer while they ran down the others. I told them he wasn’t going anywhere.”

While Morgan Shepherd was holding the suspect he took the opportunity to talk to him. The suspect was expressing fears of going to jail while asking Shepherd to let him go.

“I didn’t tell him a 69-year-old man chased him down,” Shepherd joked. “He was probably 18 or 19. I told him he shouldn’t be stealing stuff. There is just too much of this stuff going on.”

“So many people these days would just sit and watch those guys run away,” Shepherd said. “People need to get up and help stop this type of stuff.”

I also paid tribute to Morgan on my NASCAR Comix site. For completeness I'll post that comic here, too. (Click to enlarge.)

OK, if you have to explain jokes then you've lost--but these comics require NASCAR knowledge. In the first panel, the Daly Planet is not a misspelling--there is a very popular NASCAR blog by that name. The last panel refers to a current, big story in NASCAR Nation: some of press was severely criticized as unprofessional for breaking out in cheers when Trevor Bayne won the Daytona 500. One was even fired.

The bottom line is, I want to be like Morgan Shepherd when I grow up.

An Atheist Meta Myth

2011-03-03T11:15:00.007-05:00

The Center for Inquiry is launching a Living without Religion campaign. This is the latest tit-for-tat skirmish in the oh-so-tiresome billboard wars. Personally, as purely a matter of tatse, if I must see a billboard I'd rather see a 3D cow telling me to Eat Mor Chikin than either a Christian or atheist billboard.

The message is rather bland—to the point of sleep-inducing:

"You don’t need God-to hope, to care, to love, to live."

Yawn.

For whom is this message intended? I can't decide. Is it intended for atheists? That seems odd. Is there a large number of atheists who are sad about being atheists? It doesn't seem so to me. At least I never met an atheist who admitted to such.

Or is it intended for Christians—if so, to what end?

I guess I think it is intended for Christians. Consider this blurb from the CFI press release:

"With this campaign, we are aiming to dispel some myths about the nonreligious,” said Ronald A. Lindsay , CFI president & CEO. “One common myth is that the nonreligious lead empty, meaningless, selfish, self-centered lives. This is not only false, it's ridiculous. Unfortunately, all too many people accept this myth because that’s what they hear about nonbelievers."

This is a meta-myth. A myth about a myth. Atheists seem to be in love with the idea that we spend our time denigrating, fearing, and misrepresenting them.

Show of hands: how many of you—when you do hear something in church about the group atheists (which I contend is many orders of magnitude less frequently than atheists imagine) actually hear something closer to this:

It is shameful that you cannot tell Christians from atheists—many of whom are far better than we are at charity, caring for the poor, parenting, preserving marriage, etc…

rather than anything resembling Ronald A. Lindsay's fantasy?

If I ever heard a pastor say anything about "empty, meaningless, selfish, self-centered lives" he was almost certainly chastising Christians, not insulting atheists.

I have heard--far more often-- pastors attempting a call to action by comparing Christians unfavorably to atheists--as opposed to saying anything along the lines of: they're a miserable lot, they are.

Lindsay and other atheists love to perpetuate the meta-myth that Christians perpetuate an unfavorable myth about them. Part of the rather strong atheist persecution complex.

As for the billboards—I think a solution is that Christians and atheists should get together and fund a billboard that we can both agree with. I propose:

If you are an atheist pretending to be a Christian, STOP RIGHT NOW!!. It's OK to come out of the closet.

Like Ronald Lindsay, Jerry Coyne, gets it bass-ackwards, unsurprisingly buying into the meta-myth.

Jerry--we rarely think about you at all. When we do, it is most likely to mock your obtuseness, not to claim you live an immoral, meaningless, unfulfilling life.

UPDATE: Okay, next time I have a glaring spelling error in the title someone please let me know! I feel like I've been walking around all day with a piece of spinach stuck between my two front teeth.

The ACLU sux

2011-03-02T11:41:00.001-05:00

at making it easy for some to perpetuate the myth that they only defend the atheist hordes.

Not that those who do will likely stop.

Once again they defend Christian expression:

ACLU defends Floyd athletes over Ten Commandments

I don't suppose the ACLU can tell those students: If you want to post the law, don't post the Ten Commandments, which was a covenantal document for a now extinct nation--post instead the Sermon on the Mount.

No, that's not their job is it?

I have never joined the ACLU--but that's not because I have any particular reason not to. I admire them greatly.

Luke, playing piano

2011-03-01T17:41:00.001-05:00

My son Luke--who is autistic.

Purpose of the Law Study

2011-02-28T14:03:00.003-05:00

As mentioned, I will be posting a series on the difficult subject of The Law. These posts will be a bit rambling—almost like notes I want to save as I read some books. I have to assemble them into a coherent Sunday School by next fall. Unless I am excommunicated first.

I thought I would start with the purpose of doing such a study. Let's begin with a familiar if unpleasant verse:

If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Lev 20:13)

So, are you a hypocrite, or do you advocate the death penalty for practicing homosexuals?

This is the false dilemma that many atheists present to believers. If the atheist is loathsomely troll-like, he may even say something like this:

If you really want to see the most honest adapation (sic) of what the bible and Christianity really stands far if you follow the most literal interpretation of the bible, go to [Fred] Phelps.

The motivation of this line of, um, reasoning is not honest intellectual debate—the motivation is to portray Christianity in the worst possible light using the least possible effort. The atheist-troll's utter transparency defangs what he considers a killer argument. Nevertheless there are sincere versions of the question that must be addressed, for example: why do Christians keep the Ten Commandments yet wear blended cloth? (Lev 19:19)

It doesn't help that Christians have both unsatisfying responses to this question and inconsistent practices—or at least large loopholes.

An example of the former is the oft-repeated claim: The Old Testament has three types of laws: ceremonial, civil, and moral. The first two are null and void, but the third type remains in force. This sounds sublime (well, maybe) but suffers from at least two major flaws:

There is no such teaching in the bible—that there are three types of laws and two and only two are nullified.
It is arguable some laws that are readily jettisoned by most Christians, like the call for execution of homosexuals, are in fact moral in nature—the very type of law that is supposedly preserved from the Old Testament. So, again, are we hypocrites for ignoring them?

An example of the latter (inconsistent practices and loopholes) are churches that take a high view of Sunday-as-the-Sabbath: no restaurants, no yard work, etc. In my experience these churches, conservative as they are, always have a liberal "works of necessity" exclusion. You can't work on Sunday! Oh, it's a work of necessity! Why didn't you say so? Probing would generally reveal that "work of necessity" means "My schedule came out, and I am assigned a shift on Sunday."

Not to mention the number of times I have heard someone rationalize: but I like mowing the lawn, it's relaxing, so it's not really work, is it?

The purpose of this study is twofold. The first is to argue that the atheist does indeed present a false dilemma. That our choices are not limited to: executing homosexuals or being hypocrites. We have, it will be argued, a third option: to comprehend the fuller revelation of the law as presented not by God through Moses, but by God through his Son. As a metaphor (Apropos? You tell me. I think so) for the argument we will use the Transfiguration:

¹After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. ² There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. ³ Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus. ⁴ Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” ⁵ While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!” (Math 17:1-5)

Here we have personifications (not the right word—but you know what I mean) of the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah) and the New Testament/New Covenant (Jesus.) God makes it clear which one is supreme: Listen to Him!

When it comes to the law we have much to learn from Moses and Elijah. But ultimately, we listen to Him.

We will look for a solution to this dilemma by these very means: the superiority of the law as revealed by Jesus over that of Moses. Not as a denigration of Moses—but as an acknowledgment that God's revelation has always been progressive. The gospel first appears as the protogospel in Genesis 3:15. Throughout the Old Testament more is revealed—including the motif of the suffering servant. But the full revelation—the supreme revelation—required the incarnation of the Son of God. We acknowledge the supremacy of the fully revealed version of the gospel over the protogospel of Genesis and prophetic gospel of the bulk of the Old Testament. We evangelize with the gospel as revealed in the ministry of Jesus, not with Genesis 3:15.

The second purpose of this study is to show that Christians do not need inconsistent practices or loopholes. Spoiler: I will argue that it is perfectly fine to go to a restaurant on Sunday—or to mow the lawn.

2011-02-27T21:48:00.000-05:00

I found this interesting table in the book All Old Testament Laws are Cancelled
by Greg Gibson. It list seven popular views and which laws they say must be
obeyed:

Popular Views
Orthodox Judaism	All OT and no NT Laws: 1) Decalogue 2) Temple 3) Priests, sacrifices, 4) State-Church Theocracy 5) Infant Members
Roman Catholicism	Some OT and all NT Laws: 1) Decalogue 2) Priests, sacrifices, 3) State-Church Theocracy 4) Infant Members 5) All NT Laws
Theocracy, Reformed Covenant Theology	Some OT and all NT Laws: 1) Decalogue 2) State-Church Theocracy 3) Infant Members 4) All NT Laws
Non-Theocracy, Reformed Covenant Theology	Some OT and all NT Laws: 1) Decalogue 2) Infant Members 3) All NT Laws
Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology	Some OT and all NT Laws: 1) Decalogue 2) All NT Laws
New Covenant Theology	No OT and all NT Laws: 1) All NT Laws
Antinomianism	No Laws

Some of it I disagree with, but nevertheless it is food for thought.

