Requisite Revelation?

It can be rather humorous when we, many times, encounter premises so obviously flawed that the proponent of an argument appears clueless. I recently was reading an article by Albert Mohler on infamous contrarian, Chris Hitchens.

Dr. Mohler must be an intelligent man. He really must. However, he fails to see the fatal flaw in the following reasoning:

The question of belief in God is inescapably linked to the question of revelation. He is on absolutely firm intellectual ground when he insists that anyone who claims to believe in God must "also claim to have at least an inkling of what that Supreme Being desires."

Of course, Hitchens sees all claims to divine revelation as evidence of "arrogance and illogic." Nevertheless, he does understand the basic structure of the Christian truth claim – a claim that the one true and living God has indeed spoken and has revealed Himself to His human creatures...

At the center of this conflict stands the doctrine of revelation and the existence of Scripture as the Word of God. Without this Word, we would have no basis for belief in God, Christ, the Gospel, or any hope for the future.

Let us imagine for a moment that a God exists: by definition all-knowing/powerful/good. Let us also imagine for a moment that this God wants us to know that it exists, and wants us to believe in it, for whatever reason. Why is it, I must ask our educated friend, that this God would not reveal itself via either 1) incontrovertible general revelation, or 2) irrefutable, individual special revelation?

1) In 1, we can have the case that, for instance, this God writes its message of hope/revelation to all human kind in such a way that it is clearly a divine message [rather than one crafted by human minds, fraught throughout with anthropomorphic caricatures of this deity and psychological projection, etc.]. My argument is thus:

P1) God exists
P2) God wants all humans to know this in an objective way
P3) God has available at its disposal a plethora of means and ways to reveal itself
C1) God will ensure that humans have sufficient evidence of its existence such that unbelief in God is completely implausible

This is, with minor variation, the argument from unbelief. One way to accomplish this would be to write out the message in stars in the sky, or to have set on some part of the earth a divine "placard" if you will, made of some exotic material (say solid platinum, or one of the least abundant of materials on earth), and make it impervious to destruction [via magic or whatever]. A sort of sorcerer's stone, if you will, in which is not planted the sword of Arthur to give power to one man, but is planted the message of God to all humankind. Keep in mind, also, that the message could be as fluid and animated as our imaginations will allow, and beyond. If the stars were being rearranged constantly to spell and re-spell new messages and sound bytes from God, who could doubt it?

Could skeptics still exist? It is logically possible. However, the level of deniability which exists when presented with the Bible, versus such a proposal as I made in 1, is much much higher. So, in God's supposed choice to use men to tell other men of Itself, this leads to an inexorable difficulty in getting others to believe and accept the message, to the supposed peril of fellow human beings. Not to mention the flaws in the medium chosen.

Let us imagine that this God still chooses to use other persons, and its special revelation to and through them, in addition to the sort of skeptic-reduction method of general revelation described. Surely this would be a "1-2 punch" for theism? Imagine that the Bible had included predictions of science and mathematics which could in no way have been vague or retroedited, rather than the vague and often inaccurate portrait it actually paints: let's imagine that the Bible said, "And God says to you, a day will come when you will understand this -- energy and matter are related to one another by the speed which light travels squared. Preserve this saying and it will be a sign of God's revelation to you." My choice here is arbitrary, but its point obvious--if God wants to reveal itself, it has available at its disposal a basically infinite number of choices which are powerfully undeniable.

From applying reductio ad absurdum to our argument, we can surely rule that P2 is the weakest link in the chain, since C1 is not observed. It is rational to say that "Sure, God might exist, but if God does, and is all powerful (P3), then, since unbelief is pervasive throughout the globe, P2 must not hold." What then might we conclude? Before ruling out P1, we can change P2 such that general revelation via objective means is no longer a part of our argument.

2) The second point involves special revelation. Special revelation is God interacting with an individual in some individualized way. For instance, this would include God talking to someone, or using Balaam's donkey to talk to them, or showing them a sign such as an axe-head floating on water. Let us consider the revised argument:

P1) God exists
P2) God wants all humans to know this
P3) God has available at its disposal a plethora of means and ways to reveal itself
C1) God will ensure that humans have sufficient evidence of its existence such that unbelief in God is completely implausible

Now, we have taken away the restriction of objectivity, which makes a revelation "general" rather than "special". Have we, though, really limited God? Of course not. In point of fact, if God is all-powerful, then there is no reason why both general and special revelation methods cannot be employed concurrently.

