Category Archives: Philosophy

Blogging, Christianity, Culture, Philosophy, Politics

Is Brit Hume out of line?

Many people on the blogosphere have been commenting on the statements of Brit Hume on Fox News Sunday, where he said essentially that Tiger Woods should turn to faith in Jesus Christ.

Now, most will recognize that I would agree with that statement (though I might quibble with Hume’s phrasing). I agree that Buddhism is insufficient to provide redemption of a person in the position of Tiger Woods at the moment. Funnily, since Buddhism would advocate the elimination of attachment to worldly (and hence illusory) desires, it seems that some Buddhists would agree. Redemption for a Buddhist, is unnecessary, as the desire for that would be grasping at illusion, and so the wrong move for a Buddhist. I think Buddhism is incorrect, and so would most Christians. Is that a surprise? No. At least not if you have any idea about either Christianity or Buddhism.

The problem that Hume has though, is not the many Buddhists in the world, his problem is actually secularists in the media. As far as I can get the problem, it is that a commentator should not mix their field (providing commentary based on their opinion) with religion. Besides being patent nonsense (religious opinion is opinion, and thus fodder for commentators….. the reason I don’t freak out at Christopher Hitchens slagging my belief… he has a right to his opinion, and I have the right to publicly disagree), the assumption itself seems very hypocritical.

The secularist belief is that religion is best left to the private sphere. Secularists are entitled to that belief, but they should not be surprised when Brit Hume and many other Christians (and many other religionists) disagree with that assumption. The opinion the secularists hold is not universal, so it behooves them to convince others of their position, not simply attempt to bully people into adhering to their (minority) position.  Join the marketplace of ideas, and (as Hunter Baker said on a radio show recently) stop playing the game of public opinion

while simultaneously pretending to be umpires.

Brit Hume is not out of line, but his secularist detractors are.

Standard
Atheism, Philosophy, Rant, theology

A Word on Using Logic

One of the main topics dealt with on this blog is Religion, and especially Christianity. Now, I do not expect all (or even most) of my readers to agree with me on this topic. It’s a highly debated one. That said, I have noticed a disturbing trend when it comes to this topic as its debated on the internet.

Among some factions, it has become almost axiomatic that religious people are irrational. From this assumption, they then leap to the (unfounded) conclusion that because they are not religious, they are automatically more rational than a religious person. This further leads to a further unfounded leap that such means that an irreligious person thus automatically understands both formal and informal logic better than a religious person, and especially a conservative Christian religious person. This leads these same people to lecture them on how their arguments are illogical using logical terms of art, often incorrectly.

Now, I am not saying that irreligious people always do this, but it is clear that some irreligious people do, and for some reason I seem to usually get them writing me posts about how I am falling into a “no true scotsman fallacy” or how my argument is “non-sequential” at 6:30 in the morning when I haven’t had my coffee, and am already irritable.

This is the reason for the rule that you explain yourself when you use a term of art (and I consider logic terms, terms of art because in normal conversation eyes glaze over when I use the terms). This serves two major purposes. 1) It keeps all reasonably educated readers in the loop of the conversation even if they haven’t taken a course in logic and 2) it keeps misuses of the terms to a minimum.

When I say “explain yourself”, I mean that you should first define the term of art you’re using, and then show how the argument in question fits that definition. This makes it easier for us conservative Christian religious people to check the logic textbooks on our desks to see if we can learn something here. It also means that you will have to do the work of linking the argument to your accusation, and in my experience, not all accusations survive that process. As examples, I offer the following three terms of art, with an explanation:

“non sequiter” – Often best tested for by using the question “so what?”, it’s a fallacy involved in giving information or arguments unrelated to the argument being discussed. For example:  When pro-life advocates say that a foetus in the womb is a person deserving of full legal protection as such, the response that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her own body is a non-sequiter. The question is the moral status of the infant. After that point, the rights balancing can be done, but not before dealing with the claim at hand (that a foetus is a person deserving of legal protection).