Link Cleaning

2011-02-27T20:31:00.000-05:00

Upon resurrecting this blog, I have cleaned up links. My link policy has always been "mutual links," so I dropped all one-way links. If we are no longer linked, and you'd like to reestablish links, just drop me a line.

Returning with a series on "The Law".

2011-02-27T14:00:00.001-05:00

I will resume blogging with a series on the law. This is in preparation for a Sunday School class on this topic that I will offer in the fall.

This is a difficult topic. It has been proposed, and I agree, that the three most vexing theological questions are:

The antinomy of God's sovereignty vs. Man's free will.
Eschatology.
The role of the Old Testament law in the life of the Christian living under the new covenant.

Of these, the third has the most practical impact. From the simple question of whether it is proper to mow the lawn on Sunday, to questions regarding the amount of political engagement we should accept.

America's greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards, wrote

There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ as stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and Christ.

So very true.

One piece of advice I will surely give my class--advice that I think clarifies many (but certainly not all) passages, is to replace the phrase "The Law and the Prophets" or "The Law or the Prophets" with "The Old Testament." That is what those phrases refer to--the Old Testament before it was called the Old Testament.

For example when Jesus stated:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matt. 5:17)

We read it, accurately and probably more clearly, this way:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Old Testament; I have not come to abolish it but to fulfill it.

Much more to come.

Parallelism in Experimental Nuclear Physics

2010-10-06T15:57:00.000-04:00

At CNU, January 6th and 7th

Fundy Irony

2010-10-06T10:33:00.000-04:00

It is no uncommon when examining the doctrinal statements of fundamentalist churches that both dispensational pre-trib premillennialism (Left-Behind-ism) and Young Earth Creationism are both elevated to essentials.

Dispensationalism owes its popularity to C. I. Scofield who was a genius. A misguided genius, but nevertheless a genius. Scofield did something that was then novel. He published his Scofield Reference Bible (1909, rev. 1917) in which he embedded his notes and extensive cross-referencing scheme--unambiguously written from a dispensational viewpoint, into the biblical text rather than in a separate commentary. Combined with the fact that his notes were written with an air of absolute authority left many believers with the impression that Scofield's commentary had been vetted by ages and sages.

So, back to the fundy churchs that demand fealty to both dispensationalism and YEC-ism.

What about the hero of dispensationalism, the undisputed heavyweight champion, C. I. Scofield? He needn't apply. Maybe the Methodists will take him. Why?

Because C. I. Scofield was an Old Earth Creationist.

It is interesting--dispensationalism is the only systematic theology developed in the scientific era. As such, Scofield was well aware of fact that geology teaches us that the earth is old. So he embedded a particular form of OEC into his notes: the gap theory. He taught of an unknowable (from scripture, at least) long period of time between the first verse of the bible and the second. When he picks it up in the second verse he sounds like a YEC--he taught literal 24-hour days and even included Bishop Usher's calculations (with the dreaded 4004 BC result) in his original notes. So many people think was a YEC. But he wasn't.

Even in the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible (from which the Ussher chronology was purged) the notes in Genesis state that the age of the universe is unknowable from scripture.

Not funny and low class...

2010-09-20T11:56:00.000-04:00

is no way to go through life, son.

Coyne the poet :

But sometimes even God falls down
And makes a poor pathetic clown:
Yes, poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make Behe.

Barf.

Coyne is one of those people who, every time he tries to make a joke--it just ends up making you cringe. If you want a witty new atheist, it's Hitchens, PZ, or nobody. On average they're a dire, humorless lot. You'd think they were Calvinists for crying out loud.

Remember when Uncommon Descent was worth visiting?

2010-09-15T18:32:00.000-04:00

Ah—sweet nostalgia—a post on Uncommon Descent that harkens back to the good old days when Dembski would post Harold Camping-like prophetic utterings about the precise moment the ToE would die a thousand painful deaths. Or the "Brites" would provide hideous, amateurish, and sometimes grotesque photoshop caricatures. Or the famous Judge Jones Flash video with gastrointestinal sound effects. Sigh. I could go on and on, but eventually the weight of nostalgia becomes overwhelming.

I don’t visit UD much anymore—it has become more or less irrelevant and, even worse, boring. The site really misses the pugnacious DaveScot—without whom UD is not only devoid of scientific value, but it also lacks entertainment value—and I mean that as a genuine compliment to DaveScot. His often outrageous posts and comments and internecine warfare made UD one of my daily must stops—even long after I was banned.

But now—we have this gem of post by someone named GilDodgen (what is it with UD and conjoined bylines?) who who has a theory as to why his UD posts generate many comments:

My thesis is that people like me, a former materialist atheist, who have been influenced by logic, reason, and evidence (i.e., the ID movement) represent the greatest threat to the reigning nihilistic and anti-intellectual Darwinian orthodoxy.

Yes, I can see that. I can imagine Richard Dawkins experiencing bladder control problems just thinking about the threat named GilDodgen .

Can you say "Street Theater?"

If we traded him for future considerations, I don't think we'll get much

2010-09-15T13:33:00.000-04:00

I suppose that at least it's nice when the nut isn't an evangelical Protestant. Well, okay, he once was a Protestant. But ~~we shipped him off to~~ he moved over to Rome. And make no mistake about it, Robert Sungenis is as nutty as a fruitcake.

He has organized the First Annual Catholic Conference on Geocentrism. That's right--not Young Earth Creationism, but geocentrism.

Don't worry about the weather--after all there is no Coriolis force.

I'm so glad I missed the Battle of Armageddon

2010-09-15T11:47:00.002-04:00

According to Left-Behinders, the armies of the antichrist, no doubt knowing their ultimate fate (I mean, geez, everyone has read LeHaye and Jenkins) will nevertheless oblige prophecy and rage a final, spectacularly anticlimactic battle with a forgone result, the so-called Battle Of Armageddon.

Sorry. It ain’t gonna happen. Because it already did happen.

Armageddon is mentioned but once in the New Testament, in Rev 16:16:

Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon. (Rev 16:16)

In his fine book Last Days Madness Gary DeMar¹ quotes a famous Left-Behind guru, the late John Walvoord, former President of Left Behind University, The Dallas Theological Seminary:

The prophets have described [The Battle of Armageddon] as the final suicide battle of a desperate world struggle centered in the Middle East.

I’m not sure what prophets he is referring to—but they are indeed prophets if from the vague Rev. 16:16: Then they gathered the kings together to the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon they were able to discern the specifics of World War III.

DeMar offers an alternative for explanation of the Battle of Armageddon: It is the “Waterloo” for ancient Israel. I think he is correct. Of course, who can be sure about anything when it comes to Revelation?—but it smells right—especially in light of the book’s first verse:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. (Rev 1:1)

Whatever the Battle of Armageddon is—the first verse of Revelation tells us that it is in the past, not the future.

In a nutshell, DeMar’s argument is that the Battle of Armageddon refers to the complete and devastating Roman response to the Jewish rebellion, which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, the desecration and conflagration of Temple, and the permanent end Jewish ceremonial worship.

John’s vision, according to DeMar, is a warning to Israel: you are about to meet your Waterloo.

Armageddon refers to a city, Megiddo. According to DeMar this city was ingrained in the collective minds of the Jews as a place where incurring God’s wrath was the price paid for Jewish disobedience:

While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Neco faced him and killed him at Megiddo. (2 Kings 23:29)

God told Josiah not to war with Egypt. Josiah disobeyed. DeMar quotes David Chilton concerning the consequences beyond the king's death:

Following Josiah's death, Judah's downward spiral into apostasy, destruction, and bondage was swift and irrevocable (2 Chronicles 36). The Jews mourned for Josiah's death, even down through the time of Ezra (see 2 Chronicles 35:25), and the prophet Zechariah uses this as an image of Israel's mourning for the Messiah.²

So the Battle of Armageddon is a stark warning that, at the time of John’s vision, bad times were a-coming, they were and coming soon. And indeed they did. Israel’s Waterloo was far more devastating than ~~England’s~~ Napoleon's—it was nothing less than a holocaust. More than a million Jews were killed. Hundreds of thousands were taken into Roman bondage. And the Jewish system of worship was destroyed, never to be restored again.

¹ Yes that Gary DeMar, ardent proponent of the non-bliblical, loony-tunes position of Christian Reconstructionism/Theonomy. It just goes to show that even nuts can recognize nuttiness. It especially grieves me that this particular brand of yahoos (the Presbyterian intellectual theonomists) tend to be postmillennialists and partial-preterists—both both perfectly reasonable eschatological views. Sigh.

