Christianity and homosexuality

 Sexual orientation is a matter of who you are naturally attracted to sexually. Some people seem to be sexually attracted to the same sex, others to both sexes, and some only to the opposite sex. Now, traditional sexual morality says that these desires can only be acted on where there is a marriage, and marriage, in the sacred sense is only possible for opposite-sex partners. I seriously doubt that this is simply genetic, as some have argued, but for some people at least it doesn't seem to be alterable. Trying to "pray the gay away" doesn't seem to work for some people, and the failure of Exodus International seems to support this contention. But if traditional Christian sexual morality holds, then people who are in this condition through no fault of their own are morally obligated to be celibate. It doesn't seem to me that those who are in that condition can alter their condition, nor does it seem to me that they had to have committed some sin in order to get into that condition.

What does the Church have to say to such people? There are four possibilities.

1) You are this way because God hates you. When Westboro Baptist says that God hates fags, they don't mean that since you chose to be a fag, you is angry with you. They believe in a particularly strong version of Reformed theology according to which God chooses some for heaven, whom he loves, and he hates everyone else. And one expression of God's hatred for you would be if you were to be an homosexual. That is a pretty good sign that God has created you for the fiery pits. God doesn't have you because you're gay, you are gay because God hates you.

2) You can change your orientation and become straight, through prayer, Bible study, and therapy. I think this was the position of Focus on the Family, and is the basis of Exodus International, and it looks to me like it doesn't work. And I when I read histories of the gay rights movement, and try to explain why so many Americans now accept gay marriage, this chapter in the story tends to be left out.

3) The celibacy option. This is the view that, yes, there are people who are unalterably gay, and these people are obligated to be celibate. Technically, there is nothing wrong with being gay any more than there is anything wrong with having black skin or blue eyes, but the moral path to acceptable to intimate relationships is closed to them.

4) The Lord is my shepherd and he knows I'm gay (the title of a book by Troy Perry, the founder of the Metropolitan Community Church). This is to hold that the traditional prescriptions against homosexual conduct are not absolute, and that gays should seek a homosexual equivalent of traditional heterosexual marriage.

These are the four options. 1 seems unacceptable, 2 doesn't work, so 3 and 4 are what is left.

Physics is leading us to a mental universe

 So says Scientific American. 

Haldane vs. Haldane

 

Unlike Balfour, J. B. S. Haldane is quoted by C. S. Lewis. Also unlike Balfour, Haldane was a dedicated atheist. He wrote in 1934 “My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.” Haldane was also a virulent Lewis critic who considered Lewis a “danger to clear thinking.” He once gave a presentation on behalf of atheism at the Oxford Socratic Club with Lewis present but departed without answering questions, preventing any in-person exchange between the two of them.

            Nevertheless, in 1927 Haldane offers a reason for rejecting materialism. He writes.

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere byproduct of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

What he seems to have been committed to at this stage is some version of Absolute Idealism, as evidenced by this passage:

But I notice that when I think logically and scientifically or act morally my thoughts and actions cease to be characteristic of myself, and are those of any intelligent or moral being in the same position; in fact, I am already identifying my mind with an absolute or unconditioned mind.

However, by 1940 he wrote “Why I am a materialist,” giving an account of his rejection of his previous idealistic philosophy but not rebutting the specific argument he had provided.

Here. 

 But in 1954, after Lewis in 1947 had quoted him so prominently in the third chapter of Miracles, he wrote “I Repent an Error,” for Literary Guide, in which he responded to the passage Lewis had quoted. Haldane’s counter-response bears little resemblance to Anscombe’s reply to Lewis, but is resembles how many naturalists’ respond when they first encounter the argument. Benjamin Fain summarizes it as follows.

….computers act in accordance with the laws of physics, and despite that they act in full accordance with the laws of logic. The human mind can be represented by the brain, which we can compare to the computer. It is simultaneously a physical and logical being.

Popper's version of Haldane's argument against materialism

 Here. 