Let us consider that God, in wanting to make itself known via special revelation, simply chooses at some point in each individual's life to give them an experience with itself that transcends all doubt. Some people would argue that doubt could creep in to any experience, but I argue that reasonable doubt requires a lack of substance to an experience. For instance, I can recall fairly clearly a very bad ATV accident I had at 13 years old. Why do I recall it so clearly? Why is there no reasonable doubt in my head that it happened? I still bear the scar on my leg, for one thing. For another, the leg required washing, and wrapping and unwrapping, numerous times over the course of a few weeks. In this sense, it wasn't just an instantaneous, or short-term, event, but a protracted agony over weeks. In the same sense, God's special revelation need not be a one-time event, but could have effects which impress the reality of the event in our mind so clearly that to deny their reality would strain credulity.

Perhaps one of the simplest ways to bring convergence to special and general revelation is to have the general revelation give a sort of algorithmic prediction capability -- for instance, that you assign a number to each of the letters of your name according to some code. You then take those numbers, and those of both of your parents, and your birthday, and those of both of your parents, and plug them into this algorithm, which spits out a very specific "prophecy" for you: let us say, it predicts the dates that it will rain wherever you are on the earth, or the day you'll meet your spouse...or whatever.

The point is, given God's omniscience and omnipotence, these sorts of possibilities abound in making unbelief hard. But, since it's rather easy not to believe in God, then we must conclude that both general and special revelation are sorely lacking. This is, itself, evidence that God either does not exist, or does not care if we know if God exists. QED
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Discovery Institute, Eby, Nerd

On Abortion and Ethics

I recently made a comment at the Raving Atheist concerning my view on the wrongness of state abrogation of liberty. The crux of the discussion was in relation to abortion, and whether or not our ethical views justify a legal restriction of individual freedom. Obviously they do when the freedoms or rights of other citizens are infringed. Animal rights and abortion rights are tricky, because animals and fetuses are not citizens, but can be considered legal property. Jim Brennan followed up with a question:

nsfl,
So, for the record, you also don't think the State has any grounds to abrogate my liberty to douse my 4 year old beagle in gasoline and light him up in my front yard to make S'mores?

As you might suspect, I strongly disagree, and laid out my reasoning why below. Before getting into that, it should be noted that I had a letter to the editor on abortion published in our campus newspaper a while back, and made some clarifications on it here.

First, let me say that although I think this is a very complicated ethical issue in concerning late-term abortions...but not terribly complicated in legal terms. Let me outline the premises of interest [I highlighted the key terms to consider]:

P1) fetuses are conscious creatures/animals
P2) abortions cause a high degree (possibly described as "cruel and unusual") of pain and suffering to the fetus
P3) abortions are unnecessary (and/or are "trumped" by some "higher necessity/right"), and are not justifiable as a "lesser evil" in terms of causing pain to a fetus to avoid risking the life of a mother
P4) torture is the unnecessary inflicting of pain and suffering to a conscious creature, and abortions constitute torture
P5) the state has the right to outlaw torture, abrogating the liberty of an individual to torture other animals
C1) the state has the right to outlaw abortions, from P4 and P5

I think that the state has the right to ensure that we don't torture our property, when our property is a conscious creature [this is implicit in the usage of the term "torture"]. This seems to be the basis of civil law regarding animal rights. You asked me to clarify this point, so I am attempting to do so, in saying that I do not disagree with P5. I will explain how C1 does not follow because P1-P3 are far from proven, and thus P4 is where the "buck stops".

P1) You asked about setting a beagle ablaze. An obvious and demonstrable difference between dogs and fetuses involves their state of self-awareness. Dogs qualify as conscious creatures. In setting a snail ablaze, although it writhes and we project onto it our own mind and the awareness of the agony, the writhing of the snail is the involuntary response of its biochemical signals. There is no conscious brain to be aware of pain or suffering. You obviously chose a beagle for this reason--they have a conscious, self-aware [however limited] ability to experience pain and suffering.

Does P1 hold for (even a late-term) fetus? Although the nervous system development is capable of pain response at 28 weeks, this does not imply consciousness. There are some strong arguments that self-awareness doesn't begin until some time after birth (during the first year of infancy). Medical science cannot demonstrate consciousness, just as the writhing of the snail does not indicate a conscious mind, but it does demonstrate the presence of a complex central nervous system (CCNS). The assertion that consciousness can exist without a CCNS is entirely without merit, and is akin to my asserting that a teapot orbits a planet in a galaxy at the edge of the universe: completely unfalsifiable. Therefore, we will consider only those fetuses with a CCNS as capable of consciousness, which occurs only fairly late in the third trimester (for the sake of argument, let's say past month 6).

Therefore, we can prune this discussion down to considering the only possible fetuses with a potential self-awareness as those in the late term, and abortions of those fetuses. In lieu of scientific or philosophical support of your premise (that they are conscious), let us just consider this premise unsupported.