² David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: an Exposition on the Book of Revelation, Dominion Press, 1987, 411-412.

Mr. Frick, meet Mr. Frack

2010-09-14T18:23:00.002-04:00

Jerry Coyne has a post entitled: Obama is an Athiest

P.Z. Myers has a post entitled: Obama is not an Atheist

These American assets are two of our nation's über-rationalists! How can their vaunted philosophical naturalism bring each to conclude the exact opposite of the other? The mind reels! Does this not mean that at least one is being irrational? May it never be!

I also find it amusing that some atheists (like Coyne) will say that President Obama is a bald-faced liar--i.e., that Obama's claim of Christianity is total B.S.--while at the same time some atheist heads will explode if a conservative Christian does the same thing--questions Obama's Christian bona fides.

These people really need to introduce Mr. Right Hand to Mr. Left Hand.

For what it is worth I agree with PZ. The President appears to be a rather garden-variety liberal Christian.

This ain't your daddy's CNU

2010-09-08T18:35:00.000-04:00

We're Number Three!

The ranking for average SAT scores for incoming (2010) freshmen at Virginia's public universities is:

1) William and Mary
2) University of Virginia
3) Christopher Newport University (~1200)

Some bragging and some caveats are reported in this article from our student newspaper, the Captain's Log.

This puts us ahead (on this one measure) of two much better-known universities: Virginia Tech and James Madison.

To be honest, the data show a sizable gap between the flagship UVa (maybe high 1200's? I can't remember) and CNU. Then CNU, Va Tech, JMU and maybe Mary Washington are grouped tightly around the 1200 mark--so it was really a crap shoot how that ordering came out.

Nevertheless, the fact that we are in this grouping is quite remarkable. Over the last ten years (only) our average SAT scores have increased by 240 points. I don't know if any other university has seen such an improvement--if so, there can't be many. This, along with $500M capital improvement plan, are some of the reasons U.S.News has named us a "school to watch." We believe we are on the cusp of being in their tier-2 of national liberal arts universities. Again, this would have been unthinkable not many years ago.

Good job CNU!

CNU's I.M. Pei designed Ferguson Center for the Arts

Two Things I found amusing today (so far):

2010-09-08T10:48:00.000-04:00

1) A student asking me: "I overslept for class--did I miss anything important?" Tom Wayman has the answer:

Nothing. When we realized you weren’t here
we sat with our hands folded on our desks
in silence, for the full two hours.

    Everything. I gave an exam worth
    40 percent of the grade for this term
    and assigned some reading due today
    on which I’m about to hand out a quiz
    worth 50 percent.

Nothing. None of the content of this course
has value or meaning.
Take as many days off as you like:
any activities we undertake as a class
I assure you will not matter either to you or me
and are without purpose.

    Everything. A few minutes after we began last time
    a shaft of light suddenly descended and an angel
    or other heavenly being appeared
    and revealed to us what each woman or man must do
    to attain divine wisdom in this life and
    the hereafter.
    This is the last time the class will meet
    before we disperse to bring the good news to all people
    on earth.

Nothing. When you are not present
how could something significant occur?

    Everything. Contained in this classroom
    is a microcosm of human experience
    assembled for you to query and examine and ponder
    This is not the only place such an opportunity has been
    gathered but it was one place.

    And you weren’t here

2) The crowd at Jerry Coyne's blog debating whether determinism negates moral responsibility. The idea that free will is an illusion is the Gordian knot for the philosophical naturalism gang O' nattering nabobs of negativism. Watch them as they try to connect the unconnectable: that we should choose to hold people morally culpable for their choices even though they had no choice (nor do we) because free will is an illusion.

This is a "get the popcorn ready" moment on Coynes's blog. There are already some beautiful insights, such as:

As for moral responsibility, it remains intact under determinism, but our responsibility practices might become more effective and compassionate if we gave up the myth of libertarian freedom,

and the succinct, dogmatic assertion:

Determinism != Fatalism

Jerry's kids sure do know how to bedazzle.

Thoughts from 1 Timothy

2010-09-07T11:39:00.002-04:00

I’ve been discussing elsewhere the fascinating passage from Paul’s first letter to Timothy:

⁸Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, ⁹understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, ¹⁰the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, ¹¹in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. (1 Tim 1:8-11)

This is juicy stuff. It talks about law—which is always fun. It mentions homosexual sex—the word actually used is ἀρσενοκοίτης, (sodomite) which always inflames rhetorical passions. And it condemns slave traders—there the word is ἀνδραποδιστής, which is enslaver or man-stealer.

First we deal with the law. Wasn’t the law abolished? I think it was—I think the New Testament in whole makes this clear. And I think two passages in particular make it explicit:

¹⁴For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility¹⁵by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, ¹⁶and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Eph 2:14-16)

And

For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Heb 7:12)

But what does it mean that the law was abolished? It means that the laws that governed religious and civil life for an ancient nation under the old covenant were abolished along with that nation. They did not carry over into the new “nation” which is the entire world (Jews and Gentiles) and without borders—we are aliens and pilgrims in whatever country we find ourselves. However this does not mean what was sin is no longer sin—blasphemy is still blasphemy—but the demanded civil penalty of stoning is gone. We no longer live in a theocracy. And of course the laws—what is sin—have been upgraded. It is not merely actions that Jesus condemns, but thoughts.

Those who claim to live by the Ten Commandments as their moral code are Christian sissies. Their code is inadequate. The Ten Commandments are trivial when compared with Jesus’ teaching that lust = adultery and hate = murder.

In fact, I think it is fair to say the whole notion of sin changed following the cross. The bracelets capture the old view: What would Jesus Do? The new view is Not just WWJD, but WWJT (Think)?

The passage then describes ways in which we might trespass and here we have the politically incorrect and dreaded mention of sodomy. There is no way to avoid it—it is right there. Right along with a list that contains something for everyone. Not a homosexual?—well do you ever lie? Never? Well Paul still gets you with the whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine which would include those pesky just-as-bad thought sins Jesus describes in the Sermon on the Mount.

So is sodomy a sin? Yes, it inescapably so designated. Should we send homosexuals to reorientation camps to train them to be straight? No. Besides the fact that they don’t work, that is not how sin is supposed to be dealt with. If we sent every man who lusted (remember, just as bad as one of the biggies, adultery!) to camp—well you can form the mental image.

Finally it is worth mentioning that the passage condemns enslavers, or slave traders, or men-stealers. It is easy to deduce an implicit New Testament teaching against the practice of slavery—but often it is useful to remember this one explicit condemnation.

TMI

2010-07-19T10:25:00.000-04:00

My wife, whom everyone would agree is out of my league, looked especially sexy at church yesterday. I'm not sure what that means...

Who'da thunk it?

2010-07-16T09:03:00.000-04:00

I write like
H. P. Lovecraft

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

God and Baseball Statistics

2010-07-15T15:16:00.003-04:00

In the six days of sports creation, God created sports successively closer and closer to the perfect divine image. To be precise:

Day 1: Basketball (Intended for the Nephilim, to keep their minds off the daughters of men. Alas it didn't work, because the sport was too boring, and the daughters of men were hawt.)
Day 2: Soccer
Day 3: Real Football
Day 4: Hockey
Day 5: Baseball
Day 6: NASCAR

And on the seventh day he watched NASCAR. And it was very good. Except for Mark Martin hitting the wall in turn two.

A "Sports Theodicy" is an attempt to explain the puzzle of where figure skating, gymnastics and Formula One Racing came from, since God had nothing to do with these. He is never the author of sports that are highly feminized.

Though baseball is not the pinnacle of sports creation, it's darn close. And it has been given the special honor as the sport-most-holy in its conduciveness to statistical analysis.

We all know about batting average (BA). If you don't—well in the words of that great American philosopher Foghorn Leghorn, "I say, there's just something yech about a boy who don't, I say don't like baseball." BA is simply the number of hits divided by the number at bats. By divine fiat the number of significant digits shall always be kept at three. Never four, and five is just out of the question. And thou shall omit the leading zero, lest thou be sentenced to be a Pittsburgh Pirate fan.

So a player who has 207 hits in 611 at bats has BA of .339.

A more interesting statistic is the batting average on balls in play (BABIP). For this statistic, you take the number of times the batter gets the ball in play, i.e., hits it into fair territory, divided by plate appearances. Strikeouts and home runs are excluded. Sacrifice flies, however, count as plate appearances. The formula is:

BABIP = (H – HR)/(AB – K – HR + SF)

where H is hits, HR is home runs, AB is at bats, K is strikeouts, and SF is sacrifice flies.

By comparison, the regular batting average is given by:

BA = H/AB

The average BABIP is around .300. Usually, but not always, a hitter's BABIP is higher than his BA.

