The Room
Here’s some interesting Christian inspirational spam that I received – decent enough to put up.
————————————–
“THE ROOM” as written by a 17 Year Old Boy.
This is excellent and really gets you thinking about what will happen in Heaven.
17-year-old Brian Moore had only a short time to write something for a class. The subject was What Heaven Was Like. “I wowed ‘em,” he later told his father, Bruce. It’s a killer. It’s the bomb It’s the best thing I ever wrote.” It also was the last.
Brian’s parents had forgotten about the essay when a cousin found it while cleaning out the teenager’s locker at Teays Valley High School in Pickaway County, Ohio .
Brian had been dead only hours, but his parents desperately wanted every piece of his life near them, notes from classmates and teachers, and his homework. Only two months before, he had handwritten the essay about encountering Jesus in a file room full of cards detailing every moment of the teen’s life. But it was only after Brian’s death that Beth and Bruce Moore realized that their son had described his view of heaven.
It makes such an impact that people want to share it. “You feel like you are there,” Mr. Moore said. Brian Moore died May 27, 1997, the day after Memorial Day. He was driving home from a friend’s house when his car went off Bulen-Pierce Road in Pickaway County , Ohio and struck a utility pole. He emerged from the wreck unharmed but stepped on a downed power line and was electrocuted.
The Moore ‘s framed a copy of Brian’s essay and hung it among the family portraits in the living room. “I think God used him to make a point. I think we were meant to find it and make something out of it,” Mrs. Moore said of the essay. She and her husband want to share their son’s vision of life after death. “I’m happy for Brian. I know he’s in heaven. I know I’ll see him.
Here is Brian’s essay.
Pascal’s Wager – Part II: debunking the ‘all religions are equally improbable’ ruse
In Part I, I generalized that, since the impact of being wrong about God is high, it doesn’t matter how unlikely it is, it is still a high risk.
But that oversimplification is not entirely true. If it was, that would mean that all unconfirmable claims about the life to come, by any and all religions, would be equally binding, or just as important or risky.
If the Biblical God makes demands with consequences we can not confirm with empiricism, are they any different from the claims of Buddhism, Islam, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What we really need is a better measure of how likely such claims are to be true. Can that be done without direct empirical evidence? YES. We must not ignore historical, ethical, and logical support for or against faith claims, and in so doing, discriminate between pretenders and contenders.
Below, I address this objection, which can be stated The lack of empirical support for faith means ALL FAITHS ARE EQUALLY IMPROBABLE and on par with fairy tales.
Pascal’s Wager – Part I: why apatheism and atheism are unreasonable choices
Pascal’s famous ‘wager’ is often misunderstood, and maligned by anti-theists as an argument from lack of evidence, or worse, merely a threat of hellfire.
But on closer inspection, this theological conundrum elucidated by the great scientist, mathematician, and Christian well known for his intellectual Christian apologetic Pensees, is a masterful logical rebuke of atheism from a probability perspecitve – and Pascal is basically the father of the discipline of probability.
Blaise Pascal provides a serious evaluation of the reasonableness of seeking for God rather than foolishly betting against the odds that God exists.
1. What is Pascal’s Wager?
Simply put, Pascal’s wager can be said this way – since our reason is limited, and can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God entirely, we would be safer to bet that God does exist than wager our lives that He does not.
If we live as if God exists, and he does not, we lose little, and end up living good lives (as long as that living involves true spirituality, not the bondage of empty religion). However, if we live as if God does NOT exist, and He DOES, the consequences are astronomical.
2. Pascal’s wager as a risk formula
Here’s an easy way to quantify what’s going on here. In Project Management, there is a standard method for assessing risk, which is a simple mathematical formula for determining how great a risk is:
Risk = likelihood X impact
Likelihood is defined as ‘how likely, or possible is it that the negative event will happen?’ Highly likely, moderately, or not very likely? Impact is defined as ‘how devastating would it be if this event actually happened?’
So, for example, let’s say that I ame building a dog house, and I want to ask myself, ‘what would keep me from getting this done this weekend?’ What could interfere? Let’s say I identify three possibilities.