P2) We must establish the degree of pain and suffering involved in an abortive procedure, versus what we consider "normative" or "allowable" thresholds. Does the "pain and suffering" of an abortion compare to, say, a light pinching of an infant? It is obvious that the degree of pain and suffering experienced is important. We do not prosecute mothers who pinch their baby's bottoms, or give them a little spank on the butt, as though it is child abuse, until it passes a certain threshold of pain and suffering. Let us then consider only the procedures which may cause the most pain and suffering: D&E skull decompression procedures (aka "partial birth abortions"). Is a D&E procedure "torture"? Torture involves an extended period of pain and suffering, relative to "normal" pain. Is the D&E "protracted/extended", as it occurs in seconds? Obviously not.

This procedure has been refined and designed to quickly and mercifully terminate the life of the fetus. It is not a protracted and excruciating procedure for the fetus. The brain tissue is removed within milliseconds after the puncture, which means little or no pain is felt. I don't know if you're aware of this, but you don't have nerves inside your brain. IOW, you can't "feel" pain inside your brain. The skull puncture is the only arguable infliction of pain, and considering that loss of the entire brain immediately follows, the ability to perceive and endure this pain is much abbreviated. It is important here to note that football should be outlawed (and a whole lot of other things, too) if we want to prevent all degrees of pain and suffering from being inflicted. Yes, shades of gray appear in determining the degree, but this is an inescapable part of life--in setting thresholds and limits which sometimes elude facile demarcation. The same could be said of child neglect. Do we charge a parent with neglect as soon as its child's stomach growls [ie it hasn't been fed for long enough to develop hunger]? We all recognize the need to arbitrate degrees of "badness" and "goodness".

Not only is P2 unsupported, it is contradicted by known medical science--the D&E procedure described cannot be said to cause extended or intense pain due to its design as a terminative procedure.

P3) Now, let's say I grant yet another premise to you for the sake of argument and say, "okay, it's conscious, AND the pain is intense...cruel and unusual, etc.": it still doesn't compare to your analogy, because torture implies that we inflict a pain which is otherwise unnecessary. The necessity of abortion would have to be another premise of yours, one which denies that the mother's right to life [should her life be endangered] is somehow less than the fetus'. Conversely, there is no compelling reason for you to set your dog on fire. If you can't feed your dog, for instance, or take proper care of it, it isn't a risk of your life or an unnecessary burden to require that you take it to an animal shelter, where it can be adopted, or humanely put down if necessary. If your dog has killed someone, then you or the state have the right and the obligation to prevent that from recurring by ending the dog's life. However, you are again faced with the necessity of torture versus allowing the state, or your own shotgun, to do this job without torture.

Conversely, bearing children is an inherently dangerous, arguably-life-threatening, and painful burden upon a woman. If we deny her the right to determine whether or not she must go through this, we are denying her, potentially, the right to avoid intense pain and/or possibly death. In this sense, we often forget in the abortion arguments that intense pain is a given--it is a question of who will feel it [see P2]. Perhaps one could argue that the protracted and quite coherent suffering of childbirth does not compare to the relatively fast and less aware suffering of an aborted fetus. It seems, though, unnecessary here--P3 is falsified.

You thus have no need to torture an animal, ever. The same question of necessity does not hold in most of these situations with D&E procedures. Late-term abortions are nearly always the result of medical complications that endanger the life of both mother and child [hydrocephalus, etc]. This is certainly a compelling reason and interest: to preserve the mother's own health and safety. Abortions "of convenience" in the late term have already been outlawed via the "partial birth abortion ban". Thus, in the only case where there is no demonstrable necessity for an arguably painful procedure upon an arguably conscious creature, your question about the state's abrogation of liberty has already been answered: the state has found it necessary to do so [whether you want to argue that they were right or wrong in so doing].

I find this troubling, considering that the late term abortions "of convenience" could still be arguably necessary from the perspective of the mother--it is much less likely that she will die, or suffer intense pain, via D&E, than via childbirth. We are denying her the right to choose this option.

Conclusion: It cannot be objectively demonstrated that P1-P3 are true, they can be shown to lack merit, and P3 is flatly falsified. .: P4 is false, and .: C1 does not follow.

Legally, individuals must retain the ability to make decisions that affect their own body, health and safety, without state abrogation of that choice. The slippery slope cannot even be allowed to begin here, because this is the state-enforced loss of rights over one's own body.