The context here is that I have been  working on a paper on the history of arguments from reason. Balfour seems like the first post-Darwin version of the argument, and Haldane is interesting because he uses the argument against materialism, then develops a rebuttal to his own argument based on computers which I think more closely resembles a lot of people's responses than did Anscombe's rebuttal. Popper is interesting because he defends the earlier Haldane against his later self. 

Two differernt but physically identical worlds.

Here's a BIG problem for people who think that the physical facts determine all the facts. There is a possible world in which I am you and you are me, despite the fact that the two worlds are physically identical. 

The denial of consciousness

 You will have noticed that most dogs cannot understand pointing. You point to a bit of food on the floor; the dog, instead of looking at the floor, sniffs at your finger. A finger is a finger to him, and that is all. His world is all fact and no meaning.

And in a period when factual realism is dominant we shall find people deliberately inducing upon themselves this doglike mind. A man who has experienced love from within will deliverately go about to inspect it analytically from outside and regard the results of this analysis as truer than his experience.

The extreme limit of this self-binding is seen in those who, like the rest of us, have consciousness, yet go about to study the human organism as if they did not know it was conscious. As long as this deliberate refusal to understand things from above, even where such understanding is possible, continues, it is idle to talk of any final victory over materialism.

The critique of every experience from below, the voluntary ignoring of meaning and concentration on fact, will always have the same plausibility. There will always be evidence, and every month fresh evidence, to show that religion is only psychological, justice only self-protection, politics only economics, love only lust, and thought itself only cerebral biochemistry.”

–C. S. Lewis, “Transposition,” in The Weight of Glory: And Other Addresses (New York: HarperCollins, 1949/2001), 114-5.

The silliest claim ever made

 What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience. Next to this denial—I’ll call it “the Denial”—every known religious belief is only a little less sensible than the belief that grass is green.

-Galen Strawson

Karl Popper against materialism

 Here. 

One dividing point bewteen left and right

 Some people believe that government's primary role is to protect people from violent threat, but not so much to protect people from misfortune that does not stem from violent threat. Liberals wonder whyconservatives are so strong on national defense and law enforcement but less motivated toward government action to protect us against disease. I think this is a dividing point between liberals and conservatives historically. 

J. B. S. Haldane's argument for atheism

 

“My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Faith And Fact

Moore replies to Balfour

 Balfour’s presentation in Foundations of Belief faced a well-known critic, G.E. Moore. Moore wrote;

For it to be true that beliefs were evolved, then the belief that they were so must have been evolved. And this, according to Mr.Balfour, is a reason why we must doubt its truth. That is to say, the fact of (naturalistic) evolution is a reason for doubting the fact of evolution. It is inconsistent to believe in the fact of evolution, if at the same time we believe in the fact of evolution. The inconsistency, we may in fact reply, is all the other way. It is, in fact, contradictory to believe that the validity of a belief depends on any way on the manner in which it was acquired.

Students of the Lewis-Anscombe exchange will notice a predecessor to Anscombe’s criticism of Lewis here. In fact, noticing this put my dissertation advisor, on to seeing the similarity between Balfour’s argument and Lewis’s. But is it inconsistent or contradictory to argue say that the validity of a belief depends on the manner in which it was acquired? This what we seem to object to when we make charges of genetic fallacy or ad hominem circumstantial. But let us take ad hominem circumstantial. Here you simply find a motive in someone psyche that might motivate someone to believe something whether or not it is true or false, and conclude from that that the person’s belief lacks validity. Or in case of the genetic fallacy, the belief may have originated in a non-rational way in someone’s mind. That wouldn’t mean that the belief couldn’t have been tested further down the road in a way that would render it rational.

