My recent recorded "Does God Exist?" debate (held on August 19, 2012 vs. Dr. Ronda Chervin) which was recorded for a special episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available on Youtube. A remastered high-quality downloadable and streamable audio-only file is scheduled to be released as a podcast on the first Wednesday of September. This was my second recorded debate of this kind.
Dr. Chervin presented variations of Aquinas' third and fifth ways in her opening statement.
I presented the evidential problem of natural evil, Stephen Law's 'Evil God Challenge,' and the problem of theological fatalism.
Thanks to all who supported, promoted, and watched the debate. Jason Gogola (behind the camera) and Karla Porter (the debate's moderator) helped with the organization and worked hard to make this happen. An extra special thanks goes out to my opponent, Dr. Chervin, for providing a good debate.
Comments, questions, and feedback -- always encouraged -- can be posted here. I will be participating in events like this in the future, so constructive criticism will help improve the quality of debates like this. Consider also sending e-mail and thanks to Dr. Chervin at ChervinRonda (at) gmail (dot) com. Feel free, also, to sound off on the event's Facebook page which still has ongoing discussion!
I will be dedicating some upcoming blog posts concerning this debate in which I will further develop the arguments I presented, restate and expand my objections to my opponent, and comment on some issues which were raised in the question and answer session. Stay tuned by following the blog label 'NEPAGodDebate' and keeping watch on my blog.
An interesting note which should be known...
At a point in the question and answer session, moderator Karla Porter was asking questions which were not delivered by persons in the live chat. For whatever reason, the chatroom crashed and -- while it was still open -- questions were not easy to read considering the blinding speed of the chat. In the future, we will ask that questions be sent via another medium instead. I appreciate, though, that so many people viewed! Crashing the chatroom is a good sign of interest :)
Information on participants:
Ronda Chervin received a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Fordham University and an MA in Religious Studies from Notre Dame Apostolic Institute. She is a widow, mother, and grandmother. Ronda converted to the Catholic Faith from a Jewish, though atheistic, background and has been a Professor of Philosophy and Theology at Loyola Marymount University, the Seminary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Franciscan University of Steubenville. She is an international speaker and author of some fifty books about Catholic thought, practice and spirituality. Ronda is currently a Dedicated Widow of the Holy Eucharist forming a small community of dedicated widows. Dr. Ronda is currently teaching philosophy at Holy Apostles College and Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut. Her website can be found at www.rondachervin.com.
Justin Vacula received bachelor's degrees in Philosophy and Psychology, a minor in Professional Writing, and the distinguished W.A. Kilburn Memorial Award for Philosophy from King's College. Justin Vacula is an outspoken atheist, activist for the separation of church and state, a speaker, writer/reporter, blogger, and host of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast. He is currently enrolled in Marywood University's graduate-level Mental Health Counseling program. Vacula holds leadership roles as the co-organizer, spokesperson, and a board member of the NEPA Freethought Society. Justin has appeared on various radio shows, television networks, and podcasts. Vacula will be speaking at the upcoming September 28-30 Atheist/Humanist conference in Harrisburg. His website can be found at www.justinvacula.com.
Karla Porter works with organizations that want to achieve employer of choice status, are interested in attracting candidates who will develop into employee brand advocates that drive growth and continued success, embrace diversity, desire a culture of innovation and excellence, want to enrich the community, and reward superior performance with celebrity. Porter is one of four organizers behind the upcoming NEPA BlogCon 2012 conference at Luzerne County Community College taking place on September 29. Her website can be found at www.karlaporter.com.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
PZ Myers: 'Abortion reduces to simple question.' Really?
 |
| PZ Myers |
In a recent blog post, biologist PZ Myers argued that philosophical and scientific arguments concerning abortion are irrelevant because the matter of abortion reduces to "a simple question." I argue, as someone who identifies as pro-choice with a background in philosophy, that the matter of abortion isn't as simple as PZ makes it out to be.
Throughout my undergraduate studies in philosophy it became quite evident to me that arguments concerning many philosophical issues can be -- and are -- raised. What might appear to us to be simple or evident doesn't appear to be so following closer examination. Concerning philosophy of religion, for example, a vast array of articles inside of and outside of jornals exist on the topics of miracles, the problem of evil, faith, and theological fatalism. Competing ethical frameworks in the domain of ethics such as utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology exist which merely, in many cases, start discussions while specific issues such as suicide, euthanasia, and the death penalty are often later discussed in the light of various ethical frameworks. To note that a long-debated philosophical issue is 'simple' or otherwise reduces to one question -- especially in the case of ethical matters -- seems to be quite a foolish blunder.
An example of such a blunder can be found at biologist PZ Myers' blog Pharyngula on the Freethought Blogs network. In a less than one hundred word blog post titled "The only abortion argument that counts" [the title itself should raise an immediate red flag] including a short video, PZ Myers asserts that philosophical and scientific arguments for abortion simply do not matter because the issue of abortion reduces to "a simple question." Apparently, on Myers' account, all of the debates and journal articles that have been written throughout human history on the matter of abortion are irrelevant. Myers writes:
We can make all the philosophical and scientific arguments that anyone might want, but ultimately what it all reduces to is a simple question: do women have autonomous control of their bodies or not? Even if I thought embryos were conscious, aware beings writing poetry in the womb (I don’t, and they’re not), I’d have to bow out of any say in the decision the woman bearing responsibility has to make.Why is it the case that the issue of abortion can be reduced to "a simple question?" Myers provides no justification for this claim, but rather merely asserts that it is the case - obviously ignoring quite a vast array of the philosophical and scientific arguments (although he mentions they exist in his post). Claiming that abortion reduces to "a simple question" -- on the grounds of whether one thinks that women should have autonomous control of their bodies -- is itself, it seems, a philosophical claim which, if it were not a mere assertion, would be backed by certain philosophical and scientific arguments (and likely may be in various philosophical journal articles on the matter of abortion).