Personally, I consider late-term abortions which result from simple negligence and ignorance on the part of the mother unethical. Those women who have no necessity, financial, medical, or otherwise, to abort, and choose to wait until the third trimester (or late second) must be either stupid or reckless with their own bodies. Why in the hell couldn't she abort sooner? Why in the hell did she wait until the procedure became risky to her (D&E are fairly safe, but obviously carry more risk than early term abortions) and there is now an argument that she now is inflicting serious and otherwise unnecessary pain upon a conscious creature (granting your premise 1 and 2)? Thus, in my view, an argument can be advanced that she is acting unethically.

However, even in granting your premise 1 and 2 (which is quite generous), we still find that an abrogation of her rights here means that we tell her what she can and can not decide about her own body. The same is not true for a pet. There is no compelling legal interest on your part to kill animals. There is certainly no compelling interest on your part to torture them. The compelling interest in terms of law here are "where do the rights of the individual begin and end? does the individual have complete control over their own body?"

Thus, the question, "does the individual have complete control over their property [excepting their own body]" is a "no" already. Persons can have lawful control of property without entailing torture. That's already been decided, and you can read animal rights laws for the reasoning behind it. I am not sure if we can say that our children are our legal "property", but if we allow harm to come to our infant via neglect, we are held legally culpable for that as well. In this sense, negligence and reckless abandonment are further definitional constraints of what we can and cannot do, and can and cannot allow to be done to, our own property, if our children are legally considered our property.

In the case of animal rights, the question is only one of property--what we can do with what we own: can we torture our possessions? In the case of abortion, the question involves not only the liberty to torture or harm our property, but also whether or not individuals maintain absolute sovereignty over their own bodies. The Supreme Court decided, "yes." In my opinion, they decided correctly.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ethics, Abortion

Some Thoughts on Religiosity

The Uncredible Hallq makes a much-needed point on the recent complaints of trading secularism for progress (and general increases in the global standard of living), in a post entitled Optimism, pessimism, and humanism:

"In the face of this, the optimist and, if I am correct, anyone who believes in a perfect God, must deny that what we are seeing is progress. I suppose religious people will note the decline of spirituality. Others will find secular ways in which our lives have become less meaningful. But if we were starving, we would hardly have the time to worry about such matters. I for one, think that improvement of the world is a real and noble [sic]."

People may believe that increased religiosity leads to increased happiness, decreased crime/increased morality, etc...but there is not only no evidence for this, there is actually evidence against the idea.

Multiple studies have found that correlation between religiosity and economic growth is tenuous with some variables and inversely correlated with others. It seems clear that poor people tend to be more religious, but is that a coping mechanism for poverty, or an effect due to their willingness to live more modestly and selflessly? Also, an interesting recent study found that although religiosity correlates to a greater disagreement with sexual "sins", it inversely correlated to disagreement with general dishonesty and integrity in government:

...says that religiosity, both on the societal and individual level, is far less likely to discourage thoughts about giving the government false information, accepting bribes while in public office, buying stolen goods or avoiding a public transportation fare. In these cases, people tend to be deterred less by religious beliefs and rituals than by secular laws that apply to believers and nonbelievers alike.

Furthermore, religiosity was probably greatest in the time of Middle Ages Christendom. And yet more people died of famine and disease then than now. More babies were born, but the death rate was staggeringly higher. Was god more generous when more people believed in god and/or worshipped god? Sure doesn't seem so, does it?

One of the most contradictory issues in the Bible is whether or not god protects/blesses "his" people or whether or not god "chastens" them (including swallowing them up in the earth, during Moses' day, and more recently, allowing them to go through the Holocaust, or more mundane examples of God's abandonment) more because they are his own. See, for instance, those passages that seem to contradict one another as to whether a righteous man will flourish, on whether wealth is good or bad, on whether god destroys the righteous (his own) or just the wicked.

The issue of god "chastening" his own is even touched on by Mormons. See for instance even the book of Mormon:

And thus we see that except the Lord doth chasten his people with many afflictions, yea, except he doth visit them with death and with terror, and with famine and with all manner of pestilence, they will not remember him. (Helaman 12:3)

The US is the most prosperous and religious western democracy...but it also has the shortest life expectancy, the highest murder rates, the highest abortion rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest STD rates...of any western democracy! Why? Tucker Carlson talked about this study, and here is an interview with the author, Gregory Paul.