Here is where things get interesting. If you are a general manager and your team needs a hitter, you generally snag the one with the highest BA. But suppose there are two players available with the same BA but different BABIP. For example:

Bill Buckner: BA: .280, BABIP: .290
Omar Moreno: BA: .280, BABIP .340

Which would you take? The counter-intuitive answer: take Buckner, the hitter with the lower BABIP.

Why?

Because it turns out that to a good first approximation once a batted ball is in play whether or not it results in a safe hit is random. Does the ball go to where a defender ain't? So a BABIP below the average of .300 indicates a player who has, statistically speaking, been unlucky. His BA should be higher. Conversely a player whose BABIP is higher than .300 has been lucky. His BA is artifically high.

Over time you expect the BA of a player with a high BABIP to drop, and the BA of a player with a low BABIP to rise.

So take Bill Buckner. Send Omar Moreno to AAA.

The Unreasonable Success of Physics

2010-07-15T07:10:00.020-04:00

Interesting quote from Feynman (HT: Martin LaBar)

What is it about nature that lets this happen, that it is possible to guess from one part what the rest is going to do? That is an unscientific question: I do not know how to answer it, and therefore I am going to give an unscientific answer. I think it is because nature has a simplicity and therefore a great beauty. Richard Feynman, "Seeking New Laws," pp. 143-167, in Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, New York: Modern Library, 1994. Quote is from p. 167.

At the risk of quote-mining, since I don't have the book, this appears to be Feynman's version of Wigner's famous Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics argument. Wigner^* wrote

The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.

Both Feynmann and Wigner, in my reading, conclude that science can never answer the question as to why science and mathematics work as well as they do.

If you consider all the talking points in ID--irreducible complexity, privileged planet, cosmological fine-tuning--some of which I find useless (irreducible complexity) and some of which I find interesting (the apparent sensitivity of life to the values of constants) no one observation from the world of science or mathematics has ever struck me as a more powerful apologetic than Feynman's and Wigner's point.

The world is not only governed by orderly laws, but those laws are expressible in simple enough terms that we can make sense out of them and use them to make astonishingly accurate predictions. As Feynman suggested, if I read him correctly, science can never explain why this is so. It is, in fact, unreasonable that this happens.

I often think of it this way. The dawn of modern science arrives with Newton. Newton's Second Law is a simple linear differential equation. (Probably trivial is a better word--speaking not of Newton's insight--which was genius--but of the degree of difficulty of his equation.) One can only speculate in a What if Eleanor Roosevelt could fly? manner what would have happened if Newton's Second Law had been a complicated nonlinear differential equation (or even a simple nonlinear differential equation)--but it is not far-fetched to argue that science would have been stillborn.

^* Here is a likely apocryphal story one of my professors told about Wigner. He was already famous when, in 1930, Princeton recruited him from, I believe, Göttingen (Germany). His arrival was a big deal with lots of fanfare and hoopla. And of course all the Americans, not wanting to look stupid, went the extra mile to pronounce his name correctly.

On Wigner's first day of work his secretary answered the phone:

"May I speak to Professor Wigner?" asked the caller, pronouncing the w in Wigner like a garden-variety trailer-park w.

"Professor 'Vigner' is not available," the secretary answered, pronouncing the w like a v. "May I take a message?" She relished correcting this person--probably another annoying reporter.

"No thank you, I'll call back," the woman on the phone said. Which she did, a half hour later. The conversation was similar:

"May I speak to Professor Wigner?"

"Professor 'Vigner' is not available," the secretary answered, this time with added emphasis on the correct pronunciation. "May I take a message?"

"No thank you, I'll call back," the woman on the phone said. Which she did, a half hour later. Now her third attempt:

"May I speak to Professor Wigner?"

"Professor 'Vigner' is not available," the secretary answered, now exasperated. "May I puh-lease take a message?"

"Very well," the woman said. "Just tell him Mrs. Wigner called."

Heartwarming

2010-07-14T11:23:00.005-04:00

Holocaust survivor dances with grandchildren at the sites of concentration camps. (HT: Ed Brayton).

UPDATE: The video was removed from YouTube. I hope you had a chance to see it.

UPDATE 2: Seems to be working again.

UPDATE 3: Seems to be gone again. Very zen.

Ken Ham, what's that you say?

2010-07-13T14:16:00.000-04:00

Ken Ham is losing it.

On his website he gives his take on the Copenhagen Declaration on Religion in Public Life. Said declaration is the product of atheists meeting in Copenhagen. I thought about commenting on it earlier but then decided against it. Why?—because it is noteworthy only for being utterly noncontroversial. That is, it is not radical. Not radical means not sexy. It was not worth a convention in Copenhagen to derive that document—but then again conventions are never really cost effective.

That is probably a mistake—not to write about it, that is. I should have posted it and stated: Here is what a bunch of atheists with too many travel funds have to say—I generally agree with most of it. I could nitpick it, but more or less it is all vanilla.

Not so, says Ken Ham. Old Kenners lapsed into paroxysms of self-righteous indignation. And the way he did it was bizarre. He went through declaration quoting paragraphs verbatim. And then he rewrote the paragraphs, inserting his own words. And then, apparently, he gave himself the vapors over his private version of the text. He deserves a straw-man argument “red card.”

For example, the declaration stated:

We recognize the unlimited right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief, and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others.

(You see why I didn’t comment on it—who could argue with such apple-pie views?)

Ham rewrites this into the official hammerized version:

We recognize the unlimited right (even though we have no objective basis for “rights” in our system) to freedom of conscience, religion, and belief—except for Christians—and that freedom to practice one’s religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights of others (this is the golden rule: “do unto others . . . ” for which we have no logical basis in our way of thinking)—except for Christians, as we reject Christianity totally and must try to eliminate it.

Juuusssst a bit of an extrapolation. Does he get up in the morning and ask: how can I make Christians look stupid today?

Another example:

We assert the need for a society based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. History has shown that the most successful societies are the most secular.

becomes

We assert the need for a society based on democracy (even though this has no logical basis in our evolutionary worldview)—as long as the absolutes of Christianity are not allowed—human rights (for which we have no basis), and the rule of law (which protects the weak from the strong—despite the fact that we believe in evolution, which is about the strong dominating the weak). History has shown that the most successful (“successful” by our arbitrary dogma) societies are the most secular—just like the countries led by Mao, Pol Pott, Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, and many more (killing off millions of human animals for their cause).

Dude—check your meds.

What Ken Ham (or anyone else ) could try to do is to present a case, with references, showing that the marquee new atheists don’t measure up to the Copenhagen Declaration. Does PZ’s crackergate live up to these lofty standards? Maybe yes, maybe no—but in any event you could at least try to put together a story. What Ham did was---not even wrong.

Vandal Scandal

2010-07-10T12:26:00.002-04:00

Vandal Scandal

Chrissy Satterfield writes for the vomit-inducing WorldNetDaily, a webzine that, in its deplorable, insatiable desire to entwine Christianity with right-wing politics, to offer Obama "birther" theories and encourage Christian victimhood persecution complexes, misses no opportunity to be an utter embarrassment to the One True Faith.

They only manner in which Christians should be offensive is in those situations where people find the gospel to be offensive. Then we dust off our feet and move on. In no other circumstances should we go out of our way to be offensive.

Isn't that obvious?

Chrissy Satterfied doesn’t get it. She editorialized about a story of Christian vandalism of an atheist billboard. Someone spray-painted words "Under God" on a message of "One Nation Indivisible." In doing so she took the lowest of low-roads. She applauded it. She said it restored her hope. (What, we may ask, is the foundation of her hope if it can be restored by criminal mischief?). She named her article (OK maybe an editor named it, but if so he named it aptly) My Kind Of Vandals.

Just when I start believing there is no hope for our country I get a little reminder from my God that all is not lost. It was reported June 29 that a billboard sign sponsored by a North Carolina atheist organization had been vandalized. The ad reads, "One Nation Indivisible." It seems someone didn't think the sign was an accurate depiction of our Pledge of Allegiance, so the vandals inserted "Under God" with spray paint – and I couldn't be more relieved. It's nice to know that I am not alone in my beliefs and that some people are still willing to stand on the right side of the truth.

What a pinhead. Standing on the right side of the Christian truth is about presenting and living the gospel. And living the gospel never involves destroying someone's property. Duh.

Absolute right and wrong? Ehh, not so much for Ms. Satterfeld:

Never would I encourage vandalism, but in this case I think I'll let it slide.

Why that’s might relative of you.

I don’t know what New Testament Ms. Satterfeld reads. It must be the one where Paul went to Mars Hill and painted fish on all the statues.

Satterfeld rationalizes:

What did this group think would happen? They placed this controversial message on a billboard that just so happens to be on a street named after Rev. Billy Graham. Did they expect the response to be positive?

