A reply to ignorance

I recently came across this video on YouTube. I would love to ignore it, because it is so childish, but apparently, some people consider this kind of assertion as worthwhile. So I have crafted the following response, which YouTube prevented me from posting in its entirety:

This video is rife with faulty arguments and poor understanding of the Bible:

1. The 10 Commandments are only part of the Mosaic law given to the Jews as the structure for their theocracy, The Jews rejected this covenant, so God fulfilled it and gave a new one in Christ. Therefore, the consequences demanded for breaking Old Testament Law are no longer applicable, even if the principles of the Law still are.

2. You use the word innocent, but you define that word as it suits you. If people commit acts prohibited by the bible, they are guilty of those acts (whether you consider them sin or not.) I am not "innocent" of writing this post, neither are they of their behavior, so innocent is an inappropriate word.

3. Christ often uses hyperbole in his teachings. Your reading of his teaching of "self-amputation" is childish and silly. Do you read Kafka, Dostoevsky, Pirandello, or even Saroyan as flatly and wooden as you read the Bible? If so, you don't understand their writing either.

4. Sexism. It is well recognized by ancient scholars that Christ and his followers shattered the glass ceiling regarding gender rights. In contrast to the verses you cherry-picked, the Bible considers women as reliable witnesses in the accounts of the resurrection (which they were not by their society or any other society for many years), worthy of inclusion in accounts of events (often they were completely ignored in other extant works of the time), and even as equals - "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 16:3). There is no mention of women being worth less than men, but men and women have different roles within the body of Christ.

5. Slavery. In the ancient economy, slavery did not have the racial baggage associated with it since the 17th century. Without a middle class, it was a necessary manner of employment. In fact, some modern translations often use the word employee instead of slave, because that is the kind of relationship the original authors had in mind.

6. Assumption of morality. How can the bible be repulsive without a grounding in objective morality? Why is your morality superior to the morality presented in the bible (or any other book)? There are difficult passages in the bible (like your quotes from Isaiah and Hosea) but if God is the creator, he decides what is moral - not us.

---

I would love your comments, especially critiquing my arguments. Thanks in advance!

-Kyle

Evidence for God, in 500 words or less

The following is an adaptation of an article I wrote for a high school newspaper. I was asked to write an opinion article about anything I chose, so I chose a topic as controversial as I could!

In this article, I will provide (in 500 words or less) rational evidence for the existence of a self-existent, omnipotent, eternal being. In short, God. I'm not proselytizing, but I believe a cogent (logically coherent) argument can be made on this subject. I will attempt to be absolutely balanced, logical, clear, and brief. If I fail on any of these points, please feel free to show my error!

I will begin with a valid syllogism.

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a reason for its existence.

Premise 2: The universe exists.

Conclusion: The universe has a reason for its existence.

Most things are "causal," meaning something else brought them into being - you are the result of your parents, thoughts are caused by a thinker, etc. However, if everything required a cause, nothing would ever get started! This is called the problem of infinite regression. The answer is that not everything requires a cause. Some things have their existence in their own nature, like numbers. How can you have anything without having "one" thing? Numbers are self-existent, but since they are abstract, they are causally impotent - they cannot cause anything to happen. Self-existence and causal power (potency) are necessary to create anything.

Additionally, the cause of the universe must be immaterial, as "universe" is our word for all material things, and material can't exist before material is created. It must also be greater than its creation, as nothing can create something greater than itself. (People create other people, and buildings, and arguments, but nothing eternal or omnipotent. Bunnies make other bunnies, and holes in the ground, but not rational arguments.) Therefore the creator of the universe is more powerful than anything in the universe - which by necessity, means omnipotent.

Also, science tells us that time began when the universe began, as time is integrated into the material of the universe. (Einstein's theories spell this out, but he stubbornly refused to believe that the universe hadn't always existed, in spite of the logical and scientific impossibility of that belief.) Therefore, the cause of the universe must have existed "before" (or exists beyond) time, and therefore be eternal.

