Naturalism, flu vaccines, and the survival of the fittest...

Per FoxNews, Parents Mull Flu-Shot Options,

The news that British regulators have shut down a major flu-shot supplier carries particular concern in Colorado, which was the epicenter of last year's flu season with 12,885 reported cases and the deaths of 12 children. With 46 million doses now unavailable, the government says the 54 million flu shots left from a rival firm should be reserved for youngsters ages 6-23 months, people 65 or older, anyone living with babies younger than 6 months and others in high-risk groups.

How intriguing. The unmovable foundation of the Naturalistic Worldview is that, namely, nature is all there is. Couched within this worldview is the Darwinistic methodology which extols the concept of survival of the fittest as the driving force which maintains the survival of the species. Such a survival depends on natural selection weeding out the weak, feeble, and ill-equipped members of the species. Within the naturalistic framework such action is not seen as wrong – it just is. Yet now we see a species that puts forth a special effort to counteract the process of natural selection. Betraying the underlying principle of survival of the fittest, we have humans advocating delivering potentially life saving flu vaccines not to the healthiest individuals in society, but to the weakest. Why? Virtually any argument put forth to justify the altruism inherent in saving the weak will ultimately rely on a commonly understood moral judgment. Any argument put forth will reduce down to concluding that one course of action is better than another. Exactly.

The bigger picture: WMD and Saddam...

Per CNN, Official: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, Saddam still a threat, head of the Iraq Survey Group says. From the article,

Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year.

From FoxNews, Report: No Iraq WMD Production After '91,

The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991. But the final report by Charles Duelfer concluded that, although the weapons stockpiles were destroyed, Saddam’s government was looking to begin a WMD program again.

Was this known in 1991? No. When did the U.S. invade Iraq? March, 2003. When did Baghdad fall? April, 2003. It is now October, 2004. If it took the chief U.S. arms inspector a year and a half after the post-Saddam reign to determine that no evidence of WMD production exists, then how long would it have taken UN inspectors stuck in the quagmire of an Iraq run by Saddam? Indeed, one wonders if UN inspectors would have ever gotten the chance to come to a conclusion and issue a report of their findings. Of course... that's now a moot point.

A Vision from the Lord...

What did your kid do this summer? Recently, in church, we had a presentation on what had occurred at their annual Kid's Camp. Besides stories about the typical frolicking with nature, there was a serious story of one youngster who was, evidently, the epitomy of rebellion. He was a non-Christian and a last minute addition to the camp roster. Despite the best efforts of the camp counselors, they seemed to just not be getting through to this rebellious kid. To conclude the story a ten year old kid from church was asked to speak. The ten year old promptly announced that, while at camp, he had "had a vision" regarding the non-Christian kid. In his vision he saw an individual that was badly injured and in need of assistance, to which he loving provided. He admitted that, at that time, he was unsure of what the vision was about. As he recounted the story he told how other counselors, when told of his experience, concluded that the injured individual he was seeing was this other non-Christian, rebellious kid. The meaning was now obvious... he was there to help this other kid! The kids were returning home from camp on Friday. To the delight of the congregation the youth pastor described how this ten year old, and others, huddled in prayer around the kid in need on Thursday night. The night ended with the rebellious kid making a decision to follow Christ. Now, while I'm certainly in no position to dispute the sincerity of those involved, I was a bit concerned by the almost flippant manner in which a vision from the Lord was addressed. I looked up "vision" and "dream" in the NIV and found these references (NT only): Matthew 1:20; 2:12, 13, 22; Luke 1:22; Acts 9:10, 12; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 16:9, 10; 18:9; 26:19; and 2 Corinthians 12:1. In virtually every case of a vision occurring, the one who delivered the message, whether it be the Spirit or an angel, insures that the meaning is clear and precise. The recipient is not left wondering what the vision could possibly mean. An apparent exception to this is Acts 10:17 in which Peter momentarily wonders what the vision of unclean animals is about. But a reading of the full account shows that he was immediately presented (supernaturally) with the answer. God is certainly capable of speaking to us through visions. But the Biblical evidence shows that when He does, He is clear and precise as to the meaning of the vision. We are not to go about discovering what it is that God has mystically told us.

Hugh Hewitt Symposium...

Hugh Hewitt has posed some questions for a Virtual Symposium regarding comments made by John Kerry at Thursday night’s debate. Hugh states,

John Kerry's passionate denunciation of the research into nuclear bunker busters was one of four major mistakes on his part in Thursday's debate, the others being his “global test” remark, his proposal to sell nuclear reactor fuel to Iran, and his demonstration of a very limited grasp of the nature of the terror network. I have begun researching the bunker-buster question because I sense Kerry's outrage at the very idea of America developing and possessing such weapons was both authentic on his part and potentially disturbing to millions of voters who instinctively understand that the armory of America is different from the armory of every other country in the world, that our nation can be trusted with all sorts of weaponry that the world cannot be trusted with, and that our electorate will not reward a candidate who, as Kerry did on Thursday night, proclaims our weapons program to be part of the proliferation problem. But I could be wrong about that. The nuclear freeze think of the 1980s, in which Kerry fully participated, was never close to a majority movement, but perhaps times have changed and the electorate does not want unquestioned military superiority and new capabilities. Perhaps “bunker buster nukes” are this decade's “neutron bomb.” My symposium questions: Did Kerry blunder in denouncing nuclear bunker busters? If so, why? If so, how great the damage to his candidacy?