No. I expect the response to be law-abiding. They probably didn't expect the response to be positive--that's why you put up provocative billboards--to elicit strong responses. And they succeeded. If this was a game, we ended up on the losing side, and Chrissy Satterfield is no more than a cheerleader for our ineptitude.

Tuesday Child Puzzle

2010-07-08T17:58:00.008-04:00

There has been a lot of chatter about the Tuesday Child puzzle:

I have two children. One is a boy born on a Tuesday. What is the probability I have two boys?

Everyone's instinct is to say: Tuesday has nothing to do with it, so the answer is simply 1/2.

That answer is wrong. Here is the trouble with everyone's intuition: they read the problem as: I have one son born on a Tuesday, what is the probability that my next child will be a son? There the answer is 1/2. But that is not the problem at hand--here both children are already born. It's a different problem

The answer is actually 13/27 = 0.481, not 1/2.

Let's accept that for now. If you Google you'll find a lot of proofs, some with tables and some using complicated Bayesian analysis. I'll get the result later, via simulation, but for now we'll assume it is correct. But the way to think about it is this: there are lots of ways that two children can be born on any of seven days, say Boy on Tuesday and Girl on Saturday, all with equal probability, and exactly 1/4 of them have two boys. But as I place constraints, such as Boy on Tuesday, many of the possibilities are eliminated and the probabilities change. For example, I can place a very tight constraint: I have two children, one is a son born Tuesday and the other is a son born Saturday. What is the probability I have two sons? Why it is one of course, because all arrangements except Boy on Tuesday and Boy on Saturday have been eliminated by the constraints.

Of course Tuesday really has nothing to do with it. What is relevant is that a boy is constrained to be born on one specific day—any day would do--this could just as easily be the Friday Child Puzzle. It is the limitation that one of the children is a boy born on one specific day out of seven that is relevant.

To see this, assume you asked:

I have two children. One is a boy born on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. What is the probability I have two boys?

Clearly this is the same as simply asking: I have two children, one is a boy, what is the probability that the other is a boy? Here the answer is clear—the possible arrangements given that we have at least one boy are: BB, BG, GB. They occur with equal probability, so the probability of BB (two boys) is 1/3.

We could generalize the puzzle this way:

I have two children. One is a boy born no later than day N where N is 1..7. What is the probability I have two boys?

Let's call that probability P(N).

So the original form of the puzzle is: what is P(1)? The answer we are accepting (for now) is not 1/2 but 13/27.

The second form of the puzzle, where the constraint is a boy born on any of the seven days, could be stated this way: what is P(7)? That we just demonstrated is 1/3.

What is the meaning of P(0)? This would mean that the first boy wasn't born on any day. This pathological case becomes, simply, what is the probability that the other child is a boy, which is our beloved 1/2.

Let's make a prediction. We have:


P(0) = 1/2 = 14/28
P(1) = 13/27
P(2) = 12/26
P(3) = 11/25
P(4) = 10/24
P(5) = 9/23
P(6) = 8/22
P(7) = 7/21 = 1/3

P(2) through P(6) is a prediction from an obvious pattern. Let us remember what this means. P(1) is the probability of two boys given that one son is born on one specific day, say Tuesday. P(2) is the probability given that one son is born on one of two days, say Tuesday or Wednesday. Etc., etc., etc.

I wrote a Monte Carlo for this problem and the results are:


Days   Prob of 2 boys
-------------------
 P(1)             0.4811

P(

2)             0.4615

P(

3)             0.4399

P(

4)             0.4167

P(

5)             0.3911

P(

6)             0.3631

P(

7)             0.3336

These are good approximations to the predicted fractions above. The zero row is not in the output because it is a pathological case and the code won't handle it.

Note that P(1), as advertised, is 13/27.

The probability (that the second child is a boy) drops smoothly from P(0) = 1/2 (when in effect there is no first child) to 1/3 when the first child is a boy, born any day.

The JAVA program is given below.

public class TuesdayChild {

//constant defining a boy baby
   private static final int BOY = 0;

//method that randomly selects a sex
   private static int randomSex() {
     return (int)(Integer.MAX_VALUE*Math.random()) % 2;
   }

//method that randomly selects a day, 0--6
private static int randomDay() {
    return (int)(Integer.MAX_VALUE*Math.random()) % 7;
}

//main method
   public static void main(String arg[]) {
     TuesdayChild tchild = new TuesdayChild();

//how many trials per iteration
     int numTrial = 10000000;

//hold the results for each case. We will vary the
//number of days one boy is constrained to be born on
//from 1 (corresponding to the problem as stated) to 7
     double results[] = new double[7];

//loop over the constraint days
    for (int numDays = 1; numDays <= 7; numDays++) {
      int passCount = 0; //number of trials passing constraint
      int twoBoyCount = 0; //subset that have two boys

//now loop over the trials
     for (int i = 0; i < numTrial; i++) {
      Trial trial = tchild.new Trial(numDays);
      if (trial.keepTrial()) {
        passCount++;
        if (trial.twoBoys()) {
          twoBoyCount++;
        }
      }
    }
    results[numDays-1] = ((double)twoBoyCount)/passCount;
}
//now print the results
   System.out.println("Days Prob 2 boys");
   System.out.println("-------------------");
   for (int numDays = 1; numDays <= 7; numDays++) {
      System.out.println(String.format("%d %8.4f", numDays, results[numDays-1]));
    }
}

//class for a single trial
   class Trial {
//sex of child 1 and child 2
   int sex1 = randomSex();
   int sex2 = randomSex();

//day of birth child 1 and child 2
   int day1 = randomDay();
   int day2 = randomDay();

//this will determine how many days we constrain the birth
//of one boy. It can be 1--7. At one, one boy will be constrained
//to be born on one day, such as Tuesday. This is analogous to the
//puzzle as stated. If it is two then one boy is constrained to be
//born on two days, say Tuesday or Wednesday. If it is seven, one boy
//is constrained to be born on any day. This is the same as simply saying
//you have one boy. The answer for that case should be 1/3.
   int _max;

   public Trial(int max) {
     _max = max;
}

//see if we keep this trial because at least one of the two children
//was a boy born within the constrained number of days
   public boolean keepTrial() {
     return ((sex1==BOY)&&(day1<;_max)) || (sex2==BOY)&&((day2< _max)); }

//see if this trial has two boys
   public boolean twoBoys() {
     return (sex1 == BOY) && (sex2 == BOY);
     }
   }
}

First new review in years

2010-07-07T18:28:00.000-04:00

My book has been out five years and has dropped in rank to something like 2-millionth on Amazon. I am not sure how much lower it can get--but I guess I'll find out. I have a few good reviews there--but I never had a review on B&N. For whatever reason I decided to check, and to my delight I now have a review on B&N, and it is very recent. And its five stars:

Posted June 5, 2010, 5:18 PM EST: This is a relatively unknown book so I was skeptical at first but it did not disappoint! I read the entire thing in two days. Sometimes in the bookstore I pick up a book and have to read a chapter or so before I buy it because I can't remember if I've already read it. This book is nothing like that. It's definitely one of those books you will remember.

Now how could I argue with that?

Mrs. Calvinist can write!

2010-07-07T15:58:00.000-04:00

Here she recounts a recent job interview for our autistic son Luke. The interview was for a church accompanist. This is his second such interview. He didn't get the job the first time, and is likely not to get the job the second time.

It's not because he isn't a good enough musician--he is. It is unlikely, though possible, that a more musically gifted person got the job. The problem is that he instills discomfort in music directors--they realize they will have to learn how to deal with someone who doesn't communicate verbally all that well--at least when the instruction is not purely in musical terms. They will have to deal with someone different. It's a burden.

The first time Luke didn't get the job I wanted to ask the music director if he ever read Matt. 25:40.

It is really their loss, seriously. There is one constant about every church we have been in--that is the unanimous agreement that Luke--both his attitude and his music, are a huge blessing.

Comments

2010-07-07T14:06:00.000-04:00

In changing my template I discovered that I have rid myself of the haloscan (or whatever they are now called) comments. I am now using blogger comments.

The old comments are lost. I apologize--not that I think many people will care. But I have to switch--the son-of-haloscan system was too hideous in many ways.

♫ How many times must a man be wrong, before you call him a Jerry? ♫

2010-07-07T10:28:00.001-04:00

No matter how many times Jerry Coyne is wrong, he can always find more ways to be wrong. Today he has a post entitled: What evidence would convince you that a god exists?

Claiming the high road, which is like Bernard Madoff staking out a position of "ethical businessman," Coyne writes:

In contrast, the faithful do not (and cannot) specify what observations would disprove their beliefs—or the whole basis of their religion.

It’s your turn. If you’re one of the faithful reading this, feel free to post those observations that would convince you that God doesn‘t exist.

Well Jerry I would, but in addition to Dembski’s Uncommon Descent and a far-right YEC forum, the only other blog on which I cannot post comments is your blog.