“ad hominium” – This is a form of a non-sequiter. I also call this the “yeah, well, you have cooties” fallacy. It is frighteningly common in most debates, despite its illogicality. It is essentially when a person is attacked directly rather than attacking their arguments. An example is when an atheist makes the statement that there is no positive proof for the existence of God, and a theist responds with: yeah, but you atheists are immoral. Besides not necessarily being true, it really doesn’t speak to the claim being made. Now, this is not happening when the conversation moves to the moral (positive) argument for the existence of God, and the theist makes the different claim that atheism has no account for objective morality (a claim which does not impugn the atheists’ morals, just consistency of the underlying reason for those good morals).

“straw man” – This is the argumentative tactic of redefining your opponent’s position in such a way as to make it easier to attack when the redefinition does not actually express the ideas of the opponent. One example is when a person says that there is evidence for the existence for the Christian god, and an opponent begins to attack faith in a teapot orbiting the sun, flying spaghetti monsters, or invisible pink unicorns. The latter are far easier to attack, but they are conceptually different (none of the latter examples can be defended by the ontological argument, for instance).

In any event, the upshot is that when you want to use any of these things, think it through and do the hard work of applying your ideas.

Standard
Atheism, Jesus, Pastoring, Philosophy, Rant, Science, textual interpretation

What Christians are Not.

I know, I know, a big topic, and I’m being a little arrogant in claiming to understand the whole of one of the largest religious groupings in the world. Keep in mind that you’re reading a conservative protestant evangelical.

These are just some things I would like non-Christians to keep in mind when talking to me.

1) Christians, by definition, do not think they are better than you. If somebody seems to, you know that he is being a very bad Christian if he is one at all. We get saved by grace. The main point of the entire religion is that we are so seriously messed up that we couldn’t save ourselves and needed God to do it for us. That means we think WE are sinners.

2) Christians (remembering the above proviso) do not think that morality is adherence to a set of moral precepts contained in a code (even the rules contained in the Bible). Morality is a heart issue for Christians, it is about the character of the person performing the act, not the act in itself. Thus talking about moral actions is non-sequential to our faith structure. While actions may be evidence of moral character, Good actions in themselves are simply not sequential to the issue of being good.

3) That said, Christians (if they are being Christian) do have some actions that they should be doing. If the person that claims to be Christian does not do them, you have a right to question their claim to be Christian. If you do not like what they are doing because they are acting in accordance with Christian expectations, then you can say it’s a problem with Christianity.

4) Christians, like every other belief structure in the world, has adherents who have not thought about the implications of their beliefs, and people who have. Do not assume that Christians are all unthinking, because you only talk to the former. Similarly, some Christians are not very rational in their thinking, but some are.

5) There are bad Christians. This is not an amazing revelation that upsets my entire faith structure, nor should it. The actions of people are actually independant of the belief structure and are relevant insofar as the specific actions you find abhorrent fit the belief structure.

6) Christianity is a big religion. Do not assume that you understand what the specific Christian you are talking to believes. He is a different person from all the other Christians you have met. Indeed, given point 5, despite his claims, he might not actually be a Christian. If you want to know if a Christian believes something, ask him. You can attack a belief that he’s claimed to believe after he’s claimed to believe it, not before.

7) No Christian, not even fundamentalist Bible thumpers (save the most extreme groups which most other Christians think are nuts), think that you can understand the Bible’s teaching on ANYTHING by looking at isolated verses. So, God’s teaching on slavery is not completed by looking at Leviticus, the nature of God is not explained by looking at the genocides in Exodus, and our opinion about social concerns is not exhausted by John 3:16. We have to look at the whole of scripture (because scripture interprets scripture). You may think that’s a dodge, but it’s the way we actually roll.

8) Christian beliefs are pretty central to the lives of Christians. It is the way we see the world. To ask us to put aside Jesus for a second is like asking you to put aside your understanding of reality for a second.