I agree with Hugh in that Kerry’s outrage at the idea of America developing new nuclear weapons is sincere. From a strictly pragmatic point of view, I think that Kerry is wrong and that the majority of Americans can see beyond the naïve assumptions that lie behind his conclusions. At the core of those assumptions, I believe, is a worldview which relies on the belief that morality is ultimately relative. Listen carefully to the arguments posited supporting the view that Kerry espoused: “We have no right to tell others how to live.” “If it’s wrong for other countries to possess such weapons, then it’s wrong for us as well.” “We’re being hypocrites if we invade countries, remove their WMDs, yet not only retain ours but develop new ones.” Inherent in these arguments is the notion of moral relativism. While it appears, on the surface, that the argument is actually one of moral absolutism (i.e., “what’s right for them is right for us”), it really isn’t, and it can be demonstrated as such by simply “taking the roof off” the argument. The argument appears to rely on the idea that the development and ownership of nuclear weapons is inherently wrong. Why would this be the case? I believe that there are essentially only two reasons: 1) An owner of nuclear weapons could use them to destroy innocent human life. 2) While simply owning nuclear weapons poses no direct threat on human life, it could incite an enemy to commit acts of aggression if he feels threatened by such ownership. Reason # 1 could apply to any type of weaponry, but the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons renders it a valid concern. However, the concern is not necessarily the destructive power of the nuclear weapon, but the misuse of the weapon by the owner. So the real issue is whether the owner of the nuclear weapon is deemed responsible enough for such ownership. Consider the fact that I, as an average citizen of the United States, cannot drive around in an M1 Abrams tank. However there are other citizens (and non-citizens) doing so. They are known as military personnel. Why should they be allowed to operate such a weapon while I am not? The reason is simple: They are allowed to do so because they have been deemed responsible for the duty of protecting the interests of the United States. The issue of the ownership of nuclear weaponry is essentially no different. Yes, there is the chance that those entrusted with the privilege of operating such weapons will abuse that privilege, but such abuse is understood to be a violation of the moral code. We understand it to be a violation not because the United States military had no right to own such weapons, but because certain individuals abused that right. If we are to follow Kerry’s argument to its conclusion, then we would have to declare that just as an average citizen, or a criminal, should not be allowed to operate an M1 Abrams tank, so should the United States military not be allowed to. This is, of course, absurd – or so it should be to any thinking person. Reason # 2 is a bit trickier. Of course the thought behind it hearkens back to the Cold War era and concepts such as Mutually Assured Destruction or Doomsday Devices. The foundational idea of those concepts is very simple – two opposing forces develop and maintain equal measures of destructive power. Whatever weaponry you develop, I develop in like manner – tit for tat. Note, though, the requirements for this process to be effective: The need for at least two sovereign powers who, while disagreeing ideologically, operate with enough logical sense to understand the imminent threat the other poses. Within these requirements is the understanding by both powers that each are willing to negotiate terms of co-existence. Yet, even while both powers are shaking their right hands in agreement, their left hands are cautiously resting on a sidearm. Remember the Eagle on the back of the dollar bill that holds both an olive branch and a bunch of arrows? An interesting sidenote to this policy is that… it worked. The situation with the War on Terror is entirely different. Arguments against the United States developing and maintaining nuclear weaponry collapse when one throws into the mix rogue countries and / or terrorist networks. Such entities do not wish to engage life in co-existence with the United States or her allies. To argue that we should strive for such co-existence legitimizes terrorist networks such as Al-Qaeda. We should not be about co-existing with terrorists – we should be about squashing them from the face of the earth. Some questions that should be asked of Kerry are:

On what grounds do you consider the United States government not responsible enough to develop and maintain nuclear weaponry? Please elaborate Senator, what moral obligation does the United States violate when it engages in the development of nuclear weaponry? Considering that Osama bin Laden may be living deep within a cave in a remote section of Afghanistan, what is it about a nuclear bunker buster that you oppose? Would you rather send in American troops to search for bin Laden? Given that you do not consider the United States government responsible enough to develop and maintain nuclear weaponry, do you also not consider it responsible enough to engage in pre-emptive actions designed to prevent attacks on American soil?

