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 Therefore, the consequences demanded for breaking Old Testament Law are no longer applicable, even if the principles of the Law still are.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...