What, anyway, of the claim of abortion reduces to "a simple question" as Myers states? This seems to be news to me as a wide array of objections and concerns contrary to a pro-choice position exist. Within the realm of people who identify as pro-choice, there are even disagreements as to when abortions would be moral - this alone shows that abortion is not a matter that reduces to "a simple question." It can be the case, for example, that people believe women have autonomous control of their bodies but would be acting in an immoral fashion, for example, if they neglected to receive an abortion because of sheer laziness and only wanted to get an abortion in the fifth month of pregnancy.
--
On my blog, I frequently respond to arguments for gods and arguments rebutting positions atheists hold. Personally, I find the problem of natural evil to provide a pretty solid defeater (a reason to undermine) to Christian belief. Is, though, this problem of natural evil a simple matter or does it reduce belief in the Christian god to "a simple question?" I don't think so. Many arguments exist -- which I don't find persuasive at all -- to attempt to answer the problem of natural evil ranging from 'this is a fallen world and the free will actions of humans are to blame for natural disasters' to 'we're simply not in a position to judge whether God has reasons for permitting natural evils,' but this doesn't make the matter simple or otherwise reduce Christian belief to a simple question. It takes some time to answer these objections and these objections seem to be persuasive to a vast array of people.
What is 'simple,' anyway, in the matters of ethical issues? A matter such as 'killing babies for the fun of it' seems to be quite a simple matter, for starters, because it appears to go against all of our moral intuitions (or at least those of most mentally healthy adults). Killing babies for the fun of it deprives human beings of life, inflicts unnecessary suffering, would likely lead to grieving, etc. It should also be quite uncontroversial to say that killing babies for the fun of it is always wrong in every situation. Arguments stating that it would be moral to kill babies for the fun of it would likely, and should likely, not be taken seriously.
Does it appear, then, in the light of the matter of killing babies for the fun of it (or similar issues which would be considered simple), that abortion is as simple of an issue or otherwise can be reduced to a simple question? I think not. In the case of abortion, it seems not to be the case -- even to the most ardent pro-choice persons -- that abortion is moral in all circumstances. It seems not to be the case that the moral intuitions of mentally healthy adults point to an obvious conclusion. Arguments against the morality of abortion -- although they might not be good ones -- can and are taken quite seriously by philosophers and non-philosophers alike. What, then, for curious readers, can some of the serious arguments be that would not reduce the matter of abortion to a single question?
A popular argument against abortion is known as the 'future like ours' (FLO) argument. FLO proponents argument that autonomous humans, similar to potential humans, both have a 'right to a future' that should be preserved. Another argument against abortion appeals to an agnosticism of sorts and an implementation of the precaution; persons argue that since we can't be confident of whether abortion or depriving a potential human being of a future is moral, it is best to not abort. Arguments invoking some sort of responsibility on behalf of a woman -- in which she should be morally obligated to give birth -- also exist.
Personally, I don't find any of the above counter-arguments or concerns surrounding abortion to be persuasive (although I would like for abortions to, if they must, happen quite early). I identify, then, as pro-choice. I don't, though, see the matter of abortion to be a simple issue that be reduced to "a simple question" as Myers proposes. Beware of those who assert that long-debated matters concerning complex ethical issues -- in blog posts with less than one hundred words -- can be resolved by a simple question.
Truth in Action Ministries: Church/state activism to blame for Colorado shooting
 |
| Jerry Newcombe, spokesperson for Truth in Action Ministries |
Jerry Newcombe, spokesperson of Truth in Action Ministries, has recently weighed in on the Aurora, Colorado midnight shooting in which 12 were killed and 38 were injured. In a recent column titled “A dark night indeed,” Newcombe placed blame for the shooting on activists for the separation of church and state.
Pastor Worley or 'Pastor' Worley?
(Pastor Charles Worley)
What is often referred to as the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy seems to be well understood by many secular people [who are often fast to note this when Christians try to insist that people who behave badly are not 'one of them']. When the phrase 'No True Scotsman' is used in relation to Christians, people are asserting that something other than thoughts, behavior, or criminal history designates a person as a Christian. In the case of priests who sexually abuse children, for example, abusing children doesn't disqualify one from being a Christian. The priest might later be defrocked or excommunicated (fat chance, unfortunately), but this doesn't seem to rightly disqualify this person from being a Christian. Cries of "A Christian would never abuse a child" or "That person is a fake Christian" should not be taken seriously.
What, then, does it mean when one professes to be a Christian? Admittedly, this is a difficult question because there is a great deal of disagreement amongst priests, theologians, laypersons, different churches, and so much more. Might belief that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing god who created the universe and wants to have a personal relationship with humans be a 'minimal' phrase of sorts lump on in the 'Christian' camp? Not so, it seems, when academic theists (and non-academics) seem to often see Christianity and the Bible as a 'human drama story' that, if taken literally and not metaphorically, really loses a great deal of its message. ...and what's that message? Is it "fear and obey God?" Is Christianity mainly about how to lead a good life and be a good person? Is the message to love your neighbor? Does one person have a monopoly on the message? What about authorial intent? As we see, this is quite a complex issue.
While it might be difficult to come to a conclusion (if one even exists) about what qualifies one as a Christian or what the message of Christianity is, it might be much easier to declare that bad behavior doesn't disqualify one as being a Christian...or that ethics and religion is often an incidental affair. It should be quite obvious to theists and atheists that all sorts of religious and non-religious people behave well and behave poorly. Many people might be inspired by a certain ethical code, religion, religious leader, or secular person and may derive their morality from any combination of these.
Should, then, the title of pastor be a title that is coupled with an assumption of 'this person is an upstanding ethical individual?' Doing so seems to be very dangerous and may reinforce any or all of the following myths: faith makes a person moral, pastors are better qualified to make ethical statements than non-pastors, all religious leaders are upstanding moral people, and non-religious people are immoral. Some pastors, of course, are upstanding ethical individuals [although we can quibble about whether reinforcing religious beliefs in laypeople, as may often be the case, is indicative of an upstanding moral individual] and some are not.