It’s a Global World…

(sung to the tune of It’s a Small World) It’s a world of nations a world of cheer It’s a world of dreams but not one of fear We’ve got to be like all the rest just to pass that global test It’s a global world after all There is just one globe Can’t we all get along? How could a smile mean wimp... to Kim Jong? Let’s not sit on the bench But have a summit with the French! It’s a global world after all It’s a global world after all It’s a global world after all It’s a global world after all It’s a global, global world

Can Religion tell us anything important? (part 5, conclusion)...

In parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, I have argued that the naturalistic worldview of reality, that of Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism, is incapable of accounting for the existence and meaning of the abstract. Its dismal attempt at reconciling the inherent knowledge humans have of the existence of moral right and wrong within the mechanics of its worldview give clear indication as to the limits of its general explanatory power. It fares little better in answering, as it were, even the most basic questions of life. Questions such as: Is there absolute truth? Does the Universe have meaning? Or, Is knowledge about anything possible? On the other hand Religion and, in particular, Christianity does a much better job of addressing the complex realities of our existence. I believe that the tapestry of Christian thought weaves through the topics of theology, metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, and anthropology in a manner that results in a coherent and consummate interpretation of our reality. It is in this sense that Christianity can, and does, tell us something important. It not only addresses and answers the most basic questions of life, but does so with robustness and authority. While we may not like the answers we get, we are beholden to acknowledge the authority with which they are given. Herein lies the gist of the problem which triggered my starting this series – that of how an individual could deny the existence of absolute morality. Such a stance hinges on one’s worldview which, when all is said and done, depends on whether one acknowledges God as God.

Bird of prey...

Check out this shot my wife took this morning. We have a screened in patio (known as a "sunroom" in most of the U.S.) and about 7:30 this morning our girls heard a loud noise in there. Our 4 year old then informed my wife that "there's a big bird in the playroom!" A hawk had crashed through one of the screen panels and was sitting in the patio. While our 9 year old looked up which kind of hawk it was, my wife attempted to snap a few pics. The Coopers Hawk (according to my 9 year old) was a juvenile and, as expected, got quite agitated whenever any of the three got near it. It was evidently having a difficult time finding its way back out of the patio. Animal Control said to wait a while and see if it would fly out on its own which, after the sun broke through the clouds, it did. Needless to say, it was an event that gave spark to a writing assignment for the afternoon session of school.

Are you... partisan?

Hugh Hewitt writes about a Newsweek article in which an insult is levied at bloggers in that they are accused of being "fiercly partisan." Hugh writes,

In this charge Levy joins folks like Andrew Sullivan and Peter Beinart who have been tossing the term "partisan" around like a rotten egg for many months. Time for some clarity: Partisanship is the bedrock of the American republic and has been since at least Jefferson's presidency.

Excellent point, and very timely considering my previous post on President Jimmy Carter's accusations that a fair election is not possible in Florida primarily because of highly partisan and biased officials. Hewitt's remarks are also timely in that I am currently reading Stephen Ambrose's Undaunted Courage, which recounts the events up to, and including, the voyage of Lewis and Clark. Ambrose details the fiercly partisan politics entrenched in American politics during Jefferson's term. He describes the conflicts between the Federalists and the Republicans in terms that make events of today seem tame in comparison. What 21st century citizens of the United States need to understand is that the founding fathers weren't attempting to draft a system of government that would avoid partisan politics. No, they understood very well that man's inherent depravity rendered such a system virtually impossible to achieve. Yet, rather than attempting to avoid such a system, they counted on it. The machinery of a separation of power can only function properly when it is fueled by a struggle for power. The founding fathers knew this not only in theory, but also in practice. Consider what Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in his book Ethics,

The American democracy is not founded upon the emancipated man but, quite on the contrary, upon the kingdom of God and the limitation of all earthly powers by the sovereignty of God. It is indeed significant when, in contrast to the Declaration of the Rights of Man, American historians can say that the federal constitution was written by men who were conscious of original sin and of the wickedness of the human heart.

Are you partisan? I certainly hope so.

Is Jimmy Carter highly partisan?...

Check Carter: No Fair Election Possible in Florida, per FoxNews. Are we seeing a potential set-up for a 2000 Gore vs. Bush scenario in Florida? Some excerpts:

Former President Jimmy Carter (search) says that despite changes designed to eliminate voting problems in Florida — where the disputed 2000 presidential election was decided by only a few hundred votes — conditions for a fair election in that state still don't exist. "The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely," Carter wrote in an opinion piece published Monday in the Washington Post. ...Carter, citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring international elections, said "some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida." Most significant, he said, were requirements that a nonpartisan electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens. He said Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was "highly partisan" and that Harris' successor, Glenda Hood, has shown "the same strong bias". He said Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, had done little to "correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment." "With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida," Carter said. - emphasis added

Let's see, our country has traversed over 200 years of elections without even the hint of resorting to the use of basic international requirements. What's next Jimmy?, using international standards to adjust our governmental structure with regards to the struggle for power? Maybe we should see what the rest of the world thinks about 6 year terms for Senators? Or whether two senators per state is really and truly fair? While we're at it, we could round up all those highly partisan officials (read: Republican) in order to prevent them from mucking things up. After all, there's nothing suspicious about a Democrat, with the same strong bias, claiming that the election process in Floirda is unfair only five weeks before the election... is there? Update: Check Memo to Jimmy Carter, at Asymmetrical Information. She begins,

Mr Carter, if you are going to rhetorically lump the US in with tinpot dictatorships that stage elections, there are a few things you might want to consider, so that the effect redounds to the greater glory of yourself and your party, rather than alienating the unwashed masses who will be voting in this sham election.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Can Religion tell us anything important? (part 4)...