Science and mentalistic explanations

 

In science, how beliefs are produced seems to matter, and matter profoundly. Some belief-forming mechanisms work effectively without our knowing how they work. Star basketball players would be hard-pressed to provide algorithms as to how they decide when to shoot, pass, or drive the lane. But science depends crucially on or ability not only to make inferences, but to communicate those inferences in such a way that others in the scientific community can repeat the process and determine whether they concur or not. The paradox of science is that while science seems happiest analyzing realities that are mindless machines, the description they have to give of their own activity in order for that activity to be legitimate is invariably and inescapably mentalistic. Propositions are chosen, and others rejected, on the grounds that they conform to the evidence. In fact, atheists like Richard Dawkins never tire of telling us that their process of selecting beliefs concerning religious claims is evidence-based, while the religionists they criticize ignore evidence. In other words, Dawkins is saying that, unlike religionists, his activities in choosing to accept or reject religious claims can be explained in mentalistic terms, the terms of evidence evaluation. But wouldn’t that be nonsense if nothing in the universe, in the final analysis, has a mentalistic explanation?

 

Science vs Naturalism

 

1.      If naturalism is a rational position, then science is a legitimate way of knowing the world, if not the only legitimate way of knowing the world.

2.      If science is a legitimate way of knowing the world, then some people infer their beliefs from other beliefs. This is essential to the scientific method.

3.      If some people infer beliefs from other beliefs, then some things in reality act for reasons.

4.      But if naturalism is true, nothing in reality acts for reasons. Everything acts due to non-rational causes.

5.      Therefore, if naturalism is true, science is not a legitimate way of knowing the world.

6.      Therefore, if naturalism is true, naturalism is not a rational position.

7.      If a thesis can be a rational position only if the position is false, then that thesis if not a rational position.

8.      Therefore, naturalism is not a rational position.

 

The paradox of the materiaiist evidentialist

 If materialism is true, it's impossible for evidence to determine what ssmeone believes. What someone believes is determined by the basic forces of physics. Evidence is not a basic force of physics, so it cannot really cause belief if materialism is true. People who believe in materialism based on evidence exist only if maeriaalism is false.

Balfour's argument from reason

 

Lewis mentions Balfour’s Theism and Humanism in one place, but the closest parallel to the argument Lewis used in Miracles comes in Lewis’s book The Foundations of Belief, originally published in 1895.

Balfour’s argument derives four propositions from what he calls the “naturalistic creed.”

1)      My beliefs, in so far as they are the result of reasoning at all, are founded on premises produced in the last resort by the “collision of atoms.”

2)      Atoms, having no prejudices in favour of truth, are as likely to turn out wrong premises as right ones; nay, more likely, inasmuch as truth is one and error manifold.

3)      My premises, therefore, in the first place, and my conclusions in the second, are certainly untrustworthy, and probably false. Their falsity, moreover, is of a kind which cannot be remedied; for any attempt to correct it must start from premises not suffering from the same defect. But no such premises exist.

4)      Therefore, again, my opinion about the original causes which produced my premises, as it is an inference from them, partakes of the same weakness; so that I cannot either accurately doubt my own certainties or be certain of my own doubts.

In other words, if naturalism, then skepticism. But if skepticism is true, then we have to be as skeptical about naturalism as we are about anything else    

Importantly, Balfour considers the Evolutionary Rebuttal to this argument. Evolutionary biology “establishes the existence of a machinery which, irrational thought it may be, does really bend gradually, and in the long run, to produce true opinions rather than false.” That machinery, of course, is natural selection. This brings the organism into more and more perfect harmony with the environment.

But he finds the Evolutionary Rebuttal to be less than adequate. He writes:

But what an utterly inadequate basis for speculation is here. We are to suppose that the powers that evolved in primitive man and his animal progenitors in order that they might kill with success and marry in security, are on that account, sufficient to explore the secrets of the universe. We are to suppose that the fundamental beliefs on which these powers of reasoning are to be exercised reflect with sufficient precision remote aspects of reality, though they were produced in the main by physiological processes which date from a stage of development when the only curiosities that had to be satisfied were those of fear and those of hunger.

            He concludes:

            I do not think believe that any escape from these perplexities is possible unless we are prepared to bring to the study of the world the presupposition that it was the work of a rational Being, who made it intelligible,  and at the same time made us, in however feeble a fashion, able to understand it.

This is the Foundatons of Bellief, available in its entirety on Google Books. 

The passages I quoted from start on p. 306. 