The next time a Christian religious leader [or any other religious leader] says something terrible or behaves poorly, don't put quotes around a title, call the person a 'so-called pastor,' or insist that the person isn't a 'real Christian.' Let us not, as it seems that this can be the case whether intentionally or not, couple faith with morality.
NEPA Freethought Society Podcast - Episode 11 - Interview with Ethereal Collapse
Episode 11 of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast is now available in either video or audio format!
Follow this link for the podcast through your method of choice.
Podcast Topic:
Joining us for this podcast -- hailing from Wilkes-Barre, PA -- are members of the melodic death metal band Ethereal Collapse. We discuss themes of philosophy which are present in their music and talk about the band in general.
Cast:
Justin Vacula (Podcast Host, Co-Organizer, Spokesperson, and a Board Member)
Rodney Collins (Founder, Organizer, and Board Chairman)
Jason Gogola (Producer, Web Director, and a Board Member)
If you wish to ask a question or comment on this podcast please send your email to podcast@nepafreethought.org
Ethereal Collapse members on this podcast:
Ryan Klubeck (Guitar, Vocals)
Ken Huber (Guitar)
Nick Durcik (Bass)
Matt Rodriguez (Drums)
Related Links:
Like them on Facebook.
Become a fan on ReverbNation.
View their videos on Youtube.
Have diversity initiatives sabotaged higher education?
Diversity initiatives in higher education, with the intent to foster harmony and understanding of others, seemed to have undermined some of the primary goals of higher education: leading students to critically self-reflect and hold justified true beliefs. Some diversity initiatives have reinforced the very harmful idea that disagreement is disrespectful and have also assented to indefensible epistemiological ideas including 'all perspectives are equally valid' and 'people are justified in holding a belief because it is a product of their culture.' Harmony can be had -- and perhaps better so -- as a result of critical discussion that should be encouraged and welcomed instead of discouraged and viewed as disrespectful.
(This post follows a recent discussion I had with philosopher Peter Boghossian. We have very similar views on this matter! I was aiming to write a post like this for some time, but haven't formulated my ideas in writing...so now is my chance.)
Readers who are familiar with my work should know that I value truth and critical discussion about beliefs. In many blog posts, podcasts, and speeches of mine, I argue for a reframing of the commonly assented to idea that disagreement is disrespectful...and the we just shouldn't disagree with people. Instead of viewing disagreement as something that must be disrespectful and viewing disagreement as something that should be avoided we should view disagreement as an opportunity to learn something, challenge our own beliefs, and perhaps lead others to reconsider their beliefs. We all have blind spots, after all, and could learn something by speaking with people whom we disagree with.
Diversity initiatives, though, from my experience, seem to buy into the 'disagreement is disrespect' meme and have led many to commit intellectual suicide concerning the nature of truth while sabatoging one of the chief goals of higher education - namely that students, when exposed to different ideas, should modify their beliefs and hold only that which is justified and true...all in the sake of some sort of harmony not worth wanting by any in the intellectual realm because many, it seems, don't believe that we can disagree about major issues and maintain harmony.
In my final year of high school -- and even in many of my introductory college courses such as 'first year experience' -- I was told time and time again that college was a time in which students would be exposed to people from all around the world with different worldviews, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), sexual orientations, political ideas, and so much more. Instead of being a member of a 'small town insular community,' college students are exposed to an entire different climate. While in college, the hope, I was told, was for students to consider others' beliefs and self-reflect so as to learn something and better understand the world, other cultures, and so much more. Self-reflection, it seems, should be a byproduct of exposure to new ideas.
All of this, though, while it seemed great at the time, seemed to be only partially true. I was exposed to different ideas and persons, but the self-reflection aspect simply wasn't something that was being promoted. Instead of critical discussion of ideas and self-examinations, faculty and students alike seemed to be brainwashed into accepting indefensible positions such as 'all perspectives are equally valid,' 'everyone is justified in believing what they believe because that is their right,' and 'we should, instead of challenging others, celebrate differences.'
All perspectives, though, as my philosophy classes have taught me, can't be equally valid because we would be lead to accept contradictions and be forced to accept ideas which fly in the face of our moral intuitions and logical reasoning. In my "Ethics and the Good Life" class which probably was one of the most influential classes in my second year of my undergraduate career, I learned that ethical cultural relativism -- the idea that a position is morally justified because a culture assents to it -- is one of the most indefensible ideas in ethics because, for example, cultures can assent to the idea that wife burning is morally acceptable.
"Who are we to argue with that" some will say, "because you aren't from that culture and people decide what's true for them." Unfortunately, this sentiment is all too common - and seemingly embraced by persons in the modern 'diversity movement.' Apparently, because I am not from a certain culture, some will contend, I am not qualified to share my ideas -- and just should not -- and truth just flies right out the window. In the name of not 'criticizing' ideas that are foreign to Americans, we're apparently supposed to tolerate intolerance and just 'leave ideas alone.' What a catastrophe.
My philosophy classes have also taught me that, when evaluating the merit of a belief, it's important to realize that not all opinions or beliefs are equal in weight; many opinions are uninformed, flawed, ill-formed, do not cohere with reality, and are outright fallacious. The simple fact that someone holds a belief does not lead to the belief being warranted. Persons ought to consider objections to their beliefs, whether a belief coheres with reality, whether the assumptions that lead to the belief are warranted, and so much more. While persons may have a legal right to hold a belief (and certainly won't be arrested for thinking about something), a moral right and whether the belief is a justified true belief or not is an entirely different matter. In the name of harmony, perhaps, and 'respect for beliefs,' diversity initiatives and other considerations have undermined higher education and have convinced so many that people are moral monsters to challenge others' beliefs.