9) Christians are not inherently opposed to science. I am not a scientist, so I usually recuse myself from such debates because I’m probably better to be listening at those points. This is not because I think that science is of the devil. The statement “Some anti-science people are Christian” is not a logically equivalent statement to “All Christians are anti-science”.

10)  Christians (at least of the type that I am) do not believe that forcing you to “become Christian” is even possible, much less permissible. In fact, in my experience the attempt is unbelieving and counter-productive. When I tell you what I believe, it is because a) I think what I believe is true and would benefit you or b) I feel the need to correct your erroneous understanding of what I believe. I would like you to believe, because I would like you to enjoy God as I do, but if you don’t, I can’t force you.

Standard
Atheism, Culture, Ethics, Philosophy, Rant, theology

Humility and Epistemology

This post is a result of several things, including a conversation with a friend and a post on John Stackhouse’s blog (found here).

The main reason for this post, though is not quite Stackhouse’s point (which I believe to be true), but an implication that I believe makes it far easier to remain truly Christian in the standard debates that surround being a Christian among thinking non-believers (by far my favorite kind of non-believers).

It is easy to get wrapped up in the certainty of our own faith (and don’t get me wrong, I am quite convinced that Jesus Christ really is the truth) so much that we come to believe that it is not Christ who saves people, but our own ideas of Christ that do. This is, to be frank, idolatry, and a fairly subtle form of it, made far more dangerous by its subtlety.

It is this idolatry that leaves Christians unable to actually hear the critiques brought against our faith, and in so doing be able to respond as Christ would have us respond, humbly and in the grace the Spirit provides. It is also dangerous because it has at its centre a resounding lie. One that can slowly eat away at the over-certain believer and leave their faith either rank hypocrisy, or non-existent (and provide a similarly overconfident disbelief). I mean, seriously, how does anyone with any experience of being incorrect ever assume that they cannot still be incorrect? I seem to remember the Magnificat having something to say about God scattering the proud in the imagination of their hearts.

It is my contention that the faith a Christian is to have is less arrogant, but every bit as strong (perhaps stronger as it is not based on my own epistemic ability). We are called to point to the God that is truth, to seek that truth with all we are, with the full recognition that we are fallible, but trusting that God will lead us into truth if we are willing to see it. Indeed, God may be gracious to open our eyes where we have been blind to something till now.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Am I? Well, if I thought I was, I’d change my beliefs to something I think more closely accords to reality. The fact that we “could be wrong” does not prove that we in fact are, but leads us to remain on the path in seeking truth (as long as we don’t raise the “could be wrong” to “probably are”, the latter being as silly as unwarranted certainty in what we believe).
Most importantly, this allows us to see those who disagree with us as no more “foolish” than we see ourselves. It puts our knowledge as as much a function of grace as is our salvation, and it idiotic to pretend that what we are given by grace is a reason to deride another. Similarly, it allows us to speak, act, and preach what we have become convinced of.

Of course, as with everything, I stand ready to be corrected. :-)

Standard
discernment, Philosophy, scripture, theology

Responses: The Old Testament/New Testament God, Good and Evil, Salvation

Okay, I think the comments line of my “why do people go to hell” post is getting too long, and replying in the comments in that line is getting tiresome for people. So here goes me trying to simply post a reply when the questions are good (and don’t have quite as much swearing in them, please people, I try to run a family-friendly blog). I’m answering these not because I’m smarter, but because people ask.

Today’s installment: Questions from Jake (thanks for the really good queries BTW):

I’ve enjoyed reading the earlier blogs, and have learned much from your words. I myself am Agnostic. A fence-sitter if you please. I was raised a Baptist, and have attended a few Catholic churches, but I do not claim to be Catholic. I don’t know if its true or not, but I have heard that the old testament of the bible claims that our god is vengeful god, full of destructive power to rain down upon sinners. Yet, in the new testament, supposedly, he is depicted as the exact opposite. Are these correct?