Unscrewing the Inscrutable blogger DarkSyde wrote three very readworthy blogs: "I Am A Believer", "Why I'm An Atheist", "What it Feels Like to Be An Atheist". I strongly recommend reading the last one first to get a sense of how atheists view living in a society with high religiosity, to get a perspective on how atheists do not all hate god, or the idea of god...etc. And see this post by The Mighty Middle on how a lot of atheists perceive Christian theology--as absurd. The absurdity springs from the concept of a god who would create men with freedom, thus enabling them to choose to do things that they are not pre-programmed to do like robots, and then the god creates rules for them (by the way, freedom does not require a choice of "good and evil" in this sense, some animals make choices without us humans having attached moral value to their training), knowing full well they will break them, then gets so mad god decides blood is all that will assuage his anger...and so kills a part of himself--his "son". Etc. Read on there for more.

PS: If you're particularly blasphemous, you can read what The Huge Entity has to say about the staff of god.
_______________
Technorati tags:
Atheism, Faith, God, Religion

"Science is the Antithesis of Faith"

I read something today that nicely follows up on some comments I've made before on the growing trend of godlessness, and especially on the link between science and faith:

Skepticism is the antithesis of faith, and a science that encourages people to question is the enemy of a religion that demands people accept. PZ

Nice.

And that's why fundamentalists of all religions pervert science to maintain their dogma.

And that's why we must all oppose fundamentalism, whether we're [progressive] believers or unbelievers.

I have some scientist friends who are in the 40% of believing scientists, [see Nature 1997] but none of them have a problem in demarcating the line between religion and everything else--they all practice Gould's NOLM.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Atheism

Three Good Things this Thursday

Three good things courtesy of reading PZ today:

1) A review of Coulter's screed by a journalist in Dover
2) A review of DaveScot commenting that, "Ultimately the universe is governed by gravity. It is the strongest of all the forces in the big picture." and "By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature. It overwhelms the electromagnetic force to form neutron stars. It overwhelms the weak nuclear force to form quark stars. And finally, when it overwhelms the strong nuclear force, a black hole is formed. Thanks for playing."
3) A review of how gills evolved into pharyngeal arches, and into the human parathyroid from there

For more on DaveScot's comment, see my analysis below:

Well, we seem to have a problem...trusted authorities in science and physics often claim that "gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental fources". (see here for more)

DaveScot has obviously claimed the opposite. Who to believe? Well, I don't like "belief", so let's do the physics (the following was left as a comment on the site)--

First, lay out the equations to make sense of the controversy:
F = G *(m1 * m2) / r^2

That's the force given by gravity, and if you use kg for mass and meters for r, then the units that come out are in N.

Couloumb's Law for the force between two point charges:
F = 1 / (4*pi*vacuum resistivity) * (q1 * q2) / r^2

Now, let us assume for a moment that we want to compare the two forces. In order to do this fairly, we ought to use the same values for all of the variables in the two equations which we can -- in this case, r. Let's just use an r = 1 meter. This gets rid of the r^2 term in both equations.

Now, let's set the two equations equal to one another and see what happens:
(m1 * m2) * G = 1 / (4*pi*vacuum resistivity) * (q1 * q2)

Let's get rid of all of the constants:

(m1* m2) / (q1 * q2) = 1 / (G * 4 * pi * vacuum resistivity) = 1.3 * 10^20

What in the hell does this mean? It means that the ratio of multiplied masses to multiplied charges has to be 10^20 in order for the forces to be equal to one another. That's the regime in which the forces can be equal. Obviously, you can do the algebra to see that the when charge is dissipated and mass built up enough in neutron stars, they do indeed surpass this ratio.

In this sense, Dave is right, in that inside neutron stars, gravity has overcome electromagnetism. Perhaps that is simply what he should've said to begin with, that the potential for gravity's force to overcome the force of electromagnetism is there, so long as the ratio of m/q is high enough. That doesn't mean that gravity "is stronger than" electromagnetism, of course, when we consider "non special cases". For instance, do a simple calculation of the gravitational and electromagnetic force between a proton and neutron 1 m away from one another, and this is where the ratio originally cited by Kibitz in the comment above came from. Kibitz is thus correct in concluding that:

Electromagnetic repulsion is approximately 10 to the power of 42 (that’s a million billion billion billion billion)times more powerful than gravity. If your right bicep represented the strength of gravitational force, then your left bicep would have to extend beyond the edge of the known universe to represent the strength of electromagnetic force.

However, since the Chandrasekhar mass [where the ratio of m/q is high enough] is only achieved in stars which can accumulate enough Fe56 to collapse inward, the "regime" is limited to stars which start out at least 15-30 solar masses, and go through stellar evolution, and arrive at a neutron star potentiality. This is the one time when gravity "wins out".

