Tag: religion

WL Craig indulges in immorality

For did he not purposefully injure Sam Harris’s sense of well-being last night at Notre Dame? Based on the various summaries I’ve read, William Lane Craig had about as much trouble in his debate with Sam Harris as I thought he would, which is to say none at all. Unfortunately, as is all too often the case with Christian apologists, Craig didn’t go for the kill when Harris gave him the opening. I think it’s a mistake to refrain from destroying the credibility of the opponent in these circumstances, because whenever the atheist debater is not completely humiliated in an outright and undeniable manner, all of his little fans who are incapable of following the debate will inevitably declare their hero has triumphed.

But for those who are cognitively capable of following and comprehending the discourse, it was apparent that the outcome of the debate was settled as soon as both men made their initial points. As I expected on the basis of his most recent book, Harris lost the debate almost as soon as he opened his mouth.

Craig: If God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties, if God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.

Harris: Good means maximizing human well-being for the largest number of people. Religion is not necessary for a “universal” morality. Religion is a bad foundation for “universal” morality

As I pointed out in my column last November in which I reviewed The Moral Landscape, “Harris simply ignores the way in which his case falls completely apart when it is answered in the negative. No, we cannot simply accept that “moral” can reasonably be considered “well-being” because it is not true to say that which is “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong” is more than remotely synonymous with “that which fosters well-being in one or more human beings.” One might as reasonably substitute “wealth” or “physical attractiveness” for “well-being”.

Desperate appeals to science won’t suffice to paper over the well-known holes in utilitarian philosophy. Harris is so eminently predictable that he not only threw away the debate by basing his case upon his illegitimate redefinition of “good”, as expected, but he also twice engaged in his customary complaints about being misunderstood despite being directly quoted. Possible Worlds took notes and provided a summary of the debate:

Harris’ rebuttal was a strange, 12-minute diatribe where he offered literally zero arguments for his position. I do not mean he offered zero arguments which I found compelling or good. Just zero arguments altogether. He spent the time presenting the problem of evil and criticizing Christian particularism, both of which were irrelevant to the debate. Harris started to look angry during this portion of the debate. He also seemed to have given up the actual debate topic from here on out.

Craig pointed out that not only were no arguments offered for the naturalistic hypothesis, but that no criticisms of any of his arguments were offered as well! Craig did refer the audience to look into the critiques of Harris through Paul Copan’s book, Is God a Moral Monster?. Craig contended the point of Christianity was not eternal well-being, as Harris alleged earlier. Rather, the point is to worship God on account of who he is! Harris had mentioned in his diatribe that Christians are lunatics, and Craig dismissed this as “stupid and insulting.” I don’t know that I would have said it was “stupid,” but Craig did not come off very mean-spirited (but rather annoyed).

In Harris’ second rebuttal, he accused Craig of misrepresenting him, but did not offer any explanation. Harris defaulted to claiming that if you grant him certain axioms, then his account of morality is true, in much the same way as logic or math. The problem is that people generally don’t view morality to be transcendently true based on “nothing;” further note what this is asking the audience to do: just take his word for it. Take it on faith. He relies on objective morality’s being true, but then his argument just begs the question!

However, I suspect the most succinct summary was provided by a commenter at Wintery Knight’s detailed account of the debate: Sam Harris has spent an hour and a half talking about everything except the topic at hand. I’m not sure I’ve heard such a mix of red herrings and ad hominems before.

In which the squirrel meets the train

Sam Harris is debating William Lane Craig tonight at 7 PM EST. Since Harris’s arguments are so inept and factually incorrect that I could beat him in a debate while simultaneously playing ASL and Ms Pac-man, I tend to doubt Craig will have much trouble with him. It should be interesting to see if Craig elects to make his own positive arguments and challenge Harris to refute them or if he takes a cue from TIA and shreds the arguments that Harris puts forth.

Since the title of the debate makes it sound as if Harris is attempting to talk his book, The Moral Landscape, I suspect even many atheists will be underwhelmed by his futile attempt to use science as a basis for deriving ought from is. Anyhow, I’m not staying up to watch it, so if anyone feels so inclined, please go ahead and provide color commentary or summarize it here.