 

 

 

 

Owen Barfield persuades Lewis to reject "realism"

 In the second place he convinced me that the positions we had hitherto held left no room for any satisfactory theory of knowledge. We had been, in the technical sense of the term, "realists"; that is, we accepted as rock-bottom reality the universe revealed by the senses. But at the same time we continued to make for certain phenomena of consciousness all the claims that really went with a theistic or idealistic view. We maintained that abstract thought (if obedient to logical rules) gave indisputable truth, that our moral judgment was "valid", and our aesthetic experience not merely pleasing but "valuable". The view was, I think, common at the time; it runs through Bridges' Testament of Beauty, the work of Gilbert Murray, and Lord Russell's "Worship of a Free Man". Barfield convinced me that it was inconsistent. If thought were a purely subjective event, these claims for it would have to be abandoned. If one kept (as rock-bottom reality) the universe of the senses, aided by instruments and co-ordinated so as to form "science", then one would have to go much further--as many have since gone--and adopt a Behaviouristic theory of logic, ethics, and aesthetics. But such a theory was, and is, unbelievable to me. I am using the word "unbelievable", which many use to mean "improbable" or even "undesirable", in a quite literal sense. I mean that the act of believing what the behaviourist believes is one that my mind simply will not perform. I cannot force my thought into that shape any more than I can scratch my ear with my big toe or pour wine out of a bottle into the cavity at the base of that same bottle. It is as final as a physical impossibility. I was therefore compelled to give up realism. I had been trying to defend it ever since I began reading philosophy. Partly, no doubt, this was mere "cussedness". Idealism was then the dominant philosophy at Oxford and I was by nature "against Government". But partly, too, realism satisfied an emotional need. I wanted Nature to be quite independent of our observation; something other, indifferent, self-existing. (This went with the Jenkinian zest for rubbing one's nose in the mere quiddity.) But now, it seemed to me, I had to give that up. Unless I were to accept an unbelievable alternative, I must admit that mind was no late-come epiphenomenon; that the whole universe was, in the last resort, mental; that our logic was participation in a cosmic Logos.

Left and right on abortion

 Left wing argument for outlawing abortion: 

1. Fetuses are an oppressed class, like blacks, Hispanics, women, gays, and lesbians. They must be protected in the name of social justice (and Critical Birth Theory). 

Right-wing argument for abortion choice:

If abortion is outlawed, then a lot of babies that would otherwise be aborted will be born under difficult economic circumstances. These will have to be cared for through an expanison of the social welfare system. It will motivate such socialist proposal as paid family leave. In order to protect capitalism, we mut affirm a woman's right to choose abortion. 

So why are all the pro-lifers on the right, and all the pro-choicers on the left? 

Physicalism and the illusion of reasoning

 But at the base level of analysis we can form expectations of where every atom in the universe will be indepenent of any meaning or purpose. It can look as if meaning and purposes have results as to where atoms in the universe will be at some time (such as why I am choosing just these words to put iinto this post) but if materialism is true the location of every atom in this computer can be best predicted without reference to anything I mean to say here. This includes not only the physically determined but intelligently designed computer, but also my brain which chooses my words at this very moment. which ex hypothesi was not inteligently designed. If determinism is true, then a Laplacian Physicist could, given the state of the atoms (and yes, you could write the laws of physics into the state of the the atoms rather than making the laws independent of it, but that would not change my argument) perfectly wihtout reference to anything mental. There would then still be truths of supervenience which indicate what pattens of physical states exist, if physical states are arranged a certain way, but these fact exist without intelligent content. If physicalism is true, the appearnce of believing something for a reason is just that--appearance. An opera singer can appear to cause a window to break by singing the words "Shatter now." but we know that itis physical causes, not intelligible content, that causes the window to shatter. In the same way, given physicalism, a philosopher may have the illusion that he has inferred the nonexistence of God from the evil in the world, but what the physicalist believes, once the logical implicationa of physicalism are drawn, entails he the philosopher has done no such thing. The blind physical processes of physics have caused his "conclusion," and the claim to have inferred anything is an illusion.