So what he really means is: If you are one of the faithful whose IP address I am not blocking, feel free to post your observations. And what he really really means is that the faithful will not provide such a list.

So here is a short list, just to, yet again, prove Jerry wrong:

1) Archeological proof that the synoptic gospels were written after AD 70. Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple within the timeframe of a generation is so specific that if it were shown to be written after the fact it would destroy the credibility of the bible.

2) Archeological proof that the biblical writers conspired to fabricate the story of the resurrection.

3) Except when the bible is referring to a miracle, a demonstrably false scientific statement in its text.

4) The scientific demonstration of the String multiverse. That is, if it is demonstrated that there is a semi-infinite number of universes each with different fundamental constants, essentially randomly drawn constants, then my faith would be shattered.

5) The scientific demonstration of Smolin’s Cosmic Evolution theory.

6) Scientific proof of the claim of many atheists (and what should be the claim of all atheists)that free will does not exist.

I could go on and on.

I have done this before—addressed this challenge on other blogs such as Panda’s Thumb. The response is always the same: No, these things would not make you renounce your faith.

Comparative Views of the End Times (Lesson 2-2)

2010-07-06T16:25:00.000-04:00

Will teach this series next fall. These lessons have been posted before--way back in 2003--but I'll be updating.

Overview of the Four Views

Today, in preparation for in-depth studies, we will give a final overview of the four views we have been discussing. Our goal is to understand the basic rudimentary positions and chronologies of the four views before we begin investigating underlying theology, scriptural support, and scriptural weaknesses.

Recall that, of the four views, two are premillennial, meaning that Christ returns before the millennium of Revelation 20. These two are dispensational premillennialism and historic premillennialism. Two views are postmillennial, teaching that Christ will return after the millennium. These are amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism teaches that Christ will return after the millennium, and that the millennium is a future golden age on earth where the church will reign victorious.

I’m not dead yet

Postmillennialism reached its apex in the American church in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Its optimistic outlook fit nicely in the "Age of Reason (and science)", but it suffered two near fatal blows in the twentieth century:

Overall optimism with man’s ability to affect beneficial change through education and science was replaced with pessimism born of two world wars, genocide, and the advent of weapons of mass destruction.
Postmillennialism became "guilty by association" with other optimistic perspectives, including secular progressivism (man can improve the world on his own) and religious liberalism (man is basically good and can improve the world if he gives occasional credit to the big grandpa in the sky.)

In The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), Hal Lindsey wrote:

No self-respecting scholar who looks at world conditions and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a postmillennialist.

Dispensationalist J. Dwight Pentecost put it this way:

Postmillennialism is no longer an issue in theology. World War II brought about the demise of this system.

Actually, I’m feeling better

Nevertheless, postmillennialism has fought back, and is once again on the increase. The first criticism is answered by pointing out that things might already be getting better, especially if one views long term trends, and also if one takes into account the non-Western, non-white Christian church. In addition, it is not what is happening now that is relevant, but what scripture promises will occur before the Second Coming. The second criticism is rebutted by stating clearly that, unlike the secular progressives and religious liberals, postmillennialism does not suggest that the golden age is achieved by man’s efforts through better government, increased education, etc., but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Basic Features

The basic features of postmillennialism are: ^{11, 12}

The Messianic Kingdom was founded on earth during the earthly ministry of Christ in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. The New Testament church is the transformation of Israel, the Israel of God about which Paul writes:

Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule, even to the Israel of God. (Gal. 6:16)
As the gospel spreads throughout the earth and brings its divinely intended and Spirit-energized results, evil (and perhaps an antichrist) is routed and the millennium arrives.
During this era, Satan is bound and the nations live in peace. The great commission will succeed. The kingdom of Christ will gradually expand.
After the millennium ends, Satan is loosed to lead a final, short-termed (and doomed) rebellion.
Satan’s rebellion is ended by the triumphal return of Jesus. Only in postmillennialism does Jesus return to a church victorious (a victory achieved through His power, not man’s). In all other views, Christ returns to a church on the run.
The Second Coming is followed by the general resurrection, the judgment, and the eternal state—heaven and hell.

Smooth Transition

Another feature of postmillennialism is there is no discontinuity. The church age gradually transits into the millennium, perhaps even imperceptibly. As more are regenerated through the Holy Spirit, there will be a diminishing of evil in human affairs, but this will occur slowly. The changes that occur will be changes in extent, not content. ¹³ Postmillennialism’s dominance during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is reflected in some of the great hymns of that era. For example Lead On O King Eternal (#483 in our hymnals) contains these postmillennial lines: For not with swords loud clashing, Nor roll of stirring drums; With deeds of love and mercy, The heav’nly kingdom comes. The hymn Joy to the World! Which we sing as a Christmas carol, is actually proclaiming Christ’s Sceond Coming (not His first) from a postmillennial perspective.

Dispensational Premillennialism

During the twentieth century, dispensational premillennialism replaced postmillennialism as the dominant viewpoint among American evangelicals. At its apex, it was so pervasive as to become a test of orthodoxy, like the doctrine of the Trinity or The Incarnation. Theologian Clarence Bass wrote of his encountering this position (that dispensational premillennialism is an essential of Christianity):

Even today some of my dearest friends are convinced that I have departed from the evangelical faith. No affirmation of my belief in the cardinal doctrines of the faith—the virgin birth, the efficaciousness of Christ’s death, the historicity of the resurrection, the necessity of the new birth, even the fervent expectancy of the personal, literal, actual, bodily return of the Lord to earth will convince them because I have ceased to rightly divide the word of truth. ¹⁴

Dispensational Premillennialism has two aspects that make it very appealing:

It employs a literal hermeneutic of interpreting biblical prophesy.
It seems to fit very well and even "foresaw" the current state of the world, especially in regards to the Middle East. The creation of Israel in 1948 was a spectacular boost to dispensational premillennialism. The break-up of the Soviet Union, the secularization of Israel, and the over-expansion of the European Union has restrained some of its excessive prophetic boasting.

Basic Features

Dispensational Premillennialism has the most complex feature set and chronology of all the views: ¹⁵

God offered the Davidic Kingdom to the Jews. They rejected it, and it was postponed to the future.
The current church is a "parenthesis", unknown to the Old Testament Prophets.
God has separate programs for the church and Israel.
The church will continue to lose influence, ultimately becoming apostate at the end of the church age.
Christ returns secretly to rapture the church before the tribulation (the seventieth week of Daniel). The church is taken to heaven to stand before the "judgment seat of Christ" and celebrate “the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19)
On earth, the appearance of the antichrist marks the beginning of the tribulation.
After the tribulation, Christ will return to fight the battle of Armageddon. Israel acknowledges Christ as the long awaited Messiah. Christ establishes and administers a Jewish political kingdom based in Jerusalem for 1000 years. Satan will be bound, the temple will be rebuilt, and animal sacrifice will be re-instituted.
Those who are converted during the tribulation, including the 144,000 Jews, go on to repopulate earth.
Near the end of the millennium, Satan will be released and Christ will be attacked at Jerusalem.
Christ will call down judgment from heaven and destroy His enemies. The (second) resurrection and the (Great White Throne) judgment of the wicked will occur, initiating the eternal order.

Historic Premillennialism

In the modern era, historic postmillennialism is increasing. Some scholars believe that as classic dispensationalism wanes, its former proponents, desirous to hold on to a premillennial view, are turning to the older variant. Grenz writes: Many of the evangelical thinkers who rejected classical dispensationalism remained staunchly premillennial. Consequently, for guidance in the constructive theological task they took another look at the history of doctrine. To their delight they discovered that a tradition of non-dispensational premillennialism has been present in the church at least since the patristic era. Basic Features The basic features of historic premillennialism are: ¹⁷

The New Testament church is the initial phase of Christ’s Kingdom, as prophesied by the Old Testament prophets. ¹⁸
The church may win occasional victories in history, but ultimately she will fail in her mission, lose influence, and become corrupted as worldwide evil increases toward the end of the church age.
The church will pass through a future, worldwide, unprecedented time of travail (the Great Tribulation), which will punctuate the end of contemporary history.
Christ will return at the end of the tribulation to rapture the church, resurrect dead saints, and conduct the judgment of the righteous.
Christ will then descend to earth with His glorified saints, fight the battle of Armageddon, defeat the antichrist, bind Satan, and establish a worldwide political kingdom which will be personally administered by him in Jerusalem for 1000 years.
At the end of 1000 years, Satan will be loosed and a fierce rebellion will ensue. God will intervene with fiery judgments to rescue Christ and the saints. The resurrection and judgment of the wicked will occur and the eternal state will begin.

