Do physical particles act for reasons?

 In the case of the physical, that is typically defined as something that does not act for reasons. If I am caught in an avalanche, the rocks have no interest in either clobbering me or not clobbering me. They just move in accordance with the laws of physics.Yet in our universe we have things called scientists (and other rational agents as well) who respond to evidence and have purposes for what they do. This suggests a whole different mode of causation than what atoms in the unverse are supposed to do according to physicalism. If a reason is the cause of my actions, but my brain is physical (meaning that the particles in it do not act for reasons), then acting for reasons is an emergent property. But what that involves isn't just saying something about the whole that you don't say about the parts, it is attributing a fundamentally different kind of causation to the whole that is not found in the parts. And that seems to me to be self-contradictory. If physicalism is true, then all causation is physical (non-rational) causation. If you want to introduce purpose into physics be my guest, but then how do you keep God out of physics?

Utility and rights

 

The existence of rights is critical. The rights that utilitarianism allows for are rights that will maximize happiness. But isn't the whole idea of a right the idea that you are entitled to something no matter what, even if your having that right makes things worse for the sake of happiness. For example, do you only have the right to live if it would be best for the balance of pleasure over pain if you stayed alive?

How should laws against abortion work? How do you prevent collateral damage

Example 1: If a woman has a miscarriage, should she have to prove that she didn't induce the abortion? 

Example 2: A woman's pregnancy is likely to either kill her or leave her with serious physical damage if she carries the pregnancy to term, should we wait until we are sure she will die if she continues the pregnancy before ending the pregnancy? 

Example 3: If there is a rape exception, what kind of evidence should be needed that there has been a rape? 

I am not implying that these problems can't be resolved, or even that laws in restrictive states don't cover them. 

Mascall's Christmas Carol about Bultmann

 Hark, the herald angels sing:

> "Bultmann is the latest thing!"
> (Or they would if he had not
> Demythologized the lot.)
> Joyfull, all ye nations, rise,
> Glad to existentialize!
> Peace on earth and mercy mild,
> God and Science reconciled.
>
> Lo, the ancient myths disperse,
> Hence, three-storied universe!
> Let three-decker pulpits stay:
> Bultmann has a lot to say,
> Since Kerygma still survives
> When the myths have lost their lives,
> Hark, the herald angels sing:
> "Bultmann shot us on the wing!"...
>
> Let us with a gladsome mind
> Leave the ancient world behind.
> Modern man, rejoice with us!
> We have read Copernicus.
> While the herald angels sing:
> "Bultman ist ein gutes Ding!"
> We respond in simple trust:
> "Demythologize or bust!"

Christian sexual morality and the level playing field.

 There is something tricky about Christian sexual morality that I am not sure everyone appreciates. People who complain about this morality assume that people's sex lives occur on a level playing field, and then ask "What are Christians objecting to?" But sex didn't occur on a level playing field when the Bible was written, so what sexual liberation would have meant was the freedom of rich and powerful men to use their positions of power for their sexual advantage, Wife has a headache? Go the the slave tent. Feeling a little gay today? There are some boys for that. Is there a level playing field now, so does that make Christian defense of traditional marriage obsolete? Not so fast. It may be better now, probably thanks to Christians, but men don't get pregnant, and people like Epstein, Weinstein, and (some won't like this) Trump exploit power for sex. You can add Clinton as well, to avoid the appearance of partisan bias here.

Is the argument from biblical prophecy a flat Tyre?

 Here. 

How to decrease illegal immigration

 If any law-abiding citizen of a foreign country could come here legally in a reasonable amount of time, then there would be far less need for illegal immigration, and therefore less illegal immigration. If America didn't defund efforts to assist foreign nations in creating a more prosperity and safety in the home countries, there would be less illegal immigration. If we invested in adjudicators to decide asylum claims quickly and efficiently, there would be less illegal immigration. As a matter of justice, our leaders need to stop lying about prospective immigrants, and cut out the bald assertions that they are all out of prisons or asylums, or eating pets. We also need to stop discriminating against prospective immigrants based on country of origin (no Haitians, but Afrikaners from South Africa are free to come.) I have trouble seeing illegal immigrants as criminals when we have such Jim Crow immigration laws. Don't unjust laws deserve to be broken?