Perhaps, as I mentioned, a major motivation people have to object to disagreement is to preserve harmony (as if the only way to do so is for people to sit down and shut up). Can't we just all live together and keep our beliefs to ourselves? Why can't we just live and let live? Why do people like me continue to write and do what I do? Aren't beliefs just private matters? People ask these questions quite frequently. It's quite difficult, I would respond to contend that many or most of our beliefs are solely private matters when it's quite clear that our beliefs inform our actions and have the ability to harm others and ourselves. Persons like me are concerned with what others believe because their beliefs impact others' quality of life. I care about whether or not people hold justified true beliefs when certain matters are of paramount concern.
Refraining from disagreement with others and assenting to the idea that all perspectives are equally valid seems to be quite an easy and attractive way to deal with disagreement, but it's an incredibly intellectually dishonest position and something that higher education should never maintain. What progress is had when people lack self-reflection? If all perspectives are equally valid, what is the point of challenging our own beliefs? Why should we even attend school and be concerned about holding justified true beliefs if this is the case?
Open-mindedness is a term that often gets thrown around by persons in diversity initiatives, but this term is largely misconstrued and quite relevant to this discussion. I am told, after I voice objections to people who hold untenable beliefs (often after they start a discussion with me and reveal that they haven't critically examined their own ideas and/or understand very little about epistemology and admit that they aren't concerned with truth), that I am closed-minded and that I should "accept others." Excuse me? Since when is asking questions about someone's belief a horrible thing [in the realm of higher education]? Do not teachers do this in almost every class and encourage students to self-reflect? True open-mindedness is a willingness to admit that you can be wrong about something and a willingness to change any and all ideas provided new evidence, reason, and argument comes in...and this 'being wrong' isn't a bad thing; admitting one is mistaken about something is a sign of progress and intellectual courage - and this is really something to respect and admire.
One thing that leaders of diversity initiatives and I can agree on is that it it more important that we live together than we all agree. Diversity initiatives, though, seem to take a drastically different approach to this matter and work from many flawed ideas about epistemology and a harmony 'worth wanting.' It is quite possible to be respectful toward persons while having a conversation about important and often contentious matters. A primary problem, though, is that people view 'attacks on ideas' as 'attacks on persons' even when said 'attacking' is done in a very civil and calm manner with regard to the person who holds the belief. Perhaps diversity initiatives should change the focus and maintain that critical disagreement is something that we should strive for and work on becoming better at. If we can 'step back' from our beliefs and understand others' perspectives, it seems that society will be a better place and that a true harmony can be had in which people -- instead of viewing disagreement as disrespect -- can have the intellectual courage to understand others instead of demonizing them...and an 'everyone is right and no one should disagree' attitude isn't going to get us there. This is not the goal of higher education and should not be the goal of diversity initiatives.
Leaders of diversity initiatives, instead of maintaining that all perspectives people hold are equally valid and that we just shouldn't assert that people are mistaken (or otherwise engage in critical discussion), should start to focus on how to respectfully disagree and prioritize justified true beliefs. We can 'bring our differences to the table' and consider meetings between differing individuals to be great opportunities for challenging our own beliefs and the beliefs of others rather than missing this great opportunity and hopelessly and dishonestly maintaining that all perspectives are equally valid and disagreement is just disrespectful. Critical discussion should bring about more understanding than does sitting back at a table and refraining from asking questions. If this is not the case -- and diversity programs continue to convince others that all perspectives are equally valid and discourage critical discussion -- it seems that diversity programs have sabotaged the aim of higher education and they are harming us more than they are helping us.
For more thoughts of mine, both in writing and through podcasting, on this matter, please utilize the following links:
Blog posts:
"Disagreement, not disrespecting: Attacking beliefs, not persons"
"A response to those who claim offense"
"Belief Intolerance"
"On being wrong, intellectual honesty, and acquiring belief"
"Truth relativism and liberal religion"
"Think for yourself already: A discussion I had with Muslims"
(During an inter-faith/diversity event I attended while in undergraduate career, students objected to me asking a Muslim man -- after he had asked for any question from the audience -- whether he believed that it is justifiable for non-Muslims to burn in Hell for eternity soon after the Muslim man had practically preached about how non-Muslims would burn in Hell for eternity. Some students thought I was the disrespectful one and was in the wrong to ask that question...)
Podcasts:
"Respecting Beliefs"
"Discussion on religious faith"
As always, please feel free to share this content, offer your own ideas, and give me some feedback.
The vapid Christian response to the death of Tyler Winstead
(Image from Citizen's Voice article)
As an atheist and a theological non-cognitivist (one who believes god-language is empty in content), it should be quite obvious that I don't believe talking about God or appealing to any god is going to actually do anything about the recent shooting death besides offer false hope. In this case, it seems that the appeals to God -- as you'll see in this post -- actually hurt the situation and make people believe that something is being done to rightly address the shooting death...which is one of the main reasons why I am authoring this post.
Some atheists may object to me even writing this post or commenting on the issue (and some have) because of various reasons: they may want me to 'leave the family alone,' may believe that religious appeals are persons' only coping mechanisms, may believe that is is improper to criticize Christian beliefs considering the recent death, etc. I don't think these objections are sufficient especially considering people -- even those outside of Winstead's family -- honestly believe that their 'Christian solutions' will properly address the recent death...and they're willing to go on the record with their comments.
One of the first comments that was made 'on the record' regarding Tyler Winstead's death was from Tyler's grandfather, Willie Golden, who said,
We believe in God and his master plan - whether we understand it or not.
This comment is quite interesting concerning the implications that this statement makes which are as follows:
- God -- an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing being -- includes the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy in his 'master plan.'
- Since God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing, his 'master plan' should be lauded because only all-good consequences can flow from an all-loving being. (Many Christians, from my experience, have argued or asserted that all judgments or actions stemming from God must accord with his all-loving character)
- Since Tyler Winstead was killed as part of God's plan (and God is all-loving), this is actually -- as much as our moral intuitions may contend -- a good thing. [I'll get more into this later considering a pastor actually states that Tyler "is in the best hands he ever will be.]