How to commit the fallacy of composition and get away wtih it

 Transference between parts and wholes is tricky. But if there is no teleology in the parts, there is no teleology in the whole. A brick wall is six feet tall because the bricks add up to six feet. But nonteleological activity on the part of basic particles means no real telelogy at the higher levels. The explanation at the basic level provides a sufficient cause, so the mental explanation is otiose.

Sometimes the fallacy of composition isn't a fallacy.

C. S. Lewis and the milk jug

 

“Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

― c s lewis

My response: Any naturalist who sees this is going to point out that the evolutionary process can't be compared to the upsetting of a milk jug. True enough, but it isn't mental causation either, it's just trial and error mimicing what we would have thought was mental causation. But science as an activity cannot exist unless there is real mental causation--one mental event is produced in the mind as the result of evidence and logic supporting iit. But, if naturalism is true, it looks as if this never happens. Every event in the universe, according to them, is produced by the previous positions of the atoms, the laws of physics, and, if quantum mechanics is true, a chance factor. Reasons don't literally produce anything in such a world. including the beliefs that naturalists inssts are based on evidence.

Ethical Subjectivism and Hannibal Lecter

 Suppose Hannibal invites someone over for dinner, shoves them into the oven, and cooks them AS dinner. You discover what Hannibal has done, and maintain that he has done something very unethical. He replies that ethics is subjective, and the from his subjective point of view, he did nothing wrong.

Is ethics really subjective?

Do atheists hate God?

 Here's a Christian who says they do. The implication is that they really know in their hearts that there is a God, but are suppressing it. 

Snobby attitudes

 In spite of the snobby attitude that a lot of people have towards Lewis, I would point out that Lewis tutored philosophy at Oxford University before taking a permanent job as professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Oxford. How many of you could get a job as a tutor in philosophy at Oxford?

In honor of Easter, my reply to Hume

 Here. 

EXceptions?

 Do you think there are no exceptional cases where there is a medical reason to do a gender reassignment.? Granted. I think the trans craze of the early 21st Century will I think be viewed as crazy by future generations, in much the way the eugenics craze of the previous century is now viewed (How could they have thought that?). But does it follow that birth assigments are infallible?

Arizona School Board ends contract with anti-LGBTQ Christian college

 Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist, defends the Washington School District for ending its student teacher contract with Arizona Christian University. It isn't because ACU is Christian, it's because it affirmation of traditional marriage is "bigoted," diversity and inclusion is, he thinks, consistent with excluding such "bigots."

FRIENDLYATHEIST.SUBSTACK.COM

Arizona school board rightly ends contract with anti-LGBTQ Christian college

The Washington Elementary School District will no longer bring on student teachers from the anti-LGBTQ Arizona Christian University

Why capitalism loves transgenderism

Indiviidual Race Theory

 I think one way of posing the issue on race is to ask, not whether critical race theory is true, but whether individual race theory is true. IRT is a claim that racism is something that occurs in, and only in, individuals. There is nothing systemic about it. Thus, if a racist cop in Minneapolis kills a black man in a chokehold, he's an individual bad apple, not a symptom of a deeper problem. In the words of the prophet Brian, we're all individuals. So, if I stop using the n-word, if I associate with black people just as readily as I associate with white people, if I don't support segregation, if I see slavery and Jim Crow as part of a regrettable past, if I learn to stop seeing color, then I am free of racism and I'm fine and dandy. It seems that ant-anti-racism pushes this narrative. Tom Horne, the AZ school superintendent, is very explicit about it. Now even if CRT goes off the deep end in some ways, I think they are right in criticizing IRT.

Vallicella on explaining consciousness

 Here. 

The Left on abortion

 This is where the left has gone on abortion, and pro-abortion extremism is toxic. 

They are so afraid of people who get abortions being "stigmatized" that they stigmatize people who disapprove of abortion, or refuse to get them in the face of pregnancy difficulties. Newsflash: Being disapproved of is a part of life, and abortion is a serious moral issue.

Here.   

Tucker vs.Trump

 Tucker vs. Trump

"I HATE [TRUMP] PASSIONATELY."

–Tucker Carlson, Jan. 4, 2021

"THERE REALLY ISN'T AN UPSIDE TO TRUMP."