In this series I’ve attempted to contrast the way science looks at the world, via the worldview of Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism (M/PN), with how Christianity looks at the world. By, the world, I am referring to ultimate reality – that which comprises our total existence. The premise of my argument has been that M/PN is not able to sufficiently address the issues of ultimate reality to the same degree that Christianity does. From the book, Faith and Reason, by Ron Nash, I listed some of the major elements of a worldview. These elements include: Theology, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Anthropology. How well a worldview addresses questions within these disciplines helps to illustrate how well the worldview describes reality. In the previous post on this series I briefly addressed how the aspect of Theology is addressed by M/PN and Christianity. I’d like to address the other worldview elements in this posting. (note – the italicized definitions indicates text from Nash that I’ve paraphrased) Metaphysics - A worldview also includes beliefs about ultimate reality, a subject often discussed under the label of metaphysics. Is there purpose in the universe? What is the ultimate nature of the universe? Is the universe a self-enclosed system in the sense that everything that happens is caused by other events within the system, or can a supernatural reality act causally within nature? The Christian Worldview posits that there is purpose in the universe and that such purpose is based on the major premise that God exists. Interestingly enough, simply asking whether there is purpose, or not, seems to imply that purpose exists. C. S. Lewis said something along the lines of, would a fish, that had spent its whole life in the water, know it was wet? Christianity also argues that the universe is not a self-enclosed system, that God created, and is in control of, the universe, and that God can act from within and outside of the universe. This line of thinking has major implications with regards to whether the universe had a beginning or not. If our purpose is to worship God, then whether God exists or not certainly has implications to how the Christian Worldview addresses metaphysics. M/PN posits that the universe is a self-enclosed system with no intervention from so-called supernatural activity. One problem for this worldview is, given a self-enclosed system, how is it possible for it to have a beginning? A bigger problem for M/PN, though, is that of purpose in the universe. Again, given a self-enclosed system, how is it that an abstract reality, such as a sense of purpose, is generated? Does this sense of purpose really exist? If not, then why do we experience a longing for it? If yes, then how do natural acts result in the abstract? While some naturalists will claim to find purpose and meaning in the natural world itself, they evade the real question of how such an abstract reality could in theory be produced by said natural world. Denying the existence of God, in the M/PN Worldview, also has logical implications with regards to any so-called purpose mere human animals might have. Epistemology - A theory of knowledge. Is knowledge about the world possible? Can we trust our senses? Is truth relative, or must truth be the same for all rational beings? Is the scientific method the only method of knowledge? Is knowledge about God possible? How? The Christian Worldview posits that knowledge of the world is possible but, with the constraint of an assumption. Augustine said that before you can know anything you must believe something. How we come to believe anything is a concept well worth addressing. Many Christian thinkers posit that our cognitive faculties have built in them a capacity to believe, whether it is the belief that one had breakfast this morning or the belief that God exists. Consider the act of having breakfast this morning. In reflecting upon this event I do not decide to believe that it occurred, I simply believe that it happened. If one were to not believe he had breakfast, when in fact he had, we would conclude that his cognitive faculties were impaired to a certain extent. The Christian Worldview argues that sin has impaired our cognitive faculties with regards to belief in God. Yet, although impaired, we still have been input with the belief that God exists. In this sense Paul can state in Romans, with regards to knowledge about God, that no one is without excuse. The First Commandment, as J. Budziszewski tells us in What We Can’t Not Know, presumes that all humans know of God’s existence (and the worship He deserves – but that relies on another concept we can’t not know; that of obligation). It is this Reformed epistemology that Alvin Plantinga used to argue that belief in God is a properly basic belief, without the need of evidentialist support. Although certainly not a “proof” for God, it falls along the same lines as the properly basic belief that other minds exist, despite the fact that said belief is not provable. The worldview of M/PN claims that the scientific method is the