- The hardware store will be out of wood
- President Obama will spend more of my tax money
- I will hurt myself with a power tool
To evaluate these, I might put them in a grid like so:
|
Item |
Likelihood (0-3, 3=high) |
Impact of being wrong (0-3, 3=high) |
Risk (likelihood X Impact) |
|
Live like there IS a God |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Live like there IS NO God |
1 |
∞ |
∞ |
As you can see, when either of the two factors is low, the total risk is low, but when both are moderate to high, the risk goes up quickly.
Pascal’s wager can be evaluated the same way:
|
Item |
Likelihood (0-3, 3=high) |
Impact of being wrong (0-3, 3=high) |
Risk (likelihood X Impact) |
|
Live like there IS a God |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Live like there IS NO God |
1 |
∞ |
∞ |
So, if you live Godly, Pascal argues, and there is no God, you lose very little (low risk). But if you live like there is NO God and are wrong, the risk associated with being wrong is astronomical.
You’ll notice that I used a LOW likelihood that exists, but this doesn’t actually matter because the more important factor, the impact of being wrong, is INFINITE if there is a God and you don’t live that way. That is, if the monotheistic story of judgment after death is correct, and failing in judgment means eternal (infinite) separation from God, then the risk is also infinite, since ANY likelihood multiplied by an infinite impact is infinite.
That is, unless the likelihood is ZERO. Then, the risk is zero (0 times infinity = 0, although I remember from my calc days that this might not be strictly true – infinity is just a theoretical construct). So atheists basically are betting on the proposition that the likelihood that the monotheistic or Christian God exists is ZERO. Pascal argues that, since you have absolutely NO WAY to use reason and science to PROVE that this God does not exist, you must allow for at least an infinitesimal likelihood that God exists, and therefore, your risk goes back to infinitely high.
Now, this is merely using reason and mathematics (two things Pascal was skilled at) to show that betting on the non-existence of God is an unreasonable choice. And atheists, who claim to be servants of reason alone, ought to admit that their own logic would drive them to this same conclusion. However, it often does not, and they raise objections which I will address in Part II.
Pet Peeves #006 – The Automobile
I spend two hours a day in my car, a large 2001 Chrysler LHS. I grew up in a family that always had large cars – a 1960 Olds 98, and at least three models of LTD Station Wagon (woodies) – in fact, my mom still owns one. I have come to require enough space to be comfortable, and today’s compact, even mid-sized cars, seem to be built for small Japanese women.
But autos have a world of things that ought to be improved upon, or problems that need to be solved. Thankfully, most of the premium car manufacturers like BMW and Lexus have been addressing these problems, but they are woefully slow. Here’s what I would like to see changed about cars.
Environmentalism: wilderness, wasteland, or garden?
A recent book by E. Calvin Beisner entitled Where Garden Meets Wilderness: Evangelical Entry into the Environmental Debate gave me the idea for this post (you can hear Beisner talk on the environment here and here).
There are at least three possible views when it comes to how we view environmentalism – the leftist ‘Wilderness’ view, the rightist ‘Wasteland’ view, and the more balanced ‘Garden’ view. The extremes are lack of concern for the environment, or virtual worship of the environment, while the Garden view is one possibility between the extremes. Which camp do you lean towards?
Capital punishment and rape – the bible says NO?
Joe over at the Evangelical Outpost has a nice post on the biblical view of capital punishment. In it are two ideas that I had not previously considered, but I like Joe’s take on it.
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Session 3
Conference Day 2 Session 3
Jay Richards – did physics kill God? (Stephen Hawking)
INTRO
1. For the materialist, the fundamental and foundational source is the universe… Carl Sagan said ‘the universe is all there is, was, or will be.’
>> But the cosmos is NOT eternal
A. Three strikes against materialism
1. A cosmic beginning
a. Edwin Hubble in the 1920s
. What were nebula?