The main feature distinguishing historic premillennialism from dispensational premillennialism is the post-tribulation rapture. The blessed hope of the church, according to historic premillennialists, is not the rapture but the Second Coming. However, the main theological underpinning that distinguishes the two premillennial views is that historic premillennialists believe that the church is indeed the new Israel, and that covenantal relations between the God and the Jews have passed over to the church. Unlike postmillennialism, the millennium is not inaugurated gradually, but suddenly through the appearance of Christ at the end of the tribulation. Also unlike postmillennialism, historic premillennialism anticipates a gradual deterioration of conditions. Christ returns to “rescue” a church in retreat, not to be welcomed by a church victorious. Historic premillennialists anticipate worldwide peace and harmony during the millennium. They also look for the effects of the fall on nature to be removed or greatly mitigated during the millennium. The age will enjoy a cessation of hostility among the animals and man: ⁸ The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. ⁹ They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea. (Isa. 11:8-9)

Amillennialism

Amillennialism sounds of if it teaches no millennium. In fact, what is holds is that the millennium is now. Proponents prefer to be called present or realized millennialists.

Basic Features:

The present church age is the millennium; it is also the Kingdom era prophesied in the Old Testament.
The New Testament church is the "spiritual" Israel. However, some amillennialists hold that, for example, the phrase "all Israel" (as found, for example in Rom. 11:26: and so all Israel will be saved ) might indeed refer to ethnic Jews, but unlike dispensationalist view they are not the Jews of an eschatological nation of Israel but the elect among the Jews, i.e. the remnant.
Satan was bound, or more accurately restrained, during Christ’s ministry, particularly when he was defeated on the cross and in the initiation of the great commission. Consider Luke 10:18:

And He said to them, "I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. (Luke 10:18).

Given that this is spoken to the 70 returning disciples, an amill might view it as referring not to Satan's original fall but to the reduction of his power concurrent with Christ’s ministry.
Christ is ruling now through the hearts of believers. The Kingdom of God is now. Thus amillennialists are delighted with verses that read "The Kingdom of God (or Heaven) is at hand”, which they say implies a near term fulfillment.
Toward the end of the age, evil’s growth will accelerate (Satan’s is unleashed, for a short while, as described in Rev. 20) culminating in the tribulation and (possibly) the appearance of the antichrist.
Christ will return to end history and judge all men. The same glorious consummation described in all views.

Unlike postmillennialism which has a gradual or evolutionary aspect to it, amillennialists actually proclaim the biggest discontinuity of all the millennial views. The present church age, is the Kingdom of God. Satan is already bound although not completely powerless (hence the paucity of demonic possession?). Throughout this age, a diminished (but strengthening) kingdom of evil will coexist with the Kingdom of God. Both will be replaced virtually instantly (in the twinkling of an eye) with the eternal dispensation. There is no 1000 year buffer between this age and the ultimate age. This age, and indeed history itself, will end abruptly with the Second Advent, which will occur in the midst of a final intense persecution of the church.

General Chronology

The main feature of the amillennialist end-times chronology is its simplicity and suddenness. The present age, which is the millennium, ends. The eternal state begins. This is evident in the following summary of William E. Cox, as quoted by Grenz: ¹⁹

When the trumpet sounds, things will take place simultaneously. Our Lord will begin his descent to the earth, the brightness of this event will put down Satan, and all the graves will be opened…All the saints will go together to meet the Lord and to escort Him to the earth. …The unsaved … will be forced to bow the knee and acknowledge that this is of a certainty the Christ… They will see the suffering Servant reigning now as Judge of the quick and the dead, and they will seek a place of hiding but will find none: Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Rev. 1:7)

Reasons to be Pessimistic

While postmillennialism is criticized for being unrealistically optimistic, amillennialism is charged with being too pessimistic. There is no rapture to spare believers from the tribulation. Nor is the tribulation reserved for unconverted Jews. The church itself will endure the tribulation (and may be doing so right now) as things gradually get worse, perhaps culminating with the appearance of the antichrist. The is no danger in this view being co-opted by utopian liberal progressives, as was the case with postmillennialism. The different eschatological views also result in different anticipations in terms of the numbers of people saved. Postmillennialists, who look forward to the ultimate success of the great commission in converting many nations, generally expect a much more "populated" heaven than do the amillennialists.

¹¹ Grenz, The Millennial Maze, pp. 72. ¹² Kenneth Gentry, as quoted in Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, pp. 200-201. ¹³ Grenz, pp. 71. ¹⁴ The rightly divide is a reference to classic dispensationalism, which its proponents claim “rightly divides” God’s plan into (usually) seven distinct dispensations. ¹⁵ Kenneth Gentry, as quoted in Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, pp. 197-198. ¹⁶ Grenz, pp.127-128. ¹⁷ Kenneth Gentry, as quoted in Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, pp. 199-200. ¹⁸ This is in vivid conflict with dispensationalism, which holds that the present church age was unforeseen by the Old Testament prophets. ¹⁹ Grenz, 152-153.

Another One Bites the Dust

2010-05-06T18:20:00.000-04:00

Jerry, the lidless-eye Grand Inquisitor, finds another scientist who is beyond the pale of orthodoxy: Biologist Steven Benner. Beware: Jerry never rests. Never. Finding faitheists and accommodationists is not a pleasant job, but Jerry and PZ (PZ is Roy Cohn to Jerry's McCarthy) will, out of their love for humanity, leave no stone unturned.

Benner's apostasy is that he wrote a article on The Dangers of Advocacy in Science. Even worse, the article was published in the den of iniquity: Francis Collins's BioLogos site, a Gomorrah that advocates the Unpardonable Sin: a dialogue between faith and science.

Now reading this and this you might be tempted to say: Richard H. Dawkins!! Jerry was too busy to get any of the facts right and Benner pwnd him! What's up with that?

That would be a huge mistake if not a sacrilege. One that I wouldn't make, if I were you. You must remember that Jerry's work is so important that the usual standards of fairness and accuracy do not apply. Those constraints, if you will, are for little people. Not for Jerry.

Internet Atheist Facts O' Fun

2010-05-05T12:29:00.010-04:00

Here are my favorite inviolate laws of internet atheism. I'm sure I've forgotten many--so if you have any you'd like to add, leave them in the comments.

The Law of the Converts: Every atheist who claims to have been a devout Christian was. Every Christian who claims to have been an atheist, wasn't.

The Pharyngulyte Corollary to the Law of the Converts: The more the atheist's deconversion was due to encountering someone similar to a Revrun' Mike, a prototypical Baptist minister who wears a white suit, chews tebaccy, routinely preaches on evilution and miscegenation, and instructs young children (under six, when they're impressionable) with explicit images of unimaginable torture in hell (which they must color in Sunday School), the more credible and weighty is the testimony.

The Law of the Biblical Knowledge: Atheists in general know more about the bible than Christians—who in fact only read certain parts of their so-called holy book.

The Law of the Biblical Scholars: Atheist biblical scholars are credible because they have no agenda. Christian biblical scholars lack credibility because they have an agenda.

The Law of the Useful Idiots: Dime-a-dozen atheist Religious Studies professors such as Hector Avalos at Iowa State are useful. Just don't let them know that when we're in charge the first thing on the chopping block will be Religious Studies Departments. ¹

The Law that Blind Faith is The Ultimate Christian Virtue: Christians are never told to think, only to accept without thinking. Using your brain, they are taught, is not sporting. Those pesky Bereans are never a model for actual Christians. And never mind that those praised for their faith in the Faith Hall of Fame (Hebrews 11) had no need for blind faith since they spoke to God, demanded proof of God, and witnessed miracles. (This is also known as the Tom Gilson is Neither Law.)

The Law of Bright Darkness: The worse the behavior of a Christian, the more honest the Christian is. For example, this comment from a reader on Ed Brayton's blog²:

If you really want to see the most honest adapation [sic] of what the bible and Christianity really stands far if you follow the most literal interpretation of the bible, go to Phelps.

The I-Say-Therefore-I-Am Law: Questioning the sincerity of self-identified Christians such as Fred Phelps (or the Big H—-you know, that guy with the funny little mustache) is immediately dismissed as a No True Scotsman Fallacy. The definition of a Christian is: "anyone who claims they are a Christian."

Exception to the I-Say-Therefore-I-Am Law: Anyone questioning the atheism of an inconvenient self-proclaimed atheist is granted blanket immunity from the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It's only fair.

The Ipso Facto No Atheist Is That Bad Law: Stalin and Mao were not atheists. They were demigods of the religions Stalinism and Maoism. We know this because mass murder on such a scale can only be committed by religionists.

The Law of "When Ken Ham is right, he is really right!: YECs like Ken Ham are the dumbest jackasses in the world. Except when they interpret Genesis One. For that single chapter in the bible they are exegetical savants.

The Coyne Corollary to the Law of Ken Ham: Ken Ham is also correct in his claim that modern science and Christianity are incompatible.