–Tucker Carlson, Jan. 4, 2021

"WHAT [TRUMP'S] GOOD AT IS DESTROYING THINGS. HE'S THE UNDISPUTED WORLD CHAMPION OF THAT."

–Tucker Carlson, Nov. 6, 2020

But of course none of this was never aired on FOX News.

We are on the wrong road

 

Faulty Epistemology

 I remember a few years back there was going to be a debate at the Oregon State Socratic Club about the legitimacy of transgendering. The transgender community objected to the debate not because their pro-trans perspective was being challenged, but because the defender of the transgender community was cisgender (sound of fingernails on blackboard) and therefore could not represent the lived experience of the trans community.

This seems a faulty epistemology--that only people who experience something can know about it.

This was Starhopper's Blog

Here. Mostly devoted to astronomy.

C. S. Lewis anticipated Thomas Nagel

 Here. 

Sad News: The passing of Starhopper

 Bob was a friend I knew as an undergraduate at ASU. I met him in a History of Middle Ages class, back in 1973. He, along with his friend Joe Sheffer, helped me gain an appreciation for Catholicism and navigate my way to developing an orthodox Christianity while avoiding fundamentalism. He was a big Lewis fan and a science fiction buff. We used to play something called the World Conquest Game, which was an expanded version of Risk. 

Here is the obituary. 

I'm right, and everyone else is wrong. Awfully arrogant of me to say that????

 Presumably you should try to pick a religion where there is good reason to believe that its claims are true. If you think you religion is true, then you think that, to the extent that others differ from you, they are mistaken. But you don't get away from that by rejecting religion. If you think religious nonbelief is true, then you think that, say, atheism is true and that theists are wrong, and so with that you can use that as a basis for thinking yourself better than others. So everyone, believer and unbeliever, thinks that they are right and everyone else is wrong.

From my facebook feed--just for fun

 

The Godelian argument against mechanism

 

Which Godel himself seems to have endorsed. 

Here. 

Is Godel relevant to the issues surrounding Darwin and design?

 Here. 

Elections and the Burden of Proof

  I think the innocent until proven guilty rule has to apply to elections as well as to criminal cases. If, in order to be elected, you have to prove that there was no fraud, you could never elect anybody. Besides, stealing an election is a criminal offense. The expedient of locking someone up requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the expedient of overturning an election result requires a similar degree of proof. Trump and those like him think that it's OK to overturn elections because partisan officials assert, or even believe there was fraud. It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. None of the evidence provided in the case of the Arizona governor's race, or in the 2020 Presidential election, rises even to the level of a preponderance of the evidence (what is needed in a civil case), much less beyond reasonable doubt. You can't just scream FRAUD at the top of your lungs and float theories about Venezuelan voting machine software in order to get an election overturned. If that were true, then all Hillary would have needed to do would have been to make claims about Russian interference and she could get the 2016 election overturned. Without a high burden of proof for election fraud claims, chaos would result.

Are religious motives for good conduct mercenary?

 But religious motives for good conduct are not all mercenary.

“We are afraid that Heaven is a bribe, and that if we make it our goal we shall no longer be disinterested. It is not so. Heaven offers nothing that the mercenary soul can desire. It is safe to tell the pure in heart that they shall see God, for only the pure in heart want to. There are rewards that do not sully motives. A man's love for a woman is not mercenary because he wants to marry her, nor his love for poetry mercenary because he wants to read it, nor his love of exercise less disinterested because he wants to run and leap and walk. Love, by definition, seeks to enjoy its object.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

The Center for Naturalism's response to Plantinga's argument against naturalism

 Here. 

Was C. S. Lewis a chicken atheist?

 Here. 

Christopher Hitchens on Liar, Lunatic or Lord

 The atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, argues that Lewis's contention is right but offers a different interpretation: in contrast to Christian moralists like Thomas Jefferson and Ernest Renan, he writes, "I am bound to say that Lewis is more honest here. Absent a direct line to the Almighty and a conviction that the last days are upon us, how is it 'moral' [...] to claim a monopoly on access to heaven, or to threaten waverers with everlasting fire, let alone to condemn fig trees and persuade devils to infest the bodies of pigs? Such a person if not divine would be a sorcerer and a fanatic."[37

1. Hitchens, Christopher (9 July 2010). "In the Name of the Father, the Sons...". The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/books/review/Hitchens-t.html. Retrieved 10 February 2015. 