So, I don't know what to conclude from here...Dave was right and wrong. It is *possible* for gravity to overcome the other forces, but it is, indeed, by far the weakest of the four in 99.99999% of the possible scenarios you can speculate on in our universe. Perhaps Dave will show some humility in admitting this?
________________
Technorati tags: DaveScot, Intelligent Design, Creationism, Discovery Institute

"Death of God" versus "Death of godlessness"

From the allegations of plagiarism (not the same old ones) to the pseudoscientific nonsense lifted from dishonest "work" by the Disco Institute, Ann Coulter's new book is basically nothing but cannon fodder by this point. I have nothing new to say about it, but you really ought to read what real scientists have said about her anti-evolutionary screed. In all honesty, most people dismiss the polemicist as the right-wing version of Michael Moore, and in so doing, allow her rhetoric to pump up her own choir, to which she enthusiastically preaches and gets a few feedback "Amen!" shouts from.

One of the things that really bothers me is when people use the word "bombshell" to describe Ann, or in any way imply that she is sexy/attractive. Look at this picture of the woman, and make sure you take some Phenergan first. She is dog ugly. Peroid.

While reading over some reviews of her new rant-rag, I noted that William Dembski had proudly endorsed her book on his site. He also boldly steps up for credit for "helping" with all of the "science" in her book. Reading over there, I attempted to leave a comment on Debmski's post after scanning it, in response to a Gildodgen there who asserted that godlessness is on the wane. Of course, might doesn't make right, so minority views aren't necessarily right or wrong as a virtue of their popularity. However, in this case, the veracity of Gildodgen's claim is highly dubious. My response follows:

(begin comment)
___

Gildodgen wrote:

The 19th and early 20th centuries witnessed the death of God. At the turn of the 21st century we are witnessing the death of Godlessness. It’s all rather exciting.

I'm afraid that this hopeful assertion is terribly contradicted by recent studies, (ARIS) which rather conclusively showed that the number of people who went from any religion to no religion increased by 23% over the years studied.

In their words, the researchers note:

The top three "gainers" in America's vast religious market place appear to be Evangelical Christians, those describing themselves as Non-Denominational Christians and those who profess no religion. Looking at patterns of religious change from this perspective, the evidence points as much to the rejection of faith as to the seeking of faith among American adults. Indeed, among those who previously had no religion, just 5% report current identification with one or another of the major religions.

The raw number of "no religion" folks swamps the Evangelicals by about 30-fold and non-denoms by about 14-fold. In numerical form, the "no religion" switch from some prior religion increased by approx. 6.6 million persons, and those "switching out" were approx. 1.1 million persons = approx. 5.5 million net deconverts.

Do the math on this, and you'll see that no other category even comes close. Not one. The next highest number of net converts is 1.4 million for "Christian" (fourfold less) and then 600,000 for "Pentecostal". So, you may want to start checking the data before baldly asserting that "godlessness" is somehow waning. On the contrary, friend, it is waxing full.

___
(end comment)

They probably won't publish the comment, but I wanted to give its major point an airing...somewhere. Unfortunately for Gildodgen, and Coulter, godlessness is a growing phenomenon, and one that they will have to learn to intelligently deal with, should they want to maintain [that's a joke] intellectual credibility in the 21st century.
________________
Technorati tags: Ann Coulter, Intelligent Design, Evolution, William Dembski, Discovery Institute, godless

Luther and Nazism

Dear Christian,

Is Martin Luther a hero [of the faith] of yours? Did you know that he wrote a book called, On the Jews and Their Lies? (1543)

Did you know that it contains such passages as:

So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.

?

In context, here is the full passage:

Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus' mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are *haria,*, as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of such great and holy children of God?

There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses, namely, that God has struck them with "madness and blindness and confusion of mind." So we are even at fault in not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin!

Did you know that:

he wrote that Jews' synagogues should be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes "smashed and destroyed," property seized, money confiscated, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be drafted into forced labor or expelled "for all time." ^[3] He also appeared to sanction their murder^[4]

Did you also know that it has been very well argued and evidenced that Hitler adopted much of his Anti-Semitic views directly from Luther?

What, did you think that the Nazis were atheists? Oh, you could only wish so.

What, did you think that Darwin personally, or evolutionary theory generally, is somehow to blame for Nazism? Hardly so. Drawing moral extrapolations from natural observations is itself moving away from science. Science is only the statement of how things are, not how things ought to be, or how human beings should relate to one another. (I point this out, despite the fact that even if the Nazis [or anyone] tried to use a scientific theory to justify themselves, they would be committing Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy in so doing, and most people recognize this.)

Now, to be fair to Luther, nearly all contemporary Catholics hated Jews too. (also see wiki)

So, dear Christian, what do you have to say in response to this? Perhaps you'll remember it the next time you quote Luther?