I can't possibly believe in an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing God who weaves -- as Golden says -- the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy into his 'master plan.' Instead of failing to understand the plan, we should instead assume the following: God's plan doesn't include the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy or God doesn't exist. How can one seriously contend that a shooting death of a 14-year-old boy coheres with the moral character of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing god?
Did God really send the shooter?
Other comments concerning 'God's plan' came from someone whom, incidentally, I had the pleasure of debating on a special episode of the NEPA Freethought Society Podcast. Rev. Marcelle Dotson, commenting on the death of Tyler Winstead, was quoted in an article saying,
I know the plans that I have for you, declares the Lord. They are plans for peace and not disaster.
I was quite confused by this comment, so I asked Rev. Dotson to clarify her statements. She said, on Facebook,
It's unfortunate that the Citizen's Voice did not include the comments that followed pertaining to that passage: That is is not God's plan that any life should be taken by another and that God intends a hopeful future for all. We are not to allow perpetrators of violent acts to hold us hostage and attempt to deny us a life of peace and justice.
Thankfully, Rev. Dotson doesn't believe that the shooting death of a 14-year-old boy is part of God's plan (although concerns of theological fatalism might force her to concede this, but that's a post for another day). This statement, though, seems problematic because Dotson contests that God intends a hopeful future for all. I cannot see how this is the case when God, whom many Christians believe created the universe, weaves natural disasters into the fabric of his design. I mentioned this in my debate with Rev. Dotson vis-a-vis the evidential problem of natural evil and Dotson's response seemed to appeal to the common 'you can't know the mind of God' defense that I believe dramatically fails.
Following Dotson's comments, Rev. Michael Brewster of Mount Zion Baptist Church -- who believes that atheists are adversaries of Christians who are trying to take away their power of prayer [listen to his sermon titled "Prayer: It's Importance in a Believer's Life" ...although it's no longer available (5/24/12)] -- had many words to say regarding the death of Tyler Winstead.
The Citizen's Voice article, "Church offers message of love in wake of teen's death," features many comments Rev. Brewster offered. The article begins, "...the community intends to fight back with a force far more potent than violence.
A large number of us have determined to engage with a fierce, and much more powerful weapon, the likes of which no evil has the power to withstand," Brewster said. "We'll employ the weapon of unconditional and radical love for humanity, and out right to live, and not only live, but our right to thrive in a community in peace, in this beautiful valley God has created, in this place we call our home. We intend to preserve it.
It's quite obvious that 'evil' has already had the power to withstand the supposed love and prayers Brewster and every member of his congregation have offered to God. God has, it seems, done absolutely nothing -- assuming he exists -- to prevent to death of Tyler Winstead. On some accounts, this death was even part of God's plan. The "powerful weapon" of "unconditional and radical love for humanity" in "this beautiful valley God has created" isn't going to stop the violence.
God, if he exists, despite all of the prayer and "unconditional and radical love for humanity" allowed Tyler Winstead to be killed at the age of 14. Free will, you say? Apparently, the 'free will' of the shooter was more important than Tyler's. Apparently, God's secret reason for allowing all of this famine, pestilence, slaughter, disease, and death outweighs every concern and desire humans have to be free from egregious suffering -- much of which has nothing to do with moral agents acting -- and we should just continue believing that an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god exists despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary.
Following the previous comments, Brewster said, of Tyler, during a moment of silence,
he is in the best hands he will ever be.
Apparently, on Brewster's account, Tyler is better off dead (and allegedly in the hands of God) than he is alive and in the hands of his loving family and friends. What 'message of love' is this?
To make matters even worse, Brewster says,
I want to say to those who are responsible for taking this precious life, I want you to know that despite what you've done, God has and always will love you. And he stands ready to forgive you, should you humble yourself and ask for his forgiveness. Furthermore, it is because of the message of Easter, which brings hope to all mankind, that the family, too, has chosen to love and to forgive you as well.
So, as we see, God loves and forgives people who kill 14-year-old children provided that they humble themselves and ask for forgiveness. What kind of morality and legitimate forgiveness is this? God, apparently, can forgive on the behalf of others (including the murdered victim) and a simple humbling and asking for forgiveness can make everything better. Additionally, the family, on Brewster's account, loves and forgives the shooter.
I don't know about you, reader, but I don't think I could possibly forgive a person who might happen to murder a 14-year-son of mine especially if I didn't even know the person, the person's motives, or other circumstances that were involved.
While Brewster and many others -- being persons of faith -- may appeal to their religious beliefs to cope with or otherwise address the death of Tyler Winstead, it's quite clear that appeals to religion and some other world aren't going to do anything in this situation. Instead of appealing to God or some other world, our concerns should remain in this one where only real solutions can be found. I don't have the answers, but it should be quite clear that Brewster's message of love -- as a response to the death of Tyler Winstead -- is a vapid one.
New video episodes of NEPA Freethought Society Podcast available!
Returning from a hiatus, the NEPA Freethought Society is providing new and old viewers alike with THREE new episodes! Watch below:
'Respecting beliefs' (and right to opinion and taking offense)
'Religion and the workplace' discussion with Karla Porter
'Respecting beliefs' (and right to opinion and taking offense)
Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com
'Religion and the workplace' discussion with Karla Porter
Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com
Interview with melodic death metal band Ethereal Collapse
Watch live streaming video from nepafreethought at livestream.com
NEPA Freethought Society Podcast: Episode 8
Past episodes are available here.
Jen Hancock is the author of “The Humanist Approach to Happiness: Practical Wisdom” and “Jen Hancock's Handy Humanism Handbook.” She writes a freelance column about humanism for the Bradenton Herald Newspaper, writes for Examiner.com as the Tampa Humanist and Freethought Examiner, and publishes the Happiness Through Humanism blog and podcast. Jen is also a speaker specializing in humanism, ethics, and morality. Bio-ethicist and author Torben Riise has called Jen “one of the finest minds in Humanism” today.
Atheist does not equal 'bad person' - Letter to the Editor
This wonderful letter to the editor was published in today's Times Leader. Thanks, Erin, for submitting this.