Unfortunately, this is a pretty common understanding of scripture. Indeed, in the early Church it found full-flower in the heresy called Marcionism which saw in the Old Testament a different “vengeful” God from the one found in the New (so they rejected the Old). Scripture is not nearly that simple. For one thing, the Old Testament has mixed in among the plague and smitings and such, amazing acts of kindness and grace to his covenant people (Israel) despite their many many failings. God is seen as a shepherd to the hurting soul, not in the New Testament, but the Old (Psalm 23), and even in the midst of some very extreme punishments in Deutreronomy, there is clear forethought for the poor, the foreigner, the outcast, and the widow. Indeed, one of the most common words associated with God (Hesed) essentially speaks of a faithful love.

Similarly, in the New Testament, we see among the grace of God poured out for sinners in Christ Jesus, promises of wrath and of punishment. Most of the comments about hell are on Jesus’ own lips, and the book of Revelation has some very gory scenes concerning the punishment of the wicked on the earth (Chapters 8 and 9), and of the final judgment (Chapter 14).

So Honestly, God in both the Old and New Testaments is both vengeful and graceful.

I have designed a theory of my own, and I’d like to hear your opinion. God is perfect. But in most opinions, perfection itself means to be all good. Well we have seen that god has a dark side, so maybe to be perfect, you have to do what isn’t good, OR bad, just what is necessary. For every good a bad. Ying-Yang of christianity.

A possible interpretation, though by way of proviso, I don’t think of evil “existing” any more than a hole or any other absence “exists”. Evil for me is the lack of good. It only exists insofar as there is a good to be lacking something. Lies don’t exist without truth, injustice doesn’t exist without justice, and holes in paper don’t exist without paper. Truth can exist without lies, and paper can exist without holes.

But you are onto something. In the book of Job, in the face of Job’s suffering God comes to answer Job out of the whirlwind to say essentially that “your perspective is a little limited on this”. There’s more at play in any given situation than you can see at first (or even 20th) blush. That’s why I take as the title of this blog a reference to Romans 8:28. All things work together for good…. It’s a promise, and I’d say also an epistemology of morality. God is good, but we can’t always see that.

I haven’t been able to deciede whether or not god exist or not, but I have a hunch that there is something else after this. What it is, I don’t
know, but there is something.

You’ll excuse me for a second on this one, but it does seem a little surreal to have you deciding whether God exists or not. You can decide on your belief, you cannot decide on the reality. :-) Remember too, that god isn’t simply “what comes after”. Most theists would argue that God forms a grounding for reality itself, so we would say that there is something beyond the reality we see that in fact grounds reality itself.

Also, I don’t agree with the christian idea that if you don’t repent your sins, and embrace god, jesus, and the holy spirit, you won’t get into heaven. What if you lead a good, honest life? Shouldn’t that count for something? Does a small tribe in the middle of no where, who has never heard of our god, deserve to go to hell for not embracing him? I don’t think so…

This was more closely dealt with in the post you’re replying to (this one). Works really do not have a lot of value for a Christian when it comes to salvation. They don’t count for that AT ALL. My good works count no more than do the good works of some guy in an unreached tribe, they both count equally at precisely zero. This does not mean that good works are not important, but that they are the effect of salvation, not the cause. There are many causes possible for good works, and not all of them are good, so Christians don’t tend to look at the works as necessarily getting people saved.

The question is actually why do people go to hell. I think that it is because people turn away from God to the enjoyment of other things instead of God. If the Bible is to be believed (see Romans 3:10-18) everybody is in that boat. Now, if someone manages to turn to God , trusting in His righteousness and mercy not relying on his own works, but on God’s mercy, then He is saved. It’s unlikely that people will do that spontaneously, though.

Anyway, I hope this has been somewhat helpful.

Standard