best and most reliable method of gaining knowledge about the world. Yet the premise of this claim has no empirical data with which to establish it as true. Claims that the method has historically shown itself to be reliable are self-referential. This is by no means a fatal flaw, but it behooves the naturalist to at least admit that the major cornerstone of his epistemological method must be taken on faith. Once again, though, the major problem for M/PN lies in how poorly it addresses the abstract. Whether or not truth is relative is a question that M/PN cannot convincingly answer. Since the naturalist posits that truth is derived from the natural world (i.e., it is not transcendent), then we have the assertion that truth is relative. Yet what is the answer to the question, “Is the assertion that truth is relative a true assertion?” If one answers “yes,” then truth is not relative. Yet if one answers “no,” what point would there be in further discussion regarding a false assertion? Ethics - Most people are more aware of the ethical component of their worldview than of their metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. It is more than simply making moral judgments though. Ethics is more concerned with the question of why that action is wrong. Are there moral laws that govern human conduct? What are they? Are these moral laws the same for all human beings? Are moral laws discovered (in a way more or less similar to the way we discover that "seven times seven equals forty-nine"), or are they constructed by human beings (in a way more or less similar to what we call human mores)? The Christian Worldview posits that absolute morality exists. Critics will sometimes argue that morality has changed over time but, typically, these arguments are actually about societal rules rather than absolute principles. For instance, while the punishment for murder may vary within history, the act of murder is still known to be wrong. Arguing for absolute moral law supposes that there is an absolute moral lawgiver. It would make no sense to appeal to a standard of morality that was simply a construct of another person. For a standard to be binding upon all humans at all times the standard itself must be distinct from humanity. Where did this standard, if it exists, come from? Within the framework of the Christian Worldview we can now begin to see the weaving together of the theological, metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical elements. If moral laws are discovered, then we should expect them to be true in the same sense that 7 x 7 = 49 is true. M/PN posits that ethics is relative. Natural selection has produced the morality we happen to see today. It was different in the past. It will be different in the future. Taken to its logical conclusion, this worldview results in a world in which nothing is wrong, and everything is right, or vice versa. Anarchy should be the logical result. Yet cacophonic moral principles within various cultures is not what history has shown us… Why? Anthropology - the nature of human beings. Are human beings free, or are they merely pawns of deterministic forces? Are human beings only bodies or material beings? Does physical death end the existence of the human person? The Christian Worldview posits that human beings are free will beings comprised of both body and soul, and that some form of this existence continues beyond mere physical death. Human distinctiveness is due to being imparted with the Image of God and indicates a separate nature than that of the animal kingdom. Expressions of this image are found in such actions as spirit worship, contemplation of death, artistic expression, creativity, etc. Much of the basis for the Christian Worldview in this area stems from the understanding of how an idea relates to a mind. Essentially, an idea is part of an abstract reality that only comes from a mind. If an idea is understood to have always existed, then it must have come from an eternal mind. This concept, when combined with that of the essence of a soul, bolsters the argument that human beings are more than just material beings. (additional ref. The Word of God and The Mind of Man by Ron Nash) One of the most difficult questions for the Christian Worldview to answer in this discipline is: If God is in control, then how can humans truly have free will? M/PN is forced to conclude that humans are not truly free, but merely pawns of deterministic forces that shape the entirety of our existence. Since humans are considered material beings only, any notions of the abstract are mere illusions. Indeed, when we die… we die, and that’s it. It is interesting to note that, while there are many naturalists who logically conclude the meaninglessness of it all, there continues to be many that insist on finding meaning to their existence while acknowledging that humans are exclusively material beings. As can be seen from this series, the abstract realities that all humans know exist equate to a stake through the heart of Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism. to be concluded in part 5...