Atheist does not equal ‘bad person’
Religion is one topic on which the people of this world are never going to agree. How the world is today, I find myself standing up for atheists more than I should have to. Before I go further, I would like to point out that my religious views are completely irrelevant in this letter. It does not matter if I am Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or even undecided. My opinion on this topic would remain unchanged.
Some people think that just because a person is an atheist, he or she does not have morals. Just because someone does not believe in a superior being does not mean she is not going to do the right thing.
I know very religious people who refrain from doing the wrong thing only because of their constant fear of going to hell. Isn’t the whole point of morals to do the right thing because you know it is right – and not because you know there will be a reward in the end?
Atheists are not bad people. Don’t get me wrong, some will be. But they aren’t bad because they are atheists.
People need to stop judging others by considering what kind of person they might be based entirely on their beliefs. Instead, judge them on their interests and values.
Erin Foertsch
Wright Township
If God does not exist, are humans nothing more than 'just animals?'
William Lane Craig -- in premise one of his moral argument -- argues, "If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties to not exist." He reasons that morality simply is illusory -- and quotes some philosophers who happen to agree -- if God does not exist. " Additionally, Craig argues that absent God, we are 'nothing more than animals.' Outside of the debating and academic world, concerns like this aren't so uncommon amongst lay theists. Are these conclusions warranted? Is God needed to 'redeem' us from such a 'lowly status?'
Some theists believe that since humans are made in the 'image of God,' humans are 'special.' If God doesn't exist -- according to some theists -- all sorts of sentiments seem to follow: humans are 'nothing more than animals,' there are no good reasons to behave well, and there is no meaning to life. Despite atheists insisting that this is simply not the case (and very often explaining why it is not suggesting that secular paths to morality and meaning are viable ones), some theists keep repeating these statements. Although the burden of proof is on the theist to demonstrate why these sentiments would follow if God did not exist, atheists can answer these charges regardless.
Persons who say 'we are nothing more than animals' are taking an overly simplistic view of humans. For example, humans, unlike many animals, can produce art, write, ponder abstract ideas, ponder the consequences of their actions, identify with those who are different, and so much more – thus 'setting us apart' from animals without the need to appeal to a supernatural being.
Why should a 'special status' of being made in 'God's image' give us the only reason to behave well? As an atheist, I can look at other humans and come to a realization that many people have similar wants and desires as I do, value their own lives, want to be given opportunities to succeed, and would like to live a life with as little suffering as possible, etc. Not believing in an afterlife with God, additionally, it seems, gives atheists even more reasons [or enough reasons] to behave well because this is the only life that we believe exists. Perhaps we should simply not treat our neighbors how we would not want to be treated? We need not appeal to a 'special status' of being made in 'God's image' in order to make sense of morality.
Many theists believe that the purpose of this life is to serve God and follow God's will. Without God, some think, life is utterly pointless and not worth living. Contrary to this sentiment, I have never heard a story of a former theist who committed suicide because he/she realized there were no good reasons to believe in God. While this obviously doesn't falsify this claim, it is quite telling and should produce great cognitive dissonance in the minds of theists because persons believe life is worth living even if there are no good reasons to believe God exists. Meaning can be found on a subjective level based on what persons derive enjoyment from or find important. If “life's objective,” as the song "Sensorium" from Epica says, “is to make it meaningful,” persons can do so this quite easily by finding something they enjoy and/or find important. We need not appeal to a god for this.
While it can be very easy and attractive to 'send our hopes to the skies' and simply point to God or the conclusions of many religions in order to answer some metaphysical questions or confer some 'special status' upon ourselves instead of engaging in deep reflection about various topics, such “glittering gems, baubles, promises, dogmas, and creeds,” as philosopher Richard Taylor explains, “are worth no more than the stones under one's feet.” Taylor says, “Many persons spend their lives in a sandcastle, a daydream, in which every answer to every metaphysical question decorates its many mansions. […] They find, in other words, a comfort born of ignorance.”
Humans can make sense of meaning and morality while identifying that which shows we are not 'just another animal' instead of looking to an alleged god for some quick and easy answers which ultimately fail [regardless of whether God exists].
William Lane Craig: Atheists lack justification for ethical treatment of animals
I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "William Lane Craig: Atheists lack justification for ethical treatment of animals." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates of new content.
Local reader argues naturalistic worldview is inadequate
I authored a letter to the editor titled “Natural Explanation for Flood Prevention” which was a response to a published article in which a local reverend claimed that prayer had something to do with stopping the September flooding in Northeastern Pennsylvania. I argued, in less than 250 words, that naturalistic explanations are better than supernatural explanations and, when we have a perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanation, we ought to reject a supernatural explanation. I quoted Theodore Shick in the letter who said, among other things, “You shouldn't assume the existence of anything that's not needed to explain the phenomena.”
A letter to the editor published on December 11 – approximately a month after mine was published – titled “Life explanation rests with God” argues that my “naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life” and “A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.”
Here is the letter that was published:
Life’s explanation rests with God
In a recent letter, Justin Vacula discussed Occam’s razor, explaining phenomena with the fewest assumptions and using a theory that has the most explanatory power.
I submit that he is wrong about prayer and supernatural intervention. His naturalistic world view is inadequate to explain the bigger questions of life.
The naturalistic atheistic model holds that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; (c) persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (i) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.
The biblical theistic model holds (a) that the universe was created by a Creator; (b) that life comes from ultimate Life; (c) persons come from the Superpersonal; (d) minds come from the ultimate Mind; (e) order comes from an Orderer; (f) reason comes from a rational Being; (g) morality comes from a moral Person; (h) information comes from a Sender; (i) code comes from a personal Programmer; (j) truth comes from ultimate Truth.
I invite the reader to examine both models to see which has the greatest explanatory power. A good hypothesis such as the God of the Bible provides a consistent metaphysical foundation for explaining the important realities and phenomena encountered in life.