In defense of abortion, by Nathan Nobis

An argument in defense of early abortion. 

Deductive arguments

 Actually deductive arguments does not need to be based on facts. It just has to he structured in such a way that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be. For example, it is a valid deductive argument to say "Abortion is murder, murder should be legal, therefore abortion should be legal." However it' going to be tough selling people on the second premise.

Free speech is free speech-like it or not

If you think it’s dangerous for Florida’s legislators to have the power to police speech in public school classrooms, then you should find it equally outrageous for Colorado legislators to try to mandate what pronouns parents can use with their own children in their own homes or journalists can use when reporting stories.

Hitler's Crib

 There are cases when what maximizes utility contradicts a principle. What if you are in a position to kill someone you know will do great harm to the world. What if, for example, you are transported back in time and are standing over Hitler's crib. There is a pillow handy. Do you smother him, especially if you think you are going to return to 2025 forthwith?

Utilitarianism and tax policy

 If you raise taxes on the wealthy, you hurt some of those people, though they can afford to lose their thirteenth yacht. But presumably the money could be used to help more people. (Though I know there are debates about this.) Still, in this context, is it best to use utiilitarianism to decide what to do?

What principles do we use to determine tax policy?

Classroom advocacy

 I have often noted the disparity between the way in which religious advocacy in the classroom is treated and the way anti-religious advocacy is treated. It is as if they think that you can't violate the Establishment Clause if you attack religion in class, because atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a religion. So we can shove atheism down your throat all you want to, but if you advocate your religious views in class, there is an issue with the Establishment Clause. You ought at least to have the right to say in class "I'm a believer, here's why" or "I am an unbeliever, here's why." But your first job is to be fair in presenting the case on both sides. I've had atheist professors who were good at doing that. Others, not so much. One of my former teachers in grad school notice a cross on the blackboard. He then put his head down on the desk and said "I won't start class until somebody erases that."

A libertarian defense of abortion and infanticide

 Here. 

Yep, infanticide has its defenders.

AI on whether abortion is cheaper

Of course you also have the argument that capital punishment is cheaper.  

While the costs of abortion and childbirth vary, some argue that the long-term costs to the state of raising a child are greater than the costs of providing abortion care, potentially leading to a situation where abortion is cheaper for the state than live birth. [1, 2, 3]

Here's a more detailed look at the arguments and considerations:

Arguments for Abortion Being Cheaper: [1, 3]

• Long-Term Costs of Raising a Child: The costs associated with raising a child, including education, healthcare, housing, and social services, are significantly higher than the costs of an abortion procedure. [1, 3]
• Medicaid Costs: In states where Medicaid covers abortion, the cost of the procedure is often lower than the cost of providing prenatal care, childbirth, and postpartum care for a live birth. [3, 4]
• Reduced Strain on Social Services: By choosing abortion, individuals may avoid the potential strain on social services that can arise from raising a child, such as childcare, welfare, and education programs. [3]

Arguments Against Abortion Being Cheaper: [5, 6, 7]

• Abortion Costs Vary: The cost of an abortion can vary greatly depending on the type of procedure, the stage of pregnancy, and the location of the provider. [5, 6, 7]
• Post-Abortion Care: There can be costs associated with post-abortion care, such as medication, follow-up appointments, and potential complications. [8]
• Ethical Considerations: Some people have strong moral or religious beliefs that abortion is never justifiable, regardless of the costs. [1]
• Mental Health Concerns: Some studies suggest that women who have abortions may experience increased risks of mental health problems, which could lead to increased healthcare costs. [9]