The "Popular Vote" fallacy: How VotePair.org misunderstands history...

The rumbling in the East is the collective sound of our founding fathers turning over in their graves. Votepair.org is a website promoting a vote-swapping scheme to get Kerry elected this November. The scheme is couched in language that supports concepts such as progressive third-party candidates and the popular vote. From their website:

You can make your vote for president count by joining the national VotePair campaign and using your vote to elect Kerry-Edwards while supporting the role of progressive third-party candidates. As we learned in 2000, a few hundred votes in the right states can make all the difference in the world--and the whole world is watching now. In vote-pairing, swing-state progressives whose first instinct might have been to vote for Nader or Cobb are paired with Democrats (and others whose first choice for President is Kerry) in 'safe' states where either Bush or Kerry has a decisive lead. Paired voters can communicate with each other and decide to vote strategically: swing-state participants for Kerry and safe-state participants for Nader or Cobb. As a result, the paired voters' support for progressive third parties is recorded in the popular vote and their preference for Kerry over Bush finds voice in the Electoral College.

Is this practice constitutional? Wasn't the idea that having the United States of America necessitated having a system such as the Electoral College to insure that each individual State would cast their decision in electing the President? Also, check the FAQ section for some examples of doublespeak and clues to the motivation behind the Votepair organization:

What are the goals of votepair.org? 1. We believe that strong, progressive third parties are critical to our nation's future and that citizens have the right to vote strategically. Votepair.org seeks to give progressive voters more options by enabling us to defeat George Bush in 2004, support third parties, and build a progressive majority. 2. Through vote pairing, we seek to facilitate communication between voters. By engaging with each other to vote strategically, voters are asserting control over presidential elections--putting it back in the hands of citizens, where it belongs. 3. We seek to draw attention to the flaws in our current Electoral College system and support electoral reforms such as Instant Runoff Voting. Does votepair.org also facilitate alliances between Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution Party supporters? Votepair.org facilitates strategic voting for supporters of David Cobb, Ralph Nader, and John Kerry. But we support the right of individuals from any party to engage in strategic voting. Does the existence of votepair.org represent the future of the electoral process, or simply the exploitation of a loophole in the process? The Electoral College and winner-take-all voting are flaws exploited by the major parties. We see vote pairing as helping to restore real democracy within this flawed system. We hope that in the future, the electoral system will reflect the spirit of democracy to a greater degree by providing space for third parties and reflecting the popular vote. What's wrong with the Electoral College system? The first problem is that the loser in the popular vote can win in the Electoral College, as in 2000. Second, the winner-take-all method of distributing electoral votes in the Electoral College means that the votes of those who do not support the winning candidate are effectively discarded at the state level. Third, in the Electoral College system, individual citizens have no right to vote for electors. Fourth, small-state voters are over-represented. Fifth, the electoral college gives campaigns little incentive to pay attention to issues that are critical to safe state voters and residents of safe states have much less incentive to vote.

If the Electoral College is so flawed, then why not use the system to correct it? Unless, possibly, you have interests that are better served outside the system?

Homeschool Terrorists: fictionally absurd?...

As reported by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) in, Homeschoolers Portrayed as "Terrorists," we see how a Muskegon (Michigan) County Emergency Services terrorism drill used, as part of its scenario, a radical (and fictional) homeschool group known as Wackos Against Schools and Education. According to the scenario, the WASE believe that everyone should be homeschooled. From the Muskegon Chronicle:

Daniel Stout, chief deputy for emergency services with the Muskegon County Sheriff's Department, said he never meant to offend anyone. "That's just what I decided to use," he said of the name choice for Tuesday's drill. "It may have been a poor choice, but that's what was used ... I'm the one who wrote the scenario." Planning for the event began last year, he said, and no one indicated that the name would offend anyone until a few weeks ago. Stout said he decided not to change the name. He said it will not be used again. Last year, a similar terrorism exercise at Muskegon's Heritage Landing was called "Wackos Against Relaxation and Recreation," he said. Fictitious group names often are made up for anti-terrorist drills. Stout referred to a May 2002 exercise in Manistee County where the domestic terrorist group was called ELF, which stood for Ethical Liberation for Fish.

The Muskegon Area Intermediate School District did issue an apology that can be found at HSLDA's website. Although those involved in this fiasco have apologized for their gross ignorance, homeschoolers should take notice of how this incident exposes an underlying attitude towards homeschoolers in general. Given that the previous terrorism drills used ridiculously absurd, and fictitious, group names such as Wackos Against Relaxation and Recreation, or Ethical Liberation for Fish, are we to then conclude that those in charge also consider homeschoolers to be just as ridiculous?

Sunset...

"Wetland Sunset" - Morro Bay, CA ©1993 RL

Evangelical Outpost on Swaggart...

Check Joe Carter's post, Thou Shalt Not Look At Me That Way: Jimmy Swaggart and Violence Against Homosexuals, for an insightful look at the un-Christian comments made by Jimmy Swaggart.