Lastly, at the core of our person is the concept of identity - it is what makes us who we are. Our bodies change, our thoughts may change, our names may stay the same - or not - but our identity remains throughout our life. But how do we arrive at our abstract concept of identity? In a word - sentience, which is the ability to perceive discrete feelings, thoughts, and experiences. As mentioned before, entropy prohibits creative forces from developing more complex entities than themselves. Therefore, since we are clearly sentient (as Descartes so beautifully stated - "Cogito, ergo sum") whatever created us must be sentient as well.

To sum up, if the universe exists, it must have been created by a self-existent, omnipotent, immaterial, eternal, sentient being. Now who does that sound like?

Or maybe nothing exists...

The Insanity of the Pro-Choice Argument

(With gratitude and acknowledgement to Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.)

What is the unborn?

This is really the only question that matters in the abortion debate.  If the fetus is not human, then abortion is no worse than the necessary euthanasia of unwanted animals at the local Humane Society.  If however, the unborn creature is human, then how can its destruction be justified at any point in the pregnancy?

This argument is designed to be passionless, but still incites strong emotions because of the subject matter.  But really, if the argument is this simple, why is it fought so vehemently and with so much agitation?

This is not really a matter of choice - at least from a legal perspective.  Killing a non-human is not a crime (except sometimes as a civil matter if you kill something that doesn't belong to you, which doesn't apply in this case), and unjustified killing of a human is homicide.  This is a simple matter, legally speaking.  Extenuating circumstances may lead to differing degrees (1st, 2nd, or 3rd) or qualifications (manslaughter, aggravated, etc.) but it is the crime of homicide(person-killing) nonetheless.

It may be argued that not all humans are persons, but this is the same argument used by Nazis, the KKK, slave-traders, and other racists, sexists, and others throughout history.  This doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument, but it certainly puts those who would use it in dangerous company.  And in fact, I believe any attempt to define the differences between human and person would be a merely philosophical distinction, whose sole purpose would probably only be to provide different values to each - one higher, one lower.  That is a dangerous game to play on any level, and even if the definition is found to be useful, how does one decide the timing?  In other words, even if you make the distinction, when does the fetus gain full "personhood?"  This question is unknowable through scientific research, as it is a question of metaphysics.  Therefore, who gets to make this critical, morally culpable decision?

Currently, that decision is given to the mother, but in no other legal or moral context is that kind of decision allowed without accountability.  In fact, it is a crime (negligence and/or conspiracy, depending on context) to act in a way that might injure a person, even if that injury never occurs.  But in the case where a "possible" person is certainly killed (abortion), no crime is committed?  But more importantly, many view this as morally acceptable?

Hence, the title of my this post...

Veritas

Truth - wither hast thou gone?

Since most of my posts here will involve issues that border on or involve truth, I think we should come to an agreement on what that means.  I apologize for the length, but issues of value often take time to understand, and I hope to not waste your time or mine with issues without value.

Some say that truth is an illusion or that it doesn't exist at all.  Rarely is this said blatantly - the weight of incredulity is too heavy for such a statement - but subtle shadings of deceptive or incomplete thought often go unnoticed by the vast majority of society.

What do I mean by truth?  Merely, that which accurately reflects reality.  That which disagrees with reality is untrue, and everybody easily recognizes and dislikes being treated in ways which don't correspond or reflect reality.  If you work 40 hours and are paid for 20, not many will agree that the employer's decision merely reflects their perspective, which is as valid as any other.  Indeed, if you really work 40 hours, then you should be paid for 40 hours, true?