75th Anniversary of Lewis's exchange with Anscombe

 This is the 75th anniversary of Anscombe's famous paper presentation. Clearly Lewis believed 1) That Anscombe's criticism showed a serious problem with his presentation of the argument in Miracles, and 2) her criticisms did not show, as she claimed, that the naturalist is off the hook from objections to the effect that it naturalism is inconsistent the validity of reasoning. I think this is clear from Lewis's comment in his reply to Pittenger and his the short reply in the Socratuc Digest, not to mention his revision of the chapter for Fontana which appeared in 1960, twelve full years after the original exchange. The issue here isn't the popular nonsense about giving up apologetics and writing Narnia instead. The question is why, being critiqued in this way by Anscombe, and believing that the core of the argument holds nonetheless, why he didn't present a paper to the Socratic subsequently called "A Reply to Miss Anscombe's Argument that Naturalism is Not Self-Refuting." That's what I would have done, and have done in response to my critics over the years.

See the appendices here.

Free Market Fundamentalism

 A frequently held position is that the best results can be achieved by allowing the free market to operate, and attempts by government to correct it in the interest of fairness simply make matters worse instead of better. This is a very typical conservative economic philosophy. On the other hand, because of a pre-existing condition, I was never able to get health insurance until the Affordable Care Act was passed, and without insurance I would never have been able to get the surgery I needed six years ago. (I realize that what is good for me might be bad in general, but I would like to see some proof that this is the case.) Would the free market have mandated, for instance, warning labels on cigarettes, or even putting ingredient information on canned goods? This view is called "free market fundamentalism" and it doesn't seem to me to be supported by the evidence.

Is there good reason to believe this? If so, what is it?

Atheism and the Establishment Clause

 It would be very odd if our government were to make it legal to practice any religion you wanted to, so long as you practiced one, but prohibited you from lacking any religion at all. So, freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. But does freedom from religion involve more that this? If so, what?

Suppose a religious professor at a state college were to make it his goal to get as many students to believe his religion as possible. There seem to be at least some things he could do (for example, making it clear that anyone who wrote a paper in opposition to his religious beliefs would almost certainly get a failing grade), that would give the student grounds for suing based on the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Now, suppose an atheist professor were to make it his stated goal to get as many students to become atheists as possible. Are there things he could do that would give a religious student grounds for suing based on the Establishment Clause? Or, since it's nonbelief instead of belief, that's different?

Debates

 This is a link to the Russell-Copleston debate. What if C. S. Lewis had debated Bertrand Russell? What if Richard Dawkins had debated William Lane Craig?

A skeptical Christmas question

 It is, I believe Christian doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin. But in Matthew the biblical text maintains not merely that Jesus was born of a virgin, but was prophesied to be so born. 

Matthew 1: 22-23, NIV

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “God with us”).

This is, of course, a quote from Isaiah 7: 14. There is some controversy as to whether the Hebrew word in the prophecy really means "virgin" or "young woman." But that is not my worry about the use of this. But that is not my concern. My concern is that it looks as is Matthew has ripped the Isaiah prophecy out of its context. The context is this: Pekah the King of Israel, and Rezin the king of Syria are threatening to attack Ahaz king of Judah. Ahaz is scared, and wants to go get protection from the Assyrians. Isaiah is telling Ahaz to trust God, not Nineveh, for protection against Pekah and Rezin, and tells him to look for a sign from God. The sign is supposed to be that a virgin or young woman (however you translate it) will conceive and bear a son, showing Ahaz that God is with us (and that he doesn't have to go do business with the stinking Assyrians (not nice people, by the way) to maintain the security of Judah. 