Reason without knowledge

It’s always informative to watch an atheist attempt to stumble his way to a conclusion that justifies his incoherent beliefs about religion and humanity, most of which are formed in near-complete ignorance of the former.

So Terry Jones, the Florida pastor who organized a Koran burning on March 20, wanted “to stir the pot.” Mission accomplished. Perhaps he’d care to explain himself to the family of Joakim Dungel, a 33-year-old Swede slaughtered at the U.N. mission in Mazar-i-Sharif by Afghans whipped into frenzy through Jones’s folly.

On reflection, no, there’s nothing Jones can explain to Dungel’s family, or the other U.N. staffers murdered. Jones is not in the explanation business. He’s a zealot. How else to describe a Christian who interprets his faith not as grounded in love and compassion but as a mission to incite hatred toward Islam?

There’s no discussion with a bigot like this: You can’t be argued out of something you haven’t been argued into in the first place.

There are so many things wrong with Roger Cohen’s column that it’s hard to know where to start. So, let’s begin with the aphorism, one that is popular among atheists, and like most popular atheist aphorisms, is easily shown to be both factually and logically incorrect. Cohen presents a modified form of the usual saying, which is that one cannot be reasoned out of a position one has not reasoned oneself into. But this is clearly false. Most of us possess opinions that are based on assertions that were made to us as children by parents, teachers, and other children, in fact, that is how we obtain most of our opinions.

Therefore, when one changes one’s long-held opinion based on a consideration of the relevant facts and logic, either internal or external, one is usually reasoning one’s way/being reasoned out of something one has not reasoned oneself into. As a child, I thought the crust was the healthiest part of the bread because my mother told me that when I was very young and I had never once stopped to think about the matter. Years later, when Spacebunny asked me to consider it, I quickly reasoned myself out of the instilled belief.

Now, why would the Rev. Jones have any need to explain himself to the family of Joakim Dungel? He didn’t put Dungel in harm’s way in Afghanistan. The government of the United States, the government of Sweden, and the United Nations bureaucracy all bear some responsibility for Dungel’s presence in the war zone that is Afghanistan, as did Dungel himself. Those who attacked the UN workers were not forced to attack them, they made a conscious choice to do so. And Korans are incinerated literally every day around the world, so the decision of Afghani Muslims to react with violence to a symbolic gesture is actually nothing more than scientific evidence in support of Jones’s hypothesis regarding Islam. If Rev. Jones is to be held “responsible” for burning a Koran, then the likes of P.Z. Myers must be held equally responsible for desecrating a Communion wafer.

It is ironic that Cohen, whose name indicates Jewish heritage despite his professed status as a non-believer, should attempt to utilize the term “zealot” as being somehow incompatible with genuine religious principles. To be zealous in one’s Christian faith is an excellent thing, as to whether that is true of Jones or not, neither I nor Cohen can possibly say with any degree of accuracy. Where Cohen goes wrong, as do so many ignorant non-believers, is to state that Christianity is grounded in love and compassion or that it has no place for hatred.

It all depends what the object is. Christians are told to love their neighbors and enemies alike, but also to hate evil and to shun the wicked. Compassion and forgiveness for the repentant is required, but wickedness is not to be tolerated. Jones did no harm to any individual man, woman, or child, he simply attacked what every Christian believes to be false.

Cohen goes on to write that believing Islam and the Koran serve violence, death, and terrorism is as dumb as equating Christianity with Psalm 137 that says the “little ones” of the enemy should be dashed against stones. But it is Cohen’s comparison that is almost epically stupid, as Psalms predates Christianity and isn’t even part of the Mosaic Law anyhow, whereas the Koran is the core of Islam. And it is a historical fact that Islam accounts for 50 percent of all the religious wars in history, which should come as no surprise given that it has always been a religion of the sword which has grown through military conquest rather than personal transformation. It takes an atheist to conclude that the core tenets of Christianity should be represented by pre-Christian poems from a different religious tradition.

Cohen claims that religion has much to answer for, in Gainesville and Mazar and Omagh. But atheism has even more for which to answer, in Pyongyang, Beijing, Colombo, Yangon, Hanoi, and Brussels. In any event, Terry Jones does not represent the worst that religion can do, in fact, he is one of the brave few calling attention to the worst that religion actually does, considering the bloody centuries of rule by the mighty caliphates of the past that the modern jihad is actively seeking to restore. Unlike Bush, Obama, Gen. Petraeus, and media figures like Cohen, Jones clearly recognizes for what the so-called Religion of Peace is and what it is not.

