Monday, December 20, 2010

A Break

I will not be blogging until after the New Year. I will be celebrating the birth of my Savior with family and want to devote my time to that. See you next year.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

MR Dawkins Doesn't Listen--Or Something

HT: Chris Shannon

Thursday, December 16, 2010

On the Blogger Commenting Issues

I had one commenter whose been quite fun to dialog with complain about the commenting problems that seem to permeate Blogger.

I actually have no control over the commenting issues, at least none that I know of.

When I get the too many character issue (over 4,096 or something), I just cut and paste into multiple posts. I always type my posts in Notepad or Word and then cut and paste.

The request URI doesn't keep it from posting, just hit back on your browser and it should be there; at least it usually is for me. It's annoying, but it is possible to work around.

Other than that, I'm certainly open to suggestions. Blogger's been doing weird stuff for a few months. I don't know why. I just think the hassle of switching providers would be too much, and I like the Google interconnection.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

What's Good for the Hitch is Good for the Dawk?

So apparently, the guy who shot up the Florida school board meeting and then offed himself was not only an uber-liberal, as evidenced by the V he pained on the wall in reference to that retarded movie V for Vendetta, but he also lists himself as a humanist on his Facebook profile. So let me ask, if it's okay for Dick Dawk and Humble Hitchens to use past committed atrocities done in the name of religion, is it okay for us to use this as evidence for the eradication of atheism?

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Why Muslim Immigration Should be Halted

This post, I think, makes a compelling case for halting Muslim immigration into western countries. This may sound harsh, especially since we've been influenced by the civil rights era and our view of the equality of people. I think it can be argued that controlling immigration is not devaluing human beings, and therefore isn't subject to the same kinds of criticism as racism and American segregation are. Countries have a responsibility to protect their borders and to control immigration in order to maintain cohesion in their societies, and the post I linked to shows that this just isn't possible with Muslims.

Read it before you comment, because I'm not going to interact with people who have obviously not given the post a chance.

Monday, December 13, 2010

Godlessons Slips Up Again

I decided to watch one of Godlesson's videos on youtube where he goes on about his moral relativism and how there's no proof of objective morality. Of course I had to challenge that. Some cliche things regarding the moral argument were said, but it got to a point where we began discussing one aspect of his video where he criticizes another video blogger for arguing from emotion. I asked him what was wrong with that. He responded:

Do you understand what 'argument from emotion' is? It is a logical fallacy. It doesn't help get to the truth, and if the truth is the ultimate goal, you should avoid it. If the ultimate goal is to sway weak minds, make use of all the logical fallacies you want.

Apparently he hadn't gotten my point yet, so I pressed him on it:

What's wrong with logical fallacies? Who says they are wrong? Who says the truth is what we should get to? Why is it wrong to come to false conclusions?

To which he responded:

I think the fact that you even ask why it's wrong to come to false conclusions shows how little you care for the truth. Why do you argue if you don't think it matters? If you don't think what you believe is true, why argue about it?

I think most of you can see where I was trying to lead the conversation here. He's saying it is wrong to reason incorrectly. As my logic teacher said, there is a moral component to reasoning. It is wrong to not try to discern the truth. My point is that godlessons is adhering to an objective standard here, when he says one doesn't exist. But these moral relativists always become moral objectivists at some point. Just like the Arizona Atheist got upset when he thought I was being rude to him, so has godlessons in the past. They don't really believe this drivel, they only say they do to avoid the truth of the divine judge who sees the sins they commit.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

More William Lane Craig Awesomeness on the Incarnation

Most of these great videos are posted by the person who goes by the tag drcraigvideos. Not enough can be said about the importance of this person's endeavor to post this information in a way that is so easily accessible. They have a blog as well.

Friday, December 10, 2010

My Comments / Refutations on the Claim that Relativity Theory Refutes the Kalam Cosmological Argument

I have done quite a bit of dialog over at Common Sense Atheism regarding relativity theory and its relation to the A and B theories of time and whether it forces us into a B theory of time, thus nullifying the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I think I sufficiently showed that it doesn't, and I used the findings and arguments offered by many who accept the neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity theory.

The comments are found at these posts: What is Special Relativity?, Time and the Light Box, and, A Map of Craig & Sinclair’s 2009 Defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I will post all of the comments I made, with most of the quotes I am responding to. For the full context, you obviously need to visit the posts.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Fringe and Mind Body Dualism

Fringe is my favorite show on television right now for several reasons. First, I love sci-fi, and there aren't enough shows that do it as well as Fringe does. Second, it addresses philosophical issues in a profound way. It gets you to consider different philosophical issues by opening up the imagination and exploring how certain things could be if certain other things were true. Like how should personal identity be thought of if there are alternate versions of yourself in a parallel universe. Third, Joshua Jackson has the best five o'clock shadow thing going on ever.

Tonights episode, Marionette, brought up a subject that I am somewhat interested in, and that impacts Christianity. An obsessed admirer of a suicide victim collects all of her organs that were donated to other people and puts them back in her body. Then, in an homage to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, he revives her.