(a) God uniquely accounts for the physical universe’s beginning; (b) God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe; (c) God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers, which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes; (d) God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose and significance that human beings sense and yearn for; (e) God uniquely accounts for man’s sense of the design.
Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread and ultimate extinction of human beings.
I submit it is better to be “standing on the promises of God” than the idea that everything came from nothing.
James U. Sinclair
Wright Township
The third paragraph of his letter to the editor posits “the naturalistic atheistic model” which the writer says “hold that (a) the universe was created from nothing; (b) life came from non-life; © persons came from the impersonal; (d) minds come from the mindless; (e) order from the orderless; (f) reason from the non-rational; (g) morality from the non-moral; (h) information without a sender; (I) code from a nonprogrammer; (j) truth from an accident.
The phrase “naturalistic atheistic model” should be the first red flag here. The reader uses a certain term and seemingly posits what all naturalists (those who believe that the natural world is all that exists) believe when there is no 'unifying dogma' or 'set beliefs' for atheists or naturalists because there is often disagreement on issues. It is also important to note that not all atheists are naturalists and not all naturalists are atheists. Do all naturalists and atheists believe what the reader posits, are the points even relevant, and are there fundamental misunderstandings taking place?
Contention A, right from the start, is problematic because there is wide disagreement about the origin of the universe. Personally, I do not know where to stand on matters of 'becoming' regarding the universe, but the Big Bang is certainly an adequate model to describe the expansion of the universe and the start of time as we know it.
When someone asks, “What happened before the Big Bang?” I often respond by saying, “If the Big Bang is the start of time as we know it, how can we talk about 'before time?” and, after some further discussion when God is typically invoked, say “If God is uncaused and you use God to explain the universe, why can't I say that the universe was uncaused or there is an unknown cause?” Claiming that God was the cause of the universe when lacking an explanation appears to be what is called the argument from ignorance or the 'god of the gaps' argument – because we lack an explanation, theists believe they are justified in positing God to answer the question. This method of reasoning, of course, is fallacious; just because we happen to lack an explanation does not mean that one can be justified in saying “God did it.” Why not say, “I don't know” and continue research and/or suspend judgment until there is a solid answer?
Naturalists need not posit that “the universe was created from nothing,” but rather can offer other explanations or simply suspend judgment on the matter.
Contention B, I would wager, is something that a vast majority of naturalists (if not almost all of them) would believe, but this is not a problematic assertion. When considering questions of the origins of life, answers are not always clear or well-defined as some (including myself) would like them to be, but this is not a problem once we start considering probability. Consider the vastness of the universe, all of the stars that explode and emit elements, and the age of the universe. Of all the 'chances' that could have lead to life, the probability seems quite high that life, somewhere and somehow, would originate. We, of course, are the lucky ones who happen to be experiencing life today. The Miller/Urey experiments, for those interested, show that life can indeed come from non-life. Additionally, Craig Venter has created synthetic life.
A lack of explanation regarding exactly how life arose from non-life does not justify belief in God, but rather should lead us to pursue further research and not assume that God “had to intervene” or have some part in the process just because we might lack an explanation.
Contention C is interesting because I am not quite sure what it means. The idea of person, as I understand it, is a philosophical concept similar to 'identity' in which we ascribe labels to homo sapiens. Are persons 'coming' from anything? It seems not. Personhood is simply an idea and a label we put on human beings. Perhaps the letter writer will elaborate on this.
Contention D claims that naturalists believe that minds come from the mindless, but there is disagreement regarding theories of mind amongst naturalists; there is not one 'set' idea that naturalists must believe. Some naturalists, for example, are eliminative materialists - those who believe that there is no mind, but only the brain.
Mindedness and consciousness may still have some 'gaps' and it might be the case that there is much understanding that is currently not had, but this, once again, does not allow one to justifiably posit God because we lack an explanation.
Contention E claims that “order comes from the orderless.” What we call 'order' is something we view as having some sort of regularity or 'rhyme and rhythm.' When considering the laws of the universe that are guaranteed regularities that arise from the Big Bang, it's quite easy to understand order under a naturalistic worldview. This “sense of design” that the letter writer later mentions is us, as humans, seeing what might rightly be called 'illusions of design' throughout the universe when, instead of assuming design, we can just say 'regularities.'
Contention F posits that naturalists believe reason comes from the non-rational. While the earliest forms of life almost certainly did not have reasoning abilities like humans have today, we can consider an evolutionary perspective and understand quite easily why reasoning abilities would evolve, be beneficial for survival, and be useful.
Alvin Plantinga famously argues that naturalism is not compatible with evolution because, roughly, evolution is not 'concerned' with justified true beliefs, but rather for survival. This argument, though, seems to miss the mark. Those with good reasoning abilities, in times of early hominids, would be better suited for survival. Holding a justified true belief, for example, [that was the product of good reasoning abilities] would allow one to efficiently and accurately gather water, hunt for food in desirable areas, and so much more. Over time, those with good reasoning abilities would survive and those with bad reasoning abilities would die. Of course, not all 'bad reasoners' would die because some can get lucky and be smart in some areas while not-smart in others.
Contention G posits that naturalists believe that morality comes from the non-moral. Not all naturalists will ascribe to notions of morality and may be moral nihilists. Some naturalists also might argue that morality is relative: it differs from person to person and from culture to culture and therefore there are no moral truths or any standing to make a claim about morality. Personally, I use the term 'morality' as short-hand language to describe many things: what actions would be appropriate and inappropriate in certain situations, what actions should lead us to a better society, how we are to treat others, etc.
On a naturalistic view, morality is very plausible. Just on the topic of humans – and to not elaborate too much on this point – we can look around us and realize that other humans have the same basic needs, wants, values. and desires as us; other persons generally value their own lives and consider living to be much more desirable than not living, want to have meaningful relationships with others, want to be secure, and so much more. Because I generally do not want to experience harm, discomfort, and whatever else might make life undesirable and realize that others are like me, I want to behave in a fashion of respect toward other people and act as a functional member of society.