With respect to Christians and their Anti-Semitism...so much for 2 Cor. 5:17, eh? New creatures, indeed.

Perhaps you'll think of this the next time you want to blame science for immoral choices on the part of people who fallaciously attempt to use it to justify themselves, or the next time you blame atheism for Hitler's Holocaust?
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Martin Luther, Hitler, Judaism, Anti-Semitism

Quiet, Transition in Progress!

**UPDATE** MTV News has a follow-up article, in which Alter Bridge counters Living Things' version of events with their own. Funniest excerpt from AB's statement:

Alter Bridge fully supports every American's right to free speech...If any band chooses the stage to address their political views and to take shots at the current U.S. government, that is their right. However, it is not their right to slander our country and its people in the process... [Living Things] shouted obscenities and "repeatedly yelled 'F--- America!...I hate America!'

So, in other words, AB supports free speech, so long as that free speech isn't offensive or slanderous towards the US. Okay? Sounds like they have been getting their tips on "free expression" from the idiots pushing the flag-burning amendment. **END UPDATE**

"Regardless of anyone's political views this is simply ignorant, offensive and unacceptable,"

A recent news story in music follows. The reason the story appeals to me is that, despite the outright rejection of the labels "Christian" or "spiritual" to the band Alter Bridge, they have, willingly or not, inherited the religious conflict from their past. I found myself remembering their quasi-Christian heritage when Lynne tipped me off to their recent debacle in Switzerland.

When people hear "Creed", they think, minimally, "spiritual lyrics" and possibly [albeit erroneously] "Christian band". This seems to be the case despite repeated protests against the label "Christian" during the time of the band's inception. It is a long-standing interest of mine to study the "crossovers" from Christian music as they move into other genres--typically rock and pop. The transition is often accompanied (some may argue "paralleled", or "compelled") by a synchronous transition of faith, or entire loss thereof. From the famous case of Jerry Lee Lewis, to Arethra Franklin, Dionne Warwick, Elvis, to contemporary bands like Lifehouse, Amy Grant and POD, crossover bands and artists are worth a moment's thought. To me, they are simply spotlighted case studies in deconversion, a phenomenon that I personally identify with. They are famous, completely public examples of the sort of experience that millions of people have annually--losing faith. I find religious transitions, and especially deconversions, fascinating [particularly the psychological aspect of] and would love to be pointed to some scientific studies on the process.

The former band Creed broke up, with lead singer Scott Stapp going solo and the remaining band members reforming as Alter Bridge. Why do we care?

Apparently, at a show in Zurich on June 14th, Alter Bridge is being accused of assaulting Living Things, another rock band, as they spoke against the current administration and the ongoing war(s). From the myspace site for Living Things, some fans did indeed document, on the day of the concert, the veracity of LT's claim.

On the same site, the tour date roster purports, "June 14 in Zurich, Switzerland at Rohstofflager supporting Alter Bridge". This implies that LT was opening for AB, so far as I can tell, and is thus considered a bit subservient in terms of their popularity/demand. An MTV news article interviewed the band's lead singer, Lillian Berlin, about the incident, where he claims,

We were in the middle of our second song, and I had some stuff to say about the current administration and the way they're handling the Iraq war...The Swiss were all behind us, and the crowd was cheering me on. I was talking about this letter I got inviting me to a Democrat-bashing dinner at the White House. And we went into our fourth song, and some goon from that Creed band came out swinging an American flag and then threw it at our drummer, Bosh.

However, the spokesman for AB refutes this claim,

Alter Bridge was not happy that this band chose to deliver anti-American statements to their audience.

However, no Alter Bridge bandmembers were onstage, and their crew was in their designated working areas during this supposed incident. Alter Bridge thinks this is just a weak attempt by the opening band to drum up press for themselves. Alter Bridge will have no further comment on this as they are finishing up their extremely successful European tour and returning shortly to the U.S. to start work on their second album.

I'll have more info as it becomes available, but I would expect a lawsuit if the claim of LT holds water, especially since Lillian claims the band members suffered verifiable injuries, including black eyes. This news article was also picked up by chartattack and pr-inside. Whether it holds merit or not we will shortly see.

Thought: if Alter Bridge was not inexorably tied to a quasi-Christian heritage and subsequent image, would we even care about this? Typical rock/metal/punk concerts are almost boring without some sort of violence or tirade. Why is this newsworthy, and eye-catching? It must be the association between AB and Christianity.