Just your average Joe: a scenario in moral relativism…

In the comments section of Can Religion Tell Us Anything Important? (part 2), I’ve been attempting to clarify the moral relativist position of one commenter by the name of Paul. After several gyrations, I think I was able to define his particular position (see this comment). In so doing, I began wondering what implications, if any, would result if we were take the moral relativist’s position to its logical end. So, let’s look at a moral relativism scenario as applied to just three Average Joes. Premise: The law of the land is decided by the majority. In this context, morality is defined as whatever the majority decides. The majority of the populace has decided each Joe must behead his respective 2nd born daughter. Regardless of whatever reason may be given for such a decision, the point here is that the decision is the result of a majority opinion. Results: Joe(1): Despite what the majority wants, Joe(1) chooses to disobey the majority. The reason why Joe(1) disobeys is that he finds the act objectionable. Joe(1) believes the reason why he finds the act objectionable is not because the act is an absolute moral wrong, but due to influences from his family, society, experiences growing up, genetic makeup, etc. Joe(1) believes that, while he believes the act to be objectionable, if he had grown up in a different environment he might just as well believe the act to be permissible. Joe(2): Despite what the majority wants, Joe(2) chooses to disobey the majority. The reason why Joe(2) disobeys is that he believes the act to be objectionable. Joe(2) believes the reason why he finds the act objectionable is simply because the act is an absolute moral wrong, regardless of the influences from his family, society, experiences growing up, genetic makeup, etc. Since Joe(2) believes the act to be an absolute moral wrong, he also believes that is wrong for everyone at all times. Joe(3): Despite what the majority wants, Joe(3) chooses to disobey the majority. The reason why Joe(3) disobeys is that he believes the act to be objectionable. However, Joe(3) believes that the act, in and of itself, is enjoyable, so he sets out to commit the act on the 2nd born daughters of other men. Joe(3) believes the reason why he finds the act enjoyable is not because the act is an absolute moral right, but because of the influences from his family, society, experiences growing up, genetic makeup, etc. Joe(3) could be considered a sort of alter ego of Joe(1) in that he also believes a variety of external influences have determined how he views reality. In other words, the external influences have determined how he determines what is right and wrong. Discussion: Q: In the land of moral relativism, which Joe is morally right? A: They all are; along with the individual morality beliefs of Joe(4)…Joe(n). Q: In the land of moral relativism, which Joe could rightfully be restrained? A: None of them; since restraining the actions of one over the other implies that the one who is restrained ought to act in a manner that the other mandates. I would argue that hidden within the original premise is the belief that the opinion of the majority should apply to all. Yet such a belief folds in on itself. While a society may decide that murder is legal, it cannot determine murder to be moral. Consider the argument for moral relativism which supposes that on a particular Monday society considers murder to be illegal and morally wrong. On the next day, Tuesday, society votes to define murder as legal and morally right. If we truly live in a morally relative environment, then certain questions should immediately be asked. Questions such as:

How could we truly live in a morally relative environment? Why should society be able to determine what is morally right? Why should it matter that the majority have decided to use the majority process? By what standard is it determined that the majority process seems to work best? If morality is relative, then why are some members of society prevented from practicing their morality? Doesn’t the notion of the common good imply ought for the whole of society? Where does this ought come from? If the ought is relative, then ought I ignore it? If not, then ought I follow it? If not, then where am I left, as an individual, in a society of many?

Why does a moral relativist even bother to debate the issue of morality with anyone?

New Comments enabled...

I'm attempting to enable Blogger's commenting system. If it works I'll try and capture some the recent discussion and paste it on the new system.

Even if they’re fake, it wouldn’t matter…

In the wake of the controversy surrounding the forged documents that Dan Rather broadcast on 60 Minutes we see David Van Os, lawyer for retired National Guard officer Bill Burkett, commenting,

“If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done - what difference would it make?” - emphasis added

I guess that’s supposed to mean that the accusations against Bush are true so it doesn’t matter that we’ve cooked up documents to prove it. Now I’m certainly not siding with CBS, but there is a point of truth in Mr. Van Os’ statement. Whether or not the documents shown were forged does not, in and of itself, tell us whether the accusations against Bush are false. Regardless of the motives of those accusing Bush and regardless of whether their accusations are supported with falsehoods, the issue of the veracity of the accusations remains separate. This is important because too many times we tend to jump to, or avoid, conclusions based simply on the motives we perceive our opposition to have. Biased motives are seen as some sort of indicator that the conclusions of the person are incorrect. Yet this is not so. Simply because an evolutionist may be motivated by a naturalistic bias does not tell me whether or not the concept of evolution is itself correct. Conversely, simply because a proponent of ID may be motivated by religious concerns does not tell me whether or not the concept of ID is correct. The effects of this line of thinking are far reaching. For instance, although cultural environments certainly influence our behavior, there is an inherent flaw in the argument that Christianity is only a relative truth in that a person who grows up in a Christian culture is simply following the norm of the culture. Given an Islamic culture, it is argued, the same person would most likely be Islamic. Hence religion is relative. The problem with that line of thinking is that even if it were true that people chose Christianity due to their cultural upbringing, that tells me nothing about whether the actual truth claims of Christianity are true. Whether Christianity is true or false is independent of how I think or feel about it.

This is disgusting...

Next thing you know, some wingnut will question their patriotism, over at Power Line.

The evolution of peer review...

Check Albert Mohler's post, Panicked Evolutionists: The Stephen Meyer Controversy, for his analysis of the recent hoopla regarding the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer being published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. One of the battle cries amongst evolutionists is that proponents of Intelligent Design have not published work in peer reviewed journals. Yet, as Mohler states,

Eugenie C. Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, told The Scientist that Dr. Meyer's article came to her attention when members of the Biological Society of Washington contacted her office. "Many members of the society were stunned about the article," she told The Scientist, and she described the article as "recycled material quite common in the intelligent design community." Dr. Scott, a well known and ardent defender of evolutionary theory, called Dr. Meyer's article "substandard science" and argued that the article should never have been published in any scientific journal.

It would appear that the bluff has been called and the evolutionists have laid their cards on the table.

Can Religion tell us anything important? (part 3)...