. Discovered red shifts when measuring distant galaxies
. Discovered that the universe is not static, but expanding
b. Einsteins relativity implied expanding universe
. Visited Hubble, admitted that looking for a constant to make the universe eternal was a waste of time
c. Robert Dicke… An infinitely old universe would relieve us of the necessity of understanding origin of matter…matter would be a fundamental given, we would not have to look for a prior source
2. A fine tuned universe
a. MJ Rees … The possibility of life as we know it depends on the values…
b. Paul Davies … The present arrangement of matter indicates a very special choice of initial conditions
c. Universe creating machine (see the privileged planet)
3. Local fine tuning … Astrobiology (habitable planets)
a. Carbon and water only create life (no silicon based life forms)
. Carbon alone forms large metastable molecules that bond to so many other elements
. Water is liquid over the range of temperatures where carbon is most reactive, forming the perfect solution for reactions
b. What makes a habitable planet?
. Carbon and water
. Solar habitable zone (not too hot or cols)
. Galactic habitable zone
. Cosmic habitable era
. Etc
Q1. Given the Size of the universe, why do we think our unlikely universe is not chance, but design?
>> Habitability correlates with measurability
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 Session 3
Wm Craig – 7 evidences for God
1. Why does anything exist? (Cosmological argument)
A. Contingency argument
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either necessary or contingent
a. The universe used to be thought as eternally and self existent. Now we know it had a beginning.
2. The universe contingently exists. What could cause the universe?
3. The explanation must be greater than the universe, all of space and time
a. External to space and time
b. Transcendent and immaterial
c. Personal – must have volition to choose to act in eternity
2. The origin of the universe … Nothing can only produce nothing
3. Fine tuning (teleologic argument)
A. Constants undetermined by the laws of nature
B. Arbitrary quantities like entropy, antimatter / matter balance
C. Possible explanations for fine tuning
1. Physical necessity
. The laws of nature don’t limit the constants
. M-theory (string) postulates such varieties of universes
2. Chance
. Probability is statistically 0
. Parallel universes, undetectable to us, exist (world ensemble)?
. An infinite number of universes is impossible bc our expanding universe demands that even other causal universes had a finite beginning, so only a limited number can exist.
3. Design
4. Objective moral values and duties (moral argument)
1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (mackie, ruse)
. If we are accidentally created beings in a meaningless universe, what is absolutely right or wrong?
2. objective moral values do exist
. Objective Moral laws are gradually discovered and understood, not gradually formed or developed over time
3. Therefore god exists
5. The possibility of gods existence (ontological argument)
A. Actual v possible worlds
. If a maximally great god exists in any world, he must exist in all possible worlds
> one attribute of greatness is necessary being, not contingent
> other atttributes include omnipresent, potent, niscient, benevolent
. Therefore god exists in all possible worlds
. Therefore, god exists in the actual world
6. The historical facts of jesus’ life, death, resurrection (historic argument)
7. Belief in god is properly basic and can be experienced immediately (experiential argument)
A. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted
B.
C.
Intelligent Design group proves that ‘God probably created HIV’
In a stunning press release, Intelligent Design group The Group for Order and Design In Science (GODIS) has proposed that the structure of the HIV virus could not have arisen by natural processes, and was therefore engineered.
"Our calculations are quite revealing," stated Rex Numero, chief statistician at GODIS. "We were inspired by Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s accusation that perhaps HIV was created by the US Government, and we immediately set about calculating the likelihood that HIV could have arisen from natural causes. As it turns out, the HIV virus is irreducibly complex in many areas. Therefore, it MUST have been engineered."
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Keynote
Wm Craig – 7 evidences for God
1. Why does anything exist? (Cosmological argument)
A. Contingency argument
1. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either necessary or contingent
a. The universe used to be thought as eternally and self existent. Now we know it had a beginning.