But if that's the sign Isaiah is talking about, then the birth of Jesus, which takes place several centuries after Ahaz is dead, doesn't do the job.  Ahaz needs a sign NOW that God is with us. So how is the Isaiah verse a prophecy of Jesus? 

What does the right to an opinion amount to?

 What does it mean to have a right to a belief or an opinion. Is part of the right to your opinion the right to express your opinion? If it doesn't involve this, then what kind of a right is it? What does such a right protect you from. If I have a right to life, then I have the right to be protected from someone else's attempt to take my life. No one has the power to take my opinion away from me by force, so what does a right to an opinion amount to? 

Homosexuality and the need for approval?

 One right that I believe sometimes get neglected is the right to disapprove of someone's conduct. I'm not particularly hostile to homosexuality but I fear that people in the LGBT community equate disapproval with some sort of assault or endangerment. (Microaggression?) Does my love life need everyone's approval?

Can we trust our elections?

 Well, it's either ballots or bullets. Here is an argument against excessive election skepticism. 

An atheistic justification for violence

 An atheistic argument for violence:

1) Atheism is true, and so obviously so that religious believers must be insane.

2) Insane people can do outrageous things.

3) The people who promulgate belief in God are putting other people's sanity in danger.

4) Even if we have to forcibly stop them from doing so, we can prevent them from leading other people on the road to insanity, and hence possibly outrageous actions.

5) Therefore, the use of force in the name of suppressing religion is justified.

What's wrong with this picture

 The Old Testament is loaded with death penalty offenses, though Christ said the only ones who could carry a death sentence against one adulteress in particular were ones who were without sin. (They were executing ONE person after catching her in the very act of adultery. What's wrong with this picture?)

Wokeness and nonsense

 A lot of nonsense comes out of an interest in being woke. Even more nonsense comes from the attempt to avoid wokeness at all costs.

Is it wrong to kill a vegetator?

  I have run this thought experiment on myself. Suppose human beings were such that when they died, their central nervous system shuta down first, leaving them to continue to exist in a vegetative state for nine month before their biological life expired. These "vegetators" just lie around taking up bed space unless, before they die, they give the hospital the right to give them a lethal injection and put an end to their continued existence as vegetators. (The vegetators invariably smell pretty awful, too). If I sign off on the lethal injection (which I think I would do in an instant), I can't see that I would be committing the sin of suicide. So I fail to see how ending the life of a human entity which has never experienced anything is somehow equivalent to ending the life of someone or something that is undergoing experiences, has hopes, desires, beliefs, and dreams, etc.

Can we stop inflation by not printing any more money?

 Not according to this. 

Hypocrisy

 Hypocrisy on the part of a speaker does nothing to invalidate the speaker's point. A chain-smoking doctor has every right to tell you to quit smoking.

Yet, in a lot of political discussion, if you criticize someone in the other party for doing something wrong, the defense is not "No that wasn't wrong," or "He didn't actually do (or say) that, but "Someone in your party did something just as bad, or worse." And the proper answer to that would have to be "So what."

Secular humanism

 Secular humanism

The belief that humanity is capable of morality and self-fulfillment without belief in God.

Secular humanism is comprehensive, touching every aspect of life including issues of values, meaning, and identity. Thus it is broader than atheism, which concerns only the nonexistence of god or the supernatural. Important as that may be, there’s a lot more to life … and secular humanism addresses it.

Secular humanism is nonreligious, espousing no belief in a realm or beings imagined to transcend ordinary experience.

Secular humanism is a lifestance, or what Council for Secular Humanism founder Paul Kurtz has termed a eupraxsophy: a body of principles suitable for orienting a complete human life. As a secular lifestance, secular humanism incorporates the Enlightenment principle of individualism, which celebrates emancipating the individual from traditional controls by family, church, and state, increasingly empowering each of us to set the terms of his or her own life.

https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260

Is this the reasonable conclusion if atheism is true? 

Shoving your religion down someone's throat

 We often hear the statement "Don't force your religious views on me?" What would constitute forcing your views on others. I take it no one can force another person to worship at their church. So, what would "forcing" amount to, exactly? Can some shove their atheism down your throat, for example.