However, when claims are made that are less easily testable, most are willing to believe that all perspectives are equally valid.  I have heard it said that all religions are equally true and all lead their followers to God, and many people allow this to be said, whether out of tolerance or outright foolishness, I cannot say, but this claim is logically impossible.  If Judaism says Jesus was not the Messiah and Christianity says he was, one of them has to be wrong.  If Islam says that Mohammed is the most important prophet and Buddhism claims that that title goes to the Gautama Buddha, they may both be wrong (it could be somebody else entirely), but they may not both be right.  This is because of the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same way.  This seems self-evident when stated in this way, but far too often, casual thinking (which we are all guilty of from time to time) does not push this far in testing ideas.

As I mentioned at the top, the weight of incredulity prevents direct statements of the law of non-contradiction, but indirect allusions and incomplete thought processes often lead to statements such as "this is true to me," and "that's your opinion."  While it is true that some matters aren't matters of truth - strawberry milkshakes are better than chocolate, for instance - these matters of preference don't negate the reality of matters of truth.  If I say that I prefer chocolate over strawberry, I'm making a statement of preference and truth, and in fact it is a statement of untruth (I don't like chocolate very much), which as I stated before, are often easier to identify than statements of truth.

In conclusion, I hope that I have at least given you something to ponder and I trust you will let me know if you disagree with me.  Thanks for reading!

Introduction

There is a hint of narcissism in every blog, and I'm aware of the greater likelihood that my blog will suffer from that more than most.  I can only hope that anybody interested enough to read my blathering will be willing to add their thoughts to mine and start a discussion.  At least then we can be narcissistic together.

Actually, I'm hoping that that there will be discussion and even some debate within the boundaries of friendship (as iron sharpens iron, so one friend sharpens another.)  I chose the title of my blog as a reference to the greatest commandment to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself."  (Luke 10:27 NASB)  I'm hoping to use this space to discuss relevant questions at the intersection of faith, morality, and philosophy.  I don't claim to be an expert in any of these areas, but I have heard far too many poor reasons for why people believe what they believe in these areas, and I want to encourage loving with all your mind.

Let's begin by parsing that statement:  Love with all your mind.  (I have limited this blog to the mental aspect of the greatest commandment not because I think it is most important - certainly not - but because I think it is the most ignored in today's culture.)

1. Let's not overlook the first word - it is my belief that when people think correctly about other people, they can't help but love them - not in a gushy, mealy-mouthed, romantic way, but in the way that we recognize the humanity in others, and love and hate the same things about all people that we love and hate about ourselves.  Babies are often used in dramatic settings in movies and the like to demonstrate this kind of love.  The 2006 film "Children of Men" has a powerful scene in which a newborn baby stops a violent and deadly urban battle, if only for a few moments.  This is mostly because of the storyline of the film, but that storyline takes much of its poignancy because of the humanity expressed by the innocence of youth.  I would like everybody to be able to see the humanity of all people as much as we see the humanity of children.

2. The second word ("with") implies activity and agency - love is not an emotion, but activity that requires agency.  Shakespeare spoke well when he asked "How do I love thee?" because it is easy to speak of love without demonstrating it.

3. All means all.  Not the parts that you use for comfortable sound-bite theology or philosophy, or the parts that have been filled with other people's thoughts, but your entire capacity for thought.  None of us will be able to do this constantly, but I expect we try.  Please don't spout aphorisms or bumper stickers without examining the thought you are expressing.

4. "Your" relates to the last sentence.  What do YOU think?  There are plenty of placed to have opinions provided for you - I hope this is not one of those.  When leaving this site with a thought that isn't yours, it better be tested thoroughly first!

5. Some say we only use about 10% of our brain's capacity for thought - I'm not a scientist, so I can't bicker with the numbers, but I'm certain that the vast majority of people do not use the full capacity of their brain.  There are records of the entire Qur'an being memorized.  Orchestra conductors often conduct 80 instruments or more for an hour's worth of music from memory, while emoting, expressing and performing music (which is one of the most complex brain activities.)  Even mediocre chess players are expected to be able to plan several moves in advance and adjust them in seconds when a new move is made.  Dozens of other examples are extant - my point is most people waste the brain they were given, and I for one would like to change that.  Any takers?