2. The universe contingently exists. What could cause the universe?
3. The explanation must be greater than the universe, all of space and time
a. External to space and time
b. Transcendent and immaterial
c. Personal – must have volition to choose to act in eternity
2. The origin of the universe … Nothing can only produce nothing
3. Fine tuning (teleologic argument)
A. Constants undetermined by the laws of nature
B. Arbitrary quantities like entropy, antimatter / matter balance
C. Possible explanations for fine tuning
1. Physical necessity
. The laws of nature don’t limit the constants
. M-theory (string) postulates such varieties of universes
2. Chance
. Probability is statistically 0
. Parallel universes, undetectable to us, exist (world ensemble)?
. An infinite number of universes is impossible bc our expanding universe demands that even other causal universes had a finite beginning, so only a limited number can exist.
3. Design
4. Objective moral values and duties (moral argument)
1. If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist (mackie, ruse)
. If we are accidentally created beings in a meaningless universe, what is absolutely right or wrong?
2. objective moral values do exist
. Objective Moral laws are gradually discovered and understood, not gradually formed or developed over time
3. Therefore god exists
5. The possibility of gods existence (ontological argument)
A. Actual v possible worlds
. If a maximally great god exists in any world, he must exist in all possible worlds
> one attribute of greatness is necessary being, not contingent
> other atttributes include omnipresent, potent, niscient, benevolent
. Therefore god exists in all possible worlds
. Therefore, god exists in the actual world
6. The historical facts of jesus’ life, death, resurrection (historic argument)
7. Belief in god is properly basic and can be experienced immediately (experiential argument)
A. Beliefs which are appropriately grounded may be rationally accepted
B.
C.
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Session 4
Frank Beckwith – no god, no good
A. Natural rights
1. Our rights wrt other citizens
2. Natural law tells us what things have value outside of relationships to others
>> atheist got no songs by steve Martin
>> a case for the crusades by stark
>> Kurt wise
>> legalism: there ought to be a law against it
B. Is natural moral law grounded in god?
1. The moral law is not physical
. Discovered from non inferential means of understanding … Not empiricism but introspection. They are immaterial
2. Moral rules are a form of communication
3. Moral rules have an incumbency
. Oughtness, the action of conscience
4. Guilt
C. Three possible grounds of morality
1. Morality is an illusion
2. Moral rules are the result of chance
. They are givens, brute facts
. Oughtness implies communication between minds, not accidental recommendations
. Moral rules evolve to support fitness (begs the question)
>> the moral animal by wright
. But why care for the weak? what if that has local negative impact on your fitness?
. How do we know that cruelty, social darwinism is bad for fitness?
. If the action benefits fitness, but the motive is bad, is it ok?
. If the action does not benefit, but the motive is good, is it bad?
. Should we be good tomorrow? How do I know what actions are good?
. What if I have conflicting sentiments? Is it moral to prioritize them?
. What if my sentiments towards evil are positive? Are my actions wrong?
Atheist misconceptions about god and morality
. You can recognize objective morals wo faith
. You can act and be moral without faith
. But you can not logically ground assertions that objective good exists without god
. Moral good must include external attestation, obligation/duty, and punishment
. External means a necessary being, not a contingent one
Richard Taylor… A duty is something owed. Moral obligation requires accountability to another.r
Reasonable Faith Conference Day 2 / Session 2
Conference Day 2 / Session 2
JP Morland – The existence of the soul
A. Xianity is a spiritual religion
1. It claims a religious realm, including god, angels, souls both animal and human
2.
B. Preliminary Notions
1. The law of identity…if a is identical to b, there are no differences
2. Cause and effect ….A causes b does not mean a=b
3. Functional dependence does not mean a=b
Q1 what is the self, not how does it function
Define consciousness (ostensively) : you must give examples to define, using first person
1. Think of regaining consciousness after anesthesia or sleep
C. Consciousness … The 5 states of
1. Sensations
a. External experiences of the senses
b. Internal experiences like emotions
c. Can not be true or false
2. Thought
a. Content that can be expressed in a declarative sentence or propositions
b. Can be true or false
c. Exist only while I think them
3. Belief
a. Mental content you take to be true with > 50% certainty
b. Can be true or false
c. Exist even while not thought of
4. Desire
a. A felt inclination towards or away from something
5. Volition…an exercise of will
a. An endeavoring … Choosing an action
D. What bears consciousness?
1. Why these states are not merely physical
a. Things true of mental states that are not true of physical states
. Physical states can not be true or false
. Some mental states are normative
. Brain states have size and location, mental states do not
. Mental states can be pleasurable, sensations can be pleasurable, but physical states don’t have this type of property
b. The knowledge argument
. Facts about consciousness are not the same as facts about material states
. Imagine we could track the cause and effect of every physical particle…the experience and synthesis of facts, meta data, is above the physical facts
E.g. A mechanical bat v a real bat. What it feels like to be a bat is about consciousness, not physics.