Other Factors to Consider: [4, 10]

• State-Specific Laws and Regulations: Abortion laws and regulations vary by state, which can impact the cost and accessibility of abortion care. [4, 10]
• Insurance Coverage: Some health insurance plans may not cover abortion services, which can lead to higher out-of-pocket costs. [4, 11]
• Access to Abortion Care: In some areas, access to abortion care is limited, which can increase the cost and difficulty of obtaining an abortion. [12]
• The Hyde Amendment: The Hyde Amendment, which restricts the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, can lead to higher costs for individuals seeking abortion care. [4, 13]
• Abortion Funds: Organizations like the National Network of Abortion Funds help cover the costs of abortion for those who cannot afford it. [5, 12]

Generative AI is experimental.

[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/the-world-today/2022-06/counting-cost-abortion-ban

[2] https://www.foxnews.com/politics/a-birth-more-expensive-than-abortion-co-dems-argue-fiscal-virtues-liberal-health-care-bill

[3] https://www.aol.com/birth-more-expensive-abortion-co-195617817.html

[4] https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services-under-medicaid-in-the-post-roe-era/

[5] https://abortionfunds.org/need-an-abortion/

[6] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/in-clinic-abortion-procedures/how-do-i-get-an-in-clinic-abortion

[7] https://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2024/11/abortion-cost-much/

[8] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7865195/

[9] https://news.yahoo.com/birth-more-expensive-abortion-co-195617817.html

[10] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/does-medicare-cover-abortions

[11] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/abortion/the-abortion-pill/how-much-does-abortion-pill-cost

[12] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/09/28/us/abortion-costs-funds.html

[13] https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/01/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-enforces-overwhelmingly-popular-demand-to-stop-taxpayer-funding-of-abortion/

If materialism true, how is belief based on evidence possible?

 

The title of one of Richard Dawkins’s books is The Blind Watchmaker, but its subtitle is How the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a World without Design.¹ The subtitle, it seems to me, makes a paradoxical claim. On the one hand, it maintains we ought to draw the conclusion that the world lacks design. On the other hand, the subtitle suggests that he has reached this conclusion through examining the evidence of evolution, but examining the evidence is a process designed to discover the truth. In fact, Dawkins is fond of contrasting his own methods for reaching conclusions with methods based on faith, which to his mind involve a lack of design. He put it this way in an open letter to his ten-year-old daughter:

Next time somebody tells you something that sounds important, think to yourself: ‘Is this the kind of thing that people probably know because of evidence? Or is it the kind of thing that people only believe because of tradition, authority or revelation?’ And, next time somebody tells you that something is true, why not say to them: ‘What kind of evidence is there for that?’ And if they can’t give you a good answer, I hope you’ll think very carefully before you believe a word they say.²

 Dawkins appeals to a fact of experience, one that cannot be denied without extreme implausibility. There are some claims that can be justified only if there is evidence for it, and we form our beliefs concerning them based on the evidence. If we want to know whether or not the Loch Ness Monster exists, we have to look at the evidence for or against it. Someone could have a strong feeling about it, but that wouldn’t be a reason to believe that the monster exists, or that it does not exist. But if the world really is without design, how is this possible that anyone can reason to a conclusion? Of course, it could turn out that the paradox is resolvable. Still, if the world is not teleological, those who think they believe anything for a good reason owe us an explanation as to how that is even possible.

Craig on the argument from intentionality

 Here. 

Respect for persons and cultural relativism

 Belief in respect for persons means that culture does not determine morality, because in many cultures, including our own during the days of black slavery, we approved of practices that did not accord with respect for persons. Segregation would be another example.

A Christian Defense of Transgender Identities

 Here. Though I think most transgendering these days is the result of gender ideology and trigger-happy medical professionals who think all cases of gender dysphoria require a change of gender. I think medical science will get over this fad. 

How a skeptical philosopher becomes a Christian.

Here.