In conclusion, I note that like most non-believers, Cohen does not realize that it is not hatred and murder that are the antithesis of mercy and forgiveness, but rather self-assurance and pride.

Wishful thinking

Someday, scientists will learn that mathematical models only predict what they are constructed to predict. At that point, they will have finally intellectually evolved to the point of a 13 year-old computer programmer. Because computer models are neither studies nor are they science:

A study using census data from nine countries shows that religion there is set for extinction, say researchers. The study found a steady rise in those claiming no religious affiliation. The team’s mathematical model attempts to account for the interplay between the number of religious respondents and the social motives behind being one. The result, reported at the American Physical Society meeting in Dallas, US, indicates that religion will all but die out altogether in those countries.

I think it is far more likely that one or more of the listed countries, starting with The Netherlands, will become completely Islamic than it will become completely irreligious. The key logical flaw in the study is that in addition to positing that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive and that social groups have a social status or utility, it also posits that all social groups have equal utility.

But this isn’t the case, particularly when comparing religious groups with non-religious groups. The non-religious groups don’t provide their memberships with the same benefits as the religious groups, for the obvious reason that they are an intrinsically negative group, defined solely by what they are not. As atheists love to claim, none of them have anything in common with one another, except for the fact that they are uniformly smarter, more highly evolved, better educated, and morally superior on the basis of their non-belief. (Hey, I TOLD you they were irrational).

But even if the non-religious do have some things in common, this doesn’t mean that they will benefit from membership in the non-religious group the way that most religious individuals do. And, of course, ignoring the demographics in favor of cherry-picking one linear projection rather than another is rather unlikely to deliver a reliable predictive model. This is nothing new, it’s merely the same deluded assertion that has been repeatedly made by Enlightenment propagandists since the 18th century. They were wrong then and they’re wrong now.

UPDATE – AL notes that the “study” is even worse than it appears at first glance: “I was expecting a full demographic study. But all they have is a nonlinear model fit using datasets of nine particularly nonreligious countries (with the exception of Ireland). Even in the cases of Switzerland and Austria, they just use one canton/province — anyone with a passing knowledge of religious demographics knows that Vienna has been non-religious for a while. No data for the US either. Now, the authors claim that their model can be “perturbed” and be applied perfectly to other datasets to see similar results. I wonder what the results would be if one used the data for a Muslim country. Meanwhile, the Ikhwan just won the election for constitutional changes in Egypt and Gaddafi has vowed to pack France with immigrants if he goes down.”

75 percent

75 percent of the religious persecution around the world is directed at Christians. It is committed by the religious and irreligious alike. Meanwhile, Western liberals wring their hands about nonexistent persecution of Muslims and hunt for anti-semitic Nazis. When the militant arms of the Church of England and the Southern Baptists are openly committing murder without fear of prosecution, then perhaps they’ll have a case. Until then, they should shut up and look at what is happening around the world:

The British branch of the 64-year-old, Vatican-approved organization Aid to the Church in Need today released a report finding that a full 75 percent of religious persecution is currently being carried out against Christians. It further claims that, in two-thirds of the countries, this persecution has worsened. “For millions of Christians around the world,” the report states, “persecution, violence discrimination and suffering are a way of life as they live out their faith.”

Of course, secular society doesn’t care about Christians being persecuted, since a significant portion of it is actively and openly hoping to perform similar persecution itself. But that’s all right, because as before, the persecution will only serve to forge a stronger Church.

A failure of atheist logic

A former atheist contemplates the irrationality of atheist opposition to religion:

I had something of an epiphany. One night, after a long dinner, I was walking back to my hotel in downtown Salt Lake City at 2am and I suddenly realised: I felt safe. As any transatlantic traveller knows, this is a pretty unusual experience in an American city after midnight.

Why did I feel safe? Because I was in a largely Mormon city, and Mormons are never going to mug you. They might bore or annoy you when they come knocking on your door, touting their faith, but they are not going to attack you. The Mormons’ wholesome religiousness, their endless and charitable kindliness, made their city a better place. And that made me think: Why was I so supercilious about such happy, hospitable people? What gave me the right to sneer at their religion?