c. Intentionality
. The ofness or aboutness of consciousness … Have objects of focus
. Brain states don’t have objects, they are v. Are about
2. Why you are a soul
Soul as per Aristotle : an immaterial object that contains consciousness and animates the body
a. You are a simple, indivisible thing, but your body is not. You can’t have 2/3 of a person. See dandy walker syndrome
b. You are possibly disembodiable
. Even if no life after death, what of nde experiences?
c. Free will … Libertarian
. Determinism is false because we are self aware and responsible for action
. You are the driver of the car, not the car (ucla brain chem guy)
Reasonable Faith Conference, Day 2 / Session 1
Conference Day 2 / Session 1
Craig Haizen – Christianity and world religions
A. Raising an arm as a miracle
1. My soul initiated the action
B. Christianity is different
1. Its claims are testable
2. 1 Cor 15…if Christ is not raised, we are fools
3. Xianity is grounded in historical claims
a. Hinduism separates religious claims from reality, expects no connection
b. Buddhism is mostly experience oriented, makes few metaphysical claims
c. Islam claims no miracles
C. How xianity is different
1. Xianity is testable
2. Salvation is free
3. World view fits reality
a. Pain/evil/suffering…what do other views say?
. Eastern religions say it’s an illusion
. All world views have problems answering this, but we offer hope
4. You get to live a …….. Life Is. 1:18, 42:21, Jn. 1:1
5. Xianity has Jesus at the center
a. is a figure in most religions, but not central…why do they all include him?
D. Closing
1. The blind man and the elephant…the original
2. The Raja appears and tells the blind men what they were touching…they did not know and had to be told or they would keep brawling
Reasonable Faith Conference, Day 1 Session 2
Conference day 1 session 2
Greg Koukl
A. Disproving Christianity
1. In the Beginning
2. If Jesus did not rise
3. If there is no soul/spirit
B. Bad arguments against religion
1. There is no truth (is that true? Self refuting)
a. Needs illustration, ppl just don’t see it, it’s so simple
. If no view is true, how or why argue?
. If no truth, then your claim is meaningless
2. Confusing faith w wishing…or hope in the face of no or contrary evidence
a. Faith does not fill the space where ignorance exists, into which knowledge pushes.
b. Faith = active trust (don’t say faith, people misunderstand it)
c. Believing IN, not THAT
d. An act of trust grounded in knowledge, not divorced from or antithetical to knowledge
————-
Q1 There is no objective truth in spiritual matters that can be proven or disproven?
————-
C. See, know, believe
1. Exodus
2. Elijah
3. Mark 2 … So that you may KNOW
4. Romans 1…belief starting from the EVIDENCE of creation
——————–
3. The problem of evil
a. If real evil exists, then objective morals exist
b. If moral relativism is true, then there can not be a ‘problem of evil’
c. how do you define ‘evil’?
Q2. Why is natural evil bad? Loss of life? Assumed. Social contract?
Q3 what are the limits of science or reason? The physical? The moral? Morals/values can be defined by logic w assumptions about what is valuable, but not empiricism?
4. Science can’t confirm gods existence
a. Material methods can not measure the immaterial
b. We can infer, like in forensic science or history
Q4. What about indirect measurement? Prayer? Happiness? Health?
Q5. Why is it a good idea to assume materialism in science? How does that limit us? What is the role of intuition in science? What are the risks of allowing in supernaturalism in science? How do we manage those risks? Can we safely assume design, or does that make us miss processes? Or does this only apply to origins in a deist sense?