As an aside, it appears that Living Things' enthused political commentary from the stage has made news before.
________________
Technorati tags: Alter Bridge, Creed, Scott Stapp, Religion

The Evolution of Gay Animals (Including Humans)

There is a quite interesting article in SEED magazine about sexual selection and homosexual behavior in animals. The interview with Joan Roughgarden, an evolutionary biologist, examines the role of evolution in animal homosexual behavior. As usual, PZ Myers' trenchant analysis shines light on the relationship between sexual selection, homosexual behavior in animals, and evolutionary biology.

The major points/possibilities where these converge, which PZ analyzes:

1) Homosexuality is selectively neutral (in PZ's hilarious words, "Many heterosexual couples elect not to have children, and many homosexuals elect to have them. This shouldn't be a surprise; all it takes to start a baby is a few pokes and a spurt, and it really doesn't take much effort to overcome an inclination for such a brief event. We are sex-obsessed animals, so redirecting an ejaculation to a particular orifice isn't that astonishing.")
2) Homosexuality promotes community bonding (conflict avoidance = more survival)
3) Homosexuality is coupled to other advantageous traits (coupling)
4) Homosexuality is a product of weak genetic specification (e.g. "brains are plastic")
5) Homosexuality is a byproduct (e.g. developmental/environmental, not genetic)

Obviously, one or more of these has to be right. Hopefully, the more genetics becomes understood in its relationship to evo-devo, we can begin to attach hard data to these hypotheses.

The well-known gay behaviors in animals (read the SEED article for details) are often used to "justify" homosexual behavior. Without going into detail, I do think it is funny how people will fall into Moore's naturalistic fallacy in concluding moral behavior from observations in nature: "It happens in nature, therefore it's natural, therefore it's moral!" Of course, the problems with these arguments go far and wide, but the most obvious and gut-wrenching refutations hinge on the exploitation of this same illogic in genocides, Übermensch, and in Hitler-esque "survival of the fittest" mentalities.
________________
Technorati tags: Homosexual, Evolution, Biology

Bakunin on God

Mikhail Bakunin was born on this day in 1814. I want to consider a few of his sayings from his essay, "God and the State", and open the remarks for criticism.

The Bible, which is a very interesting and here and there very profound book when considered as one of the oldest surviving manifestations of human wisdom and fancy, expresses this truth very naively in its myth of original sin. Jehovah, who of all the good gods adored by men was certainly the most jealous, the most vain, the most ferocious, the most unjust, the most bloodthirsty, the most despotic, and the most hostile to human dignity and liberty-Jehovah had just created Adam and Eve, to satisfy we know not what caprice; no doubt to while away his time, which must weigh heavy on his hands in his eternal egoistic solitude, or that he might have some new slaves. He generously placed at their disposal the whole earth, with all its fruits and animals, and set but a single limit to this complete enjoyment. He expressly forbade them from touching the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He wished, therefore, that man, destitute of all understanding of himself, should remain an eternal beast, ever on all-fours before the eternal God, his creator and his master. But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

What we see in Genesis 3:22 certainly raises my own eyebrows:

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

A plain reading of the Bible reveals the obvious issue of whether or not man "knew good and evil" before, or after, the Fall -- and thus whether or not man ought be responsible if the former. Nearly every time Bakunin's major point is raised with an apologist, the apologist insists that man "knowing" good and evil here means experiencing it. I brought to the attention of one recent apologist the fact that the same phraseology is used with respect to God, and thus a consistent hermeneutic would require an inference that God has also experienced evil. The apologist, needless to say, did not agree, yet was unable to provide a satisfactory reply.

An important question remains -- is the "Fall of Man" simply the acquisition of a moral conscience? It seems so at first glance. For indeed, if man does not know good from evil, then how could the choice to eat the fruit have been "sin" at all? Did the serpent lie about this? It appears that God gives substantiation to the claim in 3:22. Further, God cursed the serpent, and why would God curse the serpent for telling the truth?

The next section is particularly relevant in this day of theonomist revival:

On behalf of human liberty, dignity and prosperity, we believe it our duty to recover from heaven the goods which it has stolen and return them to earth.

If God is, man is a slave; now, man can and must be free; then, God does not exist.

A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
-- Mikhaill Bakunin, "God and the State," 1883

If God exists, it is a moral affront to man to call himself "free". Let us consider this for a moment -- is there a "free will" at all, if God exists? Does man have the ability to choose freely between actions? Obviously not, according to orthodox interpretations of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. According to these traditions, man has only one choice -- God's way or hell. That is not freedom at all. That is indeed slavery.

It is thus impossible to hold to theism and man's freedom without a contradiction. In the regress of events, if God lies behind them, our freedom is not only an illusion, but a mockery of God's sovereignty -- Calvinists agree. They claim Paul and Jesus did too [c.f. Rom 9].

See his Wikipedia entry for more.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, God