From that moment I took a deeper, more rigorous interest in the possible benefits of religious faith. Not one particular creed, but all creeds. And I was startled by what I found. For a growing yet largely unnoticed body of scientific work, amassed over the past 30 years, shows religious belief is medically, socially and psychologically beneficial…. Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship. This study clearly suggests there is a benefit in pure faith alone — perhaps this religiousness works by affording a greater sense of inner purpose and solace in grief.

This begs the question: Given all this vast evidence that religion is good for you, how come the atheists seem so set against it? They pride themselves on their rationality, yet so much of the empirical evidence indicates that God is good for you. Surely, then, it is the atheists, not the devout, who are acting irrationally?

Not only acting irrationally, but arguing nonsensically as well. I have pointed out on occasion the way in which the desire of some atheists to kick out what they see as a crutch out from under religious believers is an indication of a malicious character. If atheists persist in their attempts to destroy religious belief in light of this growing body of empirical evidence of the beneficial nature of religion, it will prove that their primary motivation is neither truth nor reason, but pure malice and ill-will.

Moreover, such evidence is one more nail in the coffin of Freudian pseudo-science. Since real science indicates that religious belief is good for you versus the Freudian claim that it is unhealthy, those atheists who still cling stubbornly to the outdated Freudian position will be revealed as overtly anti-science, their scientific pretensions notwithstanding.

Don’t miss the comments. It is always amusing to see the self-professed “intelligent” and “educated” atheists revealing their blatant ignorance by citing the usual nonexistent prison statistics, misleading divorce statistics, and imaginary military history.

Of Church and State

This is an example of why the Church needs to keep itself apart from the State. The purpose of the separation of Church and State is not to protect the State from the doctrine of the Church, but to protect the Church from the dictates of the State:

Gays and lesbians will be able to ‘marry’ in church under new laws to be unveiled this week. The historic decision by Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone will end the legal definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. A gay couple will be able to refer to one of the partners as a ‘husband’, and a lesbian couple will be able to refer to one of the partners as a ‘wife’. A key part of the reform will bring an end to the ban that prevents civil partnerships being conducted in places of worship.

Now, you can certainly call a fish a gorilla if you want to. You can even pass a law declaring that all fish are henceforth to be legally considered gorillas. But it still won’t make a fish into a gorilla. At this point, it’s almost impossible to lament the decline of what was once Christendom as its actions eminently merit its forthcoming collapse.

It will be interesting to see how long the various governments attempt to deny the obvious logic that permits polygamy and bestiagamy under the same guise as homogamy before the inevitable acceptance.

Actual persecution

As atheists continue whine about how no one likes them and how they are second-class citizens, Christians are still being murdered for their faith around the world… as they have been for the last two thousand years:

Islamist militants divided into two groups who accessed the Coptic homes through the roofs of their neighbors’ houses. The survivors say the masked attackers of the first home were led by Ibrahim Hamdy Ibrahim. They killed Joseph Waheeb Massoud, his wife Samah, their 15-year-old daughter Christine, and their eight-year-old son Fady Youssef. The other masked group was led by Yasser Essam Khaled. They killed Saleeb Ayad Mayez, his wife Zakia, their four-year-old son Joseph and three-year-old daughter Justina, his 23-year-old sister Amgad, their mother Zakia, and Saniora Fahim.

Richard Dawkins likes to assert that a child cannot have a religious identity. But the fact that a child can be killed for a nonexistent identity clearly disproves that assertion. It certainly hasn’t stopped others who share Dawkins’s lack of religious identity from killing them. Given the way in which secularism has proven demographically barren, science has proven morally neutral, and democracy has proven to be a two-edged sword, it is time for the secularists and atheists of the West to seriously rethink their intransigent opposition to Christianity.

The choice is the same as it has always been for Europe and the West, between Christian civilization and pagan barbarism. The third option simply doesn’t exist. It’s not that Christianity needs the support of non-believers to survive, history from Rome to Communist China proves that it will survive and even thrive during periods of pagan persecution. It is Western civilization itself that requires non-believers to support Christian institutions and traditions; if secularists continue to align themselves with the pagans against Christendom, they will find themselves destroying the very aspect of society which they wished to save.