The Law that Logical Proofs regarding God are like Diodes: All logical proofs for God are trivially wrong³. However, the construction:

P1: God is omnipotent.
P2: God is omnibenevolent.
P3: Human suffering exists.
C1: Therefore P1 and/or P2 is wrong.
C2: Therefore God does not exist.

is bulletproof.

The Law of the Atheist Hermeneutic: The most important verse in the bible is "Judge not, lest ye be judged." This means that Christians cannot judge Fred Phelps (for example) to be apostate. How dare they! As for the verses that follow (don't give what is holy to dogs, pearls before swine,--verses that would seem to presuppose judging) as well as the verses which seem to indicate how they are to judge (by their fruit) —and also those verses that describe excommunication—which again presupposes judging--well for Christians to bring those up is disingenuous.

The Ruby Tuesday Law: The second most important passage in the bible is

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

This means that the only reason Christians don't call for stoning of blasphemers or condone slavery is that they are cafeteria Christians. Arguments that this passage means anything other than "All Levitical Laws are still in effect" are to be dismissed as evasive. Be prepared to dismiss summarily alleged counter-arguments such as:

Jesus encountered blasphemers and didn't call for their stoning.
Jesus upgraded the law in the Sermon on the Mount. (To, effectively, not "What Would Jesus Do?" but "What Would Jesus Think?")
A phase transition occurred on the cross--it wasn't just an interlude after which things returned to normal.
Jesus violated Levitical rules on the handling of lepers and the Sabbath.
Jesus claimed he was Lord of the Sabbath and that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Peter has a vision telling him to ignore the Levitical food laws.
The church's first council, recorded in the Book of Acts, voided the sacrosanct law regarding circumcision.
In the Old Testament animal sacrifices were commanded. In the New Testament their use for the same purpose would be an abomination.
Consider this passage concerning Jesus:
For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, (Eph. 2:14-15).
Consider this passage about Jesus the new High Priest:
For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Hebrews 7:12).

All these are but red herrings. The full force of the Old Testament law—a law intended for a nation that no longer exists—is still in effect, and only honest Christians like Fred Phelps admit it. All others are cowardly hypocrites.

[UPDATE: Andy H's suggestions are spot-on, and spurred me to add my version of his law on miracles and a couple of related items:]

The Law of Small Miracles: All theists believe in the mother-of-all-miracles: that the creative force behind the universe is God. Some such theists (e.g., His Vomitousness, The Bishop John Shelby Spong) are ~~useful~~ tolerable because while they quietly accept this big miracle, they loudly poo-poo what are by comparison itty-bitty miracles, like Jesus walking on water.

Irrefutable Proof that Miracles can't happen: Miracles, by definition can't be explained by science. Everything can be explained by science. Therefore miracles can't happen. Because they can't be explained by science. Therefore science and religion are incompatible.

The Law of Axiomatic Incompatibility: Science is how we know what we know. Science demands experimental testing. Nothing is exempt from this requirement. Except for The Holy of Holies: The Incompatibility of Science and Religion. It has no observable effect. Nobody has ever designed an experiment that demonstrates the incompatibility. But nevertheless it's true axiomatically. Like A = A.

¹ In a broken-clock sort of way, on this I am in agreement.
² To be sure, I would bet the farm that Ed would call this guy an idiot.
³ See footnote 1.

People get paid for this? (Or: Please no, not the MRI of death!!!)

2010-05-03T23:18:00.001-04:00

I find this kind of funny. On this peculiar blog named Language Log they are debating what is wrong with the construction of a comment I made on one of my own posts. The post was this one; it concerned free will. And my comment was this:

If free will is an illusion, then deterrents are an illusion. How can a deterrent make me choose not to commit a crime, unless I have the facility of choice?

Which they misconstrued, but that is neither here nor there. What is fascinating is that educated people are arguing over exactly what is the precise diagnosis of my comment's pathology. They going after it with a vengeance, something like Dr. House and his team investigating a mysterious illness.

The author of the post, whom I assume is the Dr. House, thinks the problem is petitio principii (question begging.) That is, I sneaked the conclusion (the existence of free will) into the premise. And also reductio ad absurdum. His crack team, naturally, takes exception. One writes:

Grrr. That's ad absurdAm - ablative case, if memory serves.

That would be Dr.Forman. Another clarifies:

but [heddle's argument] doesn't really seem to involve a concealed assumption of the existence of free will, just a failure to have thought of alternative explanations.

That sounds like Taub, don't you think?

And then--well which team member thinks out of the box?

Heddle's argument doesn't seem to be a reductio. Rather, it seems to be a straight-forward modus tollens. Or, to be a bit more accurate, whether it's a reductio depends on how one wants to reconstruct it. The simplest reconstruction seems to be as a modus tollens

That's 13! I just know it!

I can't wait until Dr. House's epiphany, where it turns out I am actually suffering from a conjunction fallacy (Latin name?) complicated by a mild case of Ignoratio elenchi.

I'll take PZ Myers calling me an idiot anytime over this bunch of pseudo-intellectual losers.

Seer Reviewed, or I'll take "Bar Trivia" for $500, Alex.

2010-05-03T15:33:00.001-04:00

Like a gigolo or philanderer looking for his next ex-wife, the ID community, with a similar regularity, is proudly launching it next failed "peer-reviewed" journal: Bio-Complexity. The editorial board is veritable who's who of ID proponents:

David Abel, Origin of Life; The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, United States
Douglas Axe, Protein Structure–Function; Biologic Institute, United States
William Basener, Statistics and Population Modeling; Rochester Institute of Technology, United States
Michael Behe, Biochemistry and Biological Complexity; Lehigh University, United States
Walter Bradley, Origin of Life; Baylor University, United States
Stuart Burgess, Biomimetics and Biomechanics; University of Bristol, United Kingdom
Russell Carlson, Biochemistry; University of Georgia, United States
William Dembski, Mathematics and Information Theory; Discovery Institute, United States
Marcos Eberlin, Chemistry; State University of Campinas, Brazil
Charles Garner, Prebiotic Chemistry; Baylor University, United States
Loren Haarsma, Biophysics; Calvin College, United States
Peter Imming, Organic Chemistry; Martin Luther University, Germany
James Keener, Bioengineering and Mathematics; University of Utah, United States
David Keller, Biophysical Chemistry and Molecular Machines; University of New Mexico, United States
Branko Kozulic, Biochemistry; Gentius Ltd, Croatia
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Plant Genetics; Max Plank Institute for Plant Breeding Research (retired), Germany
Jed Macosko, Biophysics and Molecular Machines; Wake Forest University, United States
Robert Marks, Evolutionary Computing and Information Theory; Baylor University, United States
Norman Nevin, Medical Genetics; Queen's University of Belfast (emeritus), Ireland
Edward Peltzer, Ocean Chemistry, United States
Colin Reeves, Genetic Algorithms and Information Theory; Coventry University, United Kingdom
Siegfried Scherer, Microbial Ecology; Technische Universität München, Germany
Ralph Seelke, Microbiology; University of Wisconsin-Superior, United States
David Snoke, Physics and Modeling; University of Pittsburgh, United States
Richard Sternberg, Genomics, Cladistics and Theoretical Biology; Biologic Institute, United States
Scott Turner, Physiology, Ecology and Evolution; State University of New York-Syracuse, United States
Jiří Vácha, Pathological Physiology and Evolutionary Theory; Masaryk University (emeritus), Czech Republic
John Walton, Chemistry; University of St Andrews, United Kingdom
Jonathan Wells, Cell and Developmental Biology; Biologic Institute, United States

Well, fair-enough—any group can band together and publish their own papers. All it takes is a website—although with even such modest requirements previous ID "journals" are littered not with submissions but electronic tumbleweed.

But a board like this--such a board! Why, it is reminiscent of mailman Cliff Clavin (of Cheers! fame) and his "dream" board when he appeared on Jeopardy.

You really have to wonder how, with a deck stacked like this, Dembski could write, with a straight face:

"Check out this new ID-relevant ["ID-friendly" is too strong -- ID proponents will get no preferential treatment] peer-reviewed journal"

Technically he is correct. It is peer-reviewed. In their case it's a bug, not a feature. It is peer-reviewed--just like the Journal of Homeopathy is peer-reviewed.

An interesting blog...

2010-05-03T10:54:00.000-04:00

named What did I just step in?

A guy named Joe thinking about Calvinism--and not exactly liking what he finds.

Unspoken Communication

2010-05-03T09:07:00.001-04:00

On Saturday I took my son to a Triple-A baseball game in Norfolk. We were already seated when a man and his son came and sat next two us. In about three seconds this happened: he looked at my son, I looked at his son, and we both looked at each other and said, without words, Yes, my son is autistic.

Of course it wasn't long very long until everyone around us figured there was something different about our sons. But it was amazing the way we made the diagnosis, instantly, before either son had displayed any overt characteristic behavior.

I wonder if anyone has studied the speed and accuracy with which a parent can diagnose autism, compared to a trained psychologist.