In part 2 of, Can Religion tell us anything important?, I argued that the notion of relative morality falls woefully short of explaining why acts of evil are indeed acts of evil (much less whether they are evil). So why do some people continue to hold to the proposition that morality is relative? I suspect it has something to do with how they view reality – i.e., their Worldview. Those who hold one particular worldview may find it extremely difficult to understand the arguments put forth by those who hold to another, competing worldview. How could this be so? In Ron Nash’ book, Faith and Reason, he outlines the concept of a worldview and how it relates to one’s personal philosophy. Nash describes the sum total of our knowledge experience as our noetic structure. Noetic is a term from the Greek verb noeo, which means “to understand” or “to think.” According to Nash, noetic structures have at least 4 identifiable features: 1. A person's noetic structure is the sum total of everything that person believes. A complete inventory of any person's noetic structure would include all the propositions that person believes (whether true or false). Such beliefs may differ greatly in significance or importance, and people may disagree about whether particular propositions are true or false. 2. A noetic structure is also characterized by the way its beliefs are related. Some beliefs are completely unrelated, while others are related logically. Sometimes the basis of a relationship may be more psychological than logical. Beliefs can also be broken down into basic and non-basic beliefs. 3. Another feature of a noetic structure includes the differing degrees of certainty, firmness, and conviction with which people hold their beliefs. 4. The beliefs that constitute any noetic structure will differ with regard to the kind of influence or control they have over the rest of the beliefs in that structure. Picturing a noetic structure as a building, the foundation is made up of basic beliefs that will count in a way not true of non-basic beliefs. One of Nash' basic unproven beliefs is that other people have minds. This belief controls the way in which he relates to other people. If he were to abandon this basic belief, it would have consequences on many other elements of his noetic structure. Our worldview is a smaller set of related beliefs that are found within our noetic structure. Nash’ definition of worldview is:

...a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality.

In this context one can see that Christianity is not simply a set of theological beliefs but, rather, a conceptual system by which we view all of reality. One can also see that a conceptual system such as Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism (M/PN) is also a worldview… a competing worldview. Nash states,

Because so many elements of a worldview are philosophical in nature, Christians need to become more conscious of the importance of philosophy. Though philosophy and religion often use different language and often arrive at different conclusions, they deal with the same questions, which include questions about what exists (metaphysics), how humans should live (ethics), and how human beings know (epistemology). Philosophy matters. It matters because the Christian worldview has an intrinsic connection to philosophy and the world of ideas. It matters because philosophy is related in a critically important way to life, culture, and religion. And it matters because the systems opposing Christianity use philosophical methods and arguments.

Nash lists five major elements of a worldview. They are: 1) Theology, 2) Metaphysics, 3) Epistemology, 4) Ethics, and 5) Anthropology:

Theology - A worldview will always include either a theology or an atheology. In fact, the most important element of any worldview is what it says or does not say about God. Metaphysics - A worldview also includes beliefs about ultimate reality, a subject often discussed under the label of metaphysics. Is there purpose in the universe? What is the ultimate nature of the universe? Is the universe a self-enclosed system in the sense that everything that happens is caused by other events within the system, or can a supernatural reality act causally within nature? Epistemology - A theory of knowledge. Is knowledge about the world possible? Can we trust our senses? Is truth relative, or must truth be the same for all rational beings? Is the scientific method the only method of knowledge? Is knowledge about God possible? How? Ethics - Most people are more aware of the ethical component of their worldview than of their metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. It is more than simply making moral judgments though. Ethics is more concerned with the question of why that action is wrong. Are there moral laws that govern human conduct? What are they? Are these moral laws the same for all human beings? Are moral laws discovered (in a way more or less similar to the way we discover that "seven times seven equals forty-nine"), or are they constructed by human beings (in a way more or less similar to what we call human mores)? Anthropology - the nature of human beings. Are human beings free, or are they merely pawns of deterministic forces? Are HUMAN BEINGS ONLY BODIES OR MATERIAL BEINGS? Does physical death end the existence of the human person?

A test for any worldview is to see how well it addresses the concerns and questions posed by each of these elements. With regards to theology, Christianity posits that there is only one true God who has revealed himself to mankind in both a general and special manner. The special revelation (i.e., the Bible) indicates that God has generally revealed Himself in the natural world – the natural world which He created, and over which He is Sovereign. If this is true then, as J. Budziszewski says in What We Can’t Not Know, those who claim to not know of the existence of God are only fooling themselves. Yet even if the Christian can provide convincing evidence for the existence of God, probably the most difficult question for Christianity remains: Why is there evil in the world? M/PN posits that God does not exist or, at least, that we have no way of knowing whether God exists. Regardless, we end up living in a world in which the existence of God becomes a non-issue. An interesting point to consider here is that the M/PN worldview has no way of demonstrating, within the confines of its self-declared methodology, that God does not exist. One of the most difficult questions for the atheological system to address is: Why should we even recognize evil as evil? To be continued… ref: Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith, by Ron Nash.