Religious fitness and science education

Ever since I started reading up on the present state of evolutionary theory a few years ago, I have found it rather remarkable to discover how resistant the TEpNS enthusiasts tend to be with regards to concluding what this article in the Scientific American points out is entirely obvious:

Blume’s research also shows quite vividly that secular, nonreligious people are being dramatically out-reproduced by religious people of any faith. Across a broad swath of demographic data relating to religiosity, the godly are gaining traction in offspring produced. For example, there’s a global-level positive correlation between frequency of parental worship attendance and number of offspring. Those who “never” attend religious services bear, on a worldwide average, 1.67 children per lifetime; “once per month,” and the average goes up to 2.01 children; “more than once a week,” 2.5 children. Those numbers add up—and quickly. Some of the strongest data from Blume’s analyses, however, come from a Swiss Statistic Office poll conducted in the year 2000. These data are especially valuable because nearly the entire Swiss population answered this questionnaire—6,972,244 individuals, amounting to 95.67% of the population—which included a question about religious denomination.

“The results are highly significant,” writes Blume: “… women among all denominational categories give birth to far more children than the non-affiliated. And this remains true even among those (Jewish and Christian) communities who combine nearly double as much births with higher percentages of academics and higher income classes as their non-affiliated Swiss contemporaries.”

In other words, it’s not just that “educated” or “upper class” people have fewer children and tend also to be less religious, but even when you control for such things statistically, religiosity independently predicts number of offspring born to mothers.

The spandrel explanation for religion has always looked like little more than willful blindness combined with wishful thinking on the part of anti-theists. In the same way that most atheists are reluctant to admit the unavoidably nihilistic conclusion to their material reductionism, (hence the “irrational atheist” appellation), many irreligious evolutionists so dislike religion that they will concoct any number of far-fetched hypotheses to avoid concluding that even from their own godless perspective, religion has great utility and provides a reproductive advantage. As anecdotal evidence, the 12 or so couples who made up our old Bible study in Minnesota and who were all just beginning to have their first children now have between three and six non-adopted children per couple. The average is probably around 3.8; even with the Christmas cards I can never keep them all straight.

But then, as I have repeatedly pointed out, scientists tend to be much worse than one would expect them to be at correctly applying logic. Although I suppose they really should not be expected to do it well; after all, the entire raison d’etre of the proper scientific method is to avoid relying upon logic in favor of reaching conclusions that are based firmly upon experimentation and observation, confirmed by replication. The problem, of course, is that logic is still required with regards to interpreting the significance of the conclusions provided by the scientific method and I have observed that very few scientists, if any, appear to have received any training in logic as part of their professional education.

Now, please feel free to correct me with actual curriculum-related facts if I am wrong about my conclusions here, but based on the many arguments I have seen put forth on various subjects from numerous individuals holding science-related PhDs, I very much doubt that many science majors devote any time to learning either history or logic. A look at the M.I.T. Department of Biology’s graduate and undergraduate programs shows no sign of requiring either beyond the standard Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences Requirement for all undergraduate majors. While it is entirely possible that MIT science majors are choosing to study history or philosophy as part of their grand total of eight (8!) elective courses, they could just as easily be taking courses in Comparative Media Studies or Theater Arts. And given the astonishing inability of science majors to anticipate the supply and demand curves for PhDs in their chosen fields, one is forced to conclude that very few of them elect to study economics.

What this suggests is that scientists, on average, are at least as ignorant of history, economics, philosophy, religion, and logic as they believe non-scientists to be of science, and for precisely the same reason. Therefore, barring any convincing individual demonstration to the contrary, their opinions outside their professional discipline are ignorant and should be taken no more seriously than they believe the opinions of non-scientists are to be regarded within their field.

Verse of the Day

“As dead flies give perfume a bad smell, so a little folly outweighs wisdom and honor. The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Even as fools walk along the road, they lack sense and show everyone how stupid they are.”
– Ecclesiastes 10:1-3

Keep that in mind the next time you speak with one of your Christian friends who inclines to the left. And it is, of course, intriguing that the Bible should not only correctly anticipate post-18th century political ideologies, but correctly identify the sort of individual who belongs to them as well….