What I thought was very interesting, and am surprised that the writers actually got right, was that when she was revived, it was clear she wasn't human, or at least wasn't what she once was. Later, the guy who revived her said that he looked in her eyes and knew what he brought back wasn't who he loved. I think this is obviously a recognition that the mind and the body are not one in the same, which the Bible constantly affirms. It also is interesting that the episode makes clear that it isn't possible for us to reunite these two things; the mind and the body.

Scripture teaches that one day, all who have died will be returned to their bodies and be judged by Jesus (Revelation 20:11-15). Those who are found to be in Christ will live with Him forever. Those not found in the Book of Life are cast into the lake of fire.

So in the end, the separation of soul and body will be rectified, and when we're resurrected we won't be empty husks like the girl in this episode of Fringe.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Blog Name Change

Famous early astronomer Johann Kepler said about his research, "I was merely thinking God's thoughts after him. Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."1 I have attempted to make this my goal in composing this blog. I feel I have learned much by posting and discussing things here, along with my personal reading in philosophy, theology, and apologetics. I hope to continue this with a new blog name that reflects Kepler's goal in thinking God's thoughts after him and have purchased a new domain name, I hope to attract more visitors and continue my learning process and hopefully help others come to think our Lord's thoughts as well.

1 Madison, Henry. Men of science, men of God: great scientists who believed the Bible. Master Books, 1982. 11-12. Print.

Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Response to Common Sense Atheism's The Science of Morality

I'm actually surprised that there is someone out there who thinks we can discover moral truths by performing scientific experiments, but Luke from Common Sense Atheism thinks we can. As I understand it, most ethicists would deny that science has this ability, and I'll explain here in my response (which I'm also trying to post as a comment on his blog, but am having issues), why this fails.

Luke says:

Now, I want to point out right away that that’s a strange claim to make, because usually, the phrase “OBJECTIVE moral value” means something like “moral value grounded in something beyond the attitudes of a person or persons.” Right? If what you’re calling “moral value” is just based off somebody’s personal attitudes, that’s called SUBJECTIVE morality.

I've seen this from you a couple of times, and despite it being answered even by fellow athesits it seems you still think it's a pretty strong objection.

Here are the issues. 1) It's a straw man. Theists, at least those who hold to the divine command theory you're attempting to critique, don't think that moral values are based in the attitudes of God, but in His very nature. His attitudes toward behavior flow from this essential part of His being. So you misled this audience.

2) It doesn't destroy the objective nature of the moral values that we are defending. These morals exist in spite of what anyone thinks, what anyone desires, what makes anyone happy, etc. All people are bound by them and all people will be judged by them in light of being made in the image of God. Innately, all people whose mental faculties are functioning properly apprehend these morals even if they don't believe in God; hence the common belief that some things are really wrong.

3)Who says that the well being of conscious creatures is a good thing; good enough to base our concept of morality off of? People all around the world would debate your assertions about "whether legalized abortion promotes the well-being of conscious creatures. There’s an objective fact of the world about whether or not female genital mutilation promotes the well-being of conscious creatures." What are you basing these personal opinions of yours on, Luke? Do you realize that the Muslim cultures that practice the latter are far outpacing the western nations that cringe at this practice in spreading their genetic code? Further, they would say it does produce the well being of those in their society because it keeps the women in line. You're just assuming your western ideals, fostered in a Christian context, are the thing that is the best for people. But the Mullah in Pakistan is going to ask, "who the heck are you?"

Even if the Nazis had won World War II and brainwashed everybody into thinking that killing people who aren’t white Europeans is okay, it would still be an objective fact that killing non-white people would NOT generally promote the well-being of conscious creatures. That would still be an objective fact.

The Nazi's thought it would, and that's why they acted on it. They thought the well being of humanity hinged on eliminating the Jews. Those who owned slaves and subjugated the rights of women thought that advanced the good of conscious creatures. It's subject to the prevailing perception of what is beneficial for conscious creatures. That isn't objective at all, Luke.

Further, who grounds the assertion that the well being of conscious creatures is worth promoting. Who says? What do conscious creatures have over non-conscious creatures? That sounds like specie-ism.

4) We do science? To discover morality? Really? Science can't tell us what actually should be considered a benefit to conscious creatures, because that is a personal opinion dependent on individual notions of what is beneficial. And that is just an arbitrary definition anyway. Does the moral fact that "we should advance the well being of conscious creatures" have some basis beyond the human mind? If not, it's subject to those human beings who think that way. There isn't actually a moral code that is objectively true and binding for all people, rather your formulation here is just as subjective as any other secular moral theory.

GK Chesterton Describes the "New-Atheists" in 1925

"They cannot be Christians and they cannot leave off being Anti-Christians. Their whole atmosphere is the atmosphere of a reaction: sulks, perversity, petty criticism. They still live in the shadow of the faith and have lost the light of the faith."