Reasonable Faith Conference Notes, Day 1 Session 1
Conference day 1 Intro
Jp Moreland
A. History of intellectualism in xianity
1. now seen as bigoted and dangerous…we have a PR problem
B. Where is this view coming from?
1. Three world views
a. Xian theism
b. Scientific naturalism
1. Science is our best epistemic tool
2. Physical world is all there is
c. Postmodern Relativism
C. Faith, knowledge, and certainty
1. Faith is trust based on what we already know to be true.
2. You can know something without having empirical certainty.
Francis Beckwith
A. No God, No Good
1. How do you answer the question ‘is there a moral law?’
2. How do we help people realize what they already intuitively know?
3. Believing in oughts indicates you believe in objective truth
Greg Koukl
A. Simple cosmological argument
1. A big bang requires a big banger
2. Worse than magic…. Big bang lacks magician. What is more reasonable? God or something from nothing?
3. How is faith illogical?
Jay Richards
A. Different questions require different types of evidence
1. Most of our answers come from a few accomplished intellectuals
2. The more accomplished you are, the crazier your claims can be, unchallenged.
B. Hawking’s errors
1. Category error: gravity is one of the things that needs to be explained, not a cause
2. He uses ‘nothing’ to refer to a ‘quantum vacuum’
Craig Hazen
A. What are we afraid of?
1. Most people ask the same simple questions which have answers
2. Most people are not angry atheists, but ARE hurt by anti-intellectual religionists and anti theist misinformation
Causes of same-sex attraction
NARTH has a nice reprint of an original article from The Catholic Standard & Times which discusses the roots of homosexuality. The author, Dr. Richard Fiztgibbons, contributed to the Catholic booklet on this issue called Homosexuality and Hope.
The main section titles are:
- Weak Masculine/Feminine Identity
- Distrust of Men/Women
- Gender Identity Disorder
- Narcissism and Profound Selfishness
- Dysfunctional Family Life
Do atheism or religion necessarily lead to violence?
Often, people bring up the argument that atheism or religion lead necessarily to evil. Here, I assert that both history and logic support the arguments that atheism and certain kinds of religion (Divine Command religion, specifically), combined with man’s predilection for abusing power, DO lead to violence, both logically and evidentially.
However, Christianity, in a form that does not involve a commitment to Divine Command theory (such as St. Thomas Aquinas‘ view), does NOT lead necesarrily to evil, and perhaps necessarily to GOOD.
Further, this contention is supported by both logic and historical evidence, with exceptions, of course (we argue from the norm, not the exception). Syllogisms examined below.
Read more
Hypocrites, virgins, and sinners: what issues do you oppose?
Recently, I was accused of choosing a stance on an issue because I was favoring my own situation. Specifically, since I have married a formerly illegal immigrant Mexican, my moderate stance on immigration (which is different from my more conservative positions on most issues) was questioned, and I was accused of making my stance based on convenience, not conservative conviction.
Such an accusation, if taken seriously and without being defensive, forces one to examine the reasons WHY they take stances, and how those stances compare to one’s current habits, as well as one’s history. And how our stances, compared to our history and current practices determines whether we are hypocrites, virgins, or sinners.
13 Misconceptions About Evolution
Over at one of my favorite sites, The List Universe, James Frater has posted a pro-evolution article, Top 15 Misconceptions about Evolution, which instigated me to make my own list of misconceptions from the other perspective. I apologize in advance for the many links, and some statements that I have not backed up with references. However, just take this as a primer, not the end-all. Enjoy.
The extreme middle, the healthy right and left
When discussing extremism, we must remember that there is an extreme middle position.
Oxymoron? Not really. There is a difference between healthy balance
and an ‘extreme,’ compromised middle. In fact, the erroneous middle is a classic logical fallacy, often called the Middle Ground fallacy:
- Position A and B are two extreme positions.
- C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
- Therefore C is the correct position.
But I would like to explore this error in more detail, so that we can also identify a healthy compromise.