We need no gods to explain morality. It is odd to claim that morality 'comes' from something other than a product of reasoning and as an evolutionary by-product.
Contentions H and I, I believe, rest on a huge equivocation. The reader states that naturalists believe that information exists without a sender and code exists from a nonprogrammer. The reader doesn't elaborate on this, but I believe I understand what he is saying. Equivocation is an informal logical fallacy that occurs when someone tries to use a word two (or more) times, although with different definitions. The reader, I imagine, is thinking of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA and thinks that 'programming' and 'code' can only come from thinking beings. When persons talk of 'programming' and 'code' relating to DNA, they do not mean this in the sense that we usually refer to when speaking of computers. Persons talk of DNA as a code because the basic 'letters' of our genetic 'code' are present throughout us.
Finally, Contention J claims that naturalists believe “truth from an accident.” I am not sure what this means because we can use our reasoning faculties to arrive at truths without ever positing a God who had to establish these truths. Consider, for example, one of the laws of logic known as the law of non-contradiction which posits that something can not be both a and not-a. For example, a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall. This appears to be a truth and it is no accident; we understand that a clock can not be both on the wall and not on the wall for very good reasons that need not be explained.
We see that contentions A, B, D, and G are not contentions that all naturalists believe. Contention C appears to deal with a philosophical concept that has nothing to do with whether naturalism is reasonable or not. Regarding contention E, the reader believe that naturalism can't account for order, but this simply isn't the case. Naturalism, despite Plantinga's argument, can account for reason and thus 'dispels' contention F. Contentions H and I are based on equivocations and naturalistic perspectives can explain how the 'genetic code' functions without assuming a god. Naturalists can account for truths without appealing to a supernatural truth-maker, so contention J is 'out.'
Now that we see why the contentions the letter writer proposed are not problematic for naturalists, let's explore why theism can't account for certain phenomena and why the explanation of 'God' is a poor explanation.
The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the physical universe's beginning. How do we know this and better yet, how can we posit that a specific single god created the universe? Even if we were to admit that the universe has a cause, how are we to leap to a specific cause reason, for there, that the god of the Bible is responsible? For all we know, an all-evil god, a time traveler, a council of gods, or a civilization in a parallel universe could have created the universe. All of these hypotheses, while they may seem unreasonable, seem to me no more reasonable than belief in the god of the Bible. Once again, additionally, if the theist asserts that God was uncaused and an uncaused cause is adequate for explaining the origin of the universe, the atheist can rightly posit, while following this logic that the theist assumes, that an uncaused Big Bang is sufficient to explain the universe – and here we are not appealing to the supernatural and we understand that the Big Bang occurred.
The letter writer claims that “God uniquely accounts for the ordered complexity and the design evident in the universe.” Again, why ought the god of the Bible be more reasonable than other unlikely hypotheses? We don't need God to explain order and what we see as design in the universe because we can appeal to natural laws and understand order. Design is simply an illusion that is better explained with the term regularity; while the universe might seem like some sort of being created it because we see order, we need not assume that a being designed the universe.
The letter writer seemingly appeals to the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) and writes, “God uniquely accounts for the reality of abstract nonphysical realities such as numbers which are the foundation of mathematics and which are not explainable in terms of physical matter and its processes.” Why does the reader assume that numbers are not explainable by physical processes? Numbers, it seems, are contingent upon humans; if humans did not exist, the concept of numbers would not exist. We use numbers as heuristic tools in order to talk about quantities – and the use of numbers is very useful in our everyday lives. Other “abstract nonphysical realities” such as laws of logic are not the product of human thinking and would remain true if all humans were to suddenly die – and this is so because objective truths are separate from us. “The truth is not concerned about what we think of it.”
Speaking of “abstract nonphysical realities,” I'd like to return to the law of non-contradiction and the idea of contradictions. We understand that reasoning breaks down if there were a contradiction and that those who hold contradictory beliefs are behaving in an irrational fashion. For example, if I tell you that I was working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM and was sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM, you'd be quite puzzled – and for good reason. I can't be both sleeping at home from 8AM to 3PM and working at Bill's Market from 8AM to 3PM. The law of non-contradiction and the concept of a contradiction might be an “abstract nonphysical reality,” but this can be adequately explained without appealing to God. We can quibble about whether we 'discovered' abstract non-physical entities or whether they are contingent (or something else), but this doesn't allow us to justly posit God as the only answer as to how to account for these things. For more on TAG, please listen to this debate.
The letter writer continues to state that “God uniquely accounts for the meaning, purpose, and significance that human beings sense and yearn for.” God has no monopoly on meaning, purpose, and significance. I dealt with this extensively in this post. I argued that whether or not God exists has no bearing on whether meaning can be found in life.
The letter writer writes, “God uniquely accounts for man's sense of design.” I don't understand how this is the case. It can be the case, though, that we look at the universe and consider it to be magnificent, do not understand how the universe can be like it is (especially in earlier times of humans), and believe, then, fallaciously, that a being must be designed it because it appears to be so complex. We see order and assume that God is responsible for the order. With increased knowledge from science, philosophy, and other disciplines, we understand that this thinking is fallacious and can posit naturalistic explanations instead of appealing to the supernatural.
The reader than makes quite an extravagant claim, “Without meaning and purpose, the naturalistic atheistic model leads to angst, despair, dread, and ultimate extinction of human beings.” This claim has no basis. Many naturalists and atheists, of course, are not wallowing in metaphysical anguish of angst, despair, and dread. How ought the 'naturalistic atheistic model' also lead to ultimate extinction of humans? Regardless, whether or not naturalism and atheism 'led' to dread does not show whether or not belief in naturalism or any supernatural entities is justified. This appears to simply be an argument from utility.
We see that belief in naturalism, the idea that all that exists is the natural world, is must more plausible than belief in God. Even if it is the case that naturalism can't account for some realities, this does not mean that one can suddenly 'inject God' and believe that belief in God is justified because naturalism can't account for a phenomena.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)