No More Anonymity

I changed my settings so anonymous comments are no longer allowed.  That's because I've been getting a lot of spam postings, lately (all of which I've deleted).

And yes, I know I haven't posted anything for a month.  I haven't given up; I've just been busy and distracted.  I intend to return.

More on Eldredge (Sorry)

This is one sleeping dog I was planning to let lie [how many puns can be in one short phrase?], but then I came across Nate Claiborne's blog. He's a student at Dallas Theological Seminary and just posted a series on John Eldredge's book, Waking the Dead. Nate's blog posts are long and theological and analytical, and they are also very good. He has a way of taking apart bad theology without resorting to ad hominem attacks, and he adds valuable thoughts to the discussion of John Eldredge books and their defective theology.

I suppose another sign of his perspicacity is his referring to my own Wild at Heart critique twice in his series, when he refers to Eldredge's romanticism and gnosticism. But even without that, I would have recommended him. Really.

Check out Nate's blog. I think you'll like what you see, not just on Eldredge but on other topics, as well.

(Image by Rene Magritte. It seemed appropriate, because no matter how many times Eldredge insists we have "good" hearts, the hearts we actually have - and Scripture - keep testifying that the reality isn't quite so simple.)

Who Reads a Blog? Does it Matter?

Following the advice of Ralph McInerny that I quoted in a blog post over a year ago, I try to write my entries here in such a way that others will want to read them.

.

But I've never really been satisfied with the number who do read. Why do other blogs have hundreds or even thousands of readers, while my own incredible blog struggles along with a mere handful?

.

A quotation I came across in yesterday's Wall Street Journal helped me understand that while every writer hopes for a large readership - and every author wants to write a best seller - maybe the act of writing is a good in itself. Even if no others read, the author may still gain.

.

I do find that this blog helps me think issues through. It's a repository of some notable things I read elsewhere and want to remember. And it meets my needs for creativity which, though small, do exist.

.

Here's the W. Somerset Maugham quote that got me thinking about this yesterday. With apologies to a dead man, I changed "book" to "blog" to make the thought more obviously applicable:

It is a salutary discipline to consider the vast number of blogs that are written, the fair hopes with which their authors see them published, and the fate which awaits them. What chance is there that any blog will make its way among the multitude? And the successful blogs are but the successes of a season. Heaven knows what pains the author has been at, what bitter experiences he has endured and what heartache suffered, to give some chance reader a few hours' relaxation or to while away the tedium of a journey. And if I may judge from the reviews, many of these blogs are well and carefully written; much thought has gone to their composition; to some even has been given the anxious labor of a lifetime. The moral I draw is that the writer should seek his reward in the pleasure of his work and in release from the burden of his thought; and, indifferent to aught else, care nothing for praise or censure, failure or success.

From "The Moon and Sixpence" by W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965)

There Are No Atheists

I continue to keep up with some of the leading atheist blogs, but over time a few things have become apparent:

• Atheism, by its very name, is defined by what it opposes. It's very hard to build a coherent life and philosophy based primarily on what you oppose, because in so doing, you are letting your opponent determine your thoughts and actions. If you're a person of faith, therefore, you can take satisfaction in having full control over the atheist agenda.


• The atheist blogs become rather one-note and boring after a while. Mockery wears thin. Of course there are stupid Christians. But how does that prove the stupidity of religion? A stupid carpenter may install a cabinet door upside down, but that hardly proves carpentry is bogus.


• Many atheist writers like to point out what they see as inconsistencies and illogic in the Christian worldview, but their own logic begs pity more often than awe. Thinking you're clever and insightful is not the same as actually being clever and insightful. Historically-informed criticism based on knowledge goes much further than criticism based on received wisdom and caricature.

Atheists claim that God doesn't exist. The Orthodox writer Thomas Hopko questions whether atheists themselves can exist:

According to the Bible, humanity's basic sin is not atheism. It is idolatry. In this perspective, all people have their god. It is either a god (or gods) that they have made or others have inflicted upon them, which they command and control; or it is the God who made them, whom they are commanded to worship and obey for their own good. In this view, there are no atheists, but only idolaters.

The Cost of Commitment

The "Hallmark Holiday" is tomorrow. My condolences to you (guys especially) who must fall to the god of manufactured expectations.

.

Sorry if I'm restating the obvious, but the schoolyard rhyme reminds us that after love comes marriage, and then comes baby in the baby carriage. And with the wife and kids come responsibility.

.

Will Allen is a blogger, mostly about issues of business travel. His latest entry is something altogether different, though, and really highlights the importance of choosing a job and career wisely. Will your career and lifestyle choices now lead to regrets later? Allen's blog entry is a little long, though highly readable, and I'm pasting the entire thing below. I have no kids (or wife, for that matter), but if I did, I'd want to have his perspective:

Epiphany In London

In the late seventies I became a management consultant, and with that decision, I began to travel frenetically. At the time I thought of consulting as a temporary job.

A lot has happened in the thirty years since, mostly good, but I never lost the feeling that it was just a temporary job. It certainly wasn’t a career. Don’t get me wrong. There have been many rewarding aspects to the work. I’ve seen the world on consulting assignments. Sometimes the money has been good. I’ve met some of the most interesting people on the planet on consulting projects.

Nonetheless, consulting requires travel away from home a minimum of five days a week, every week. Sometimes, like the recent gig I signed up for in London, you must commit to being away from home and family for a month.

Regular readers will know that early last week I flew to London for just that job, leaving my wife and two young kids behind. But the London project did not work out for me, and I’m back. Why I am back may be worth knowing to you if you travel constantly, as I have for three decades, especially if you have a family at home and care about them.

I arrived in London last Tuesday morning. By Wednesday morning I had not slept since Sunday night due to worry and concern over being away from my family exacerbated by jetlag. I suddenly became aware that I was excruciatingly unhappy.

Had I known that I would be so miserable being away from my family, I would never have accepted the gig, of course. In earlier years before my wife and I had children, I wouldn’t have given such an extended absence from home (27 days) a second thought.

Suffering from severe sleep deprivation, I discussed the situation with my lead colleague on Wednesday morning early. We both agreed that it would not work for him or for me, and it wasn’t best for the client. Though we had client intro and fact-gathering meetings scheduled last week, the analysis didn’t officially begin until Monday the 11th, and there was time to replace me.

I have always loved consulting work per se, and I still do. But suddenly I realized while sleepless in that London Hilton room that I just can’t be away from my kids for a month without going home.

I didn’t know how strongly I felt about that until I got to London and could not sleep. If you read my blog often, you will remember my post a couple of weeks ago entitled, “Dread.” The dread I felt was about more than subjecting myself again to being beat up in the travel system; it was especially about being away from my kids.

The consulting firm I’d contracted with also muddied the waters the week previous to my travels when they called me out of the blue with a second offer—and then suddenly withdrew it—to lead a consulting project for a new railroad client in Florida. When they offered it, I expressed my strong interest, citing my expertise in rail and deep experience with white collar reorganizations, which is that company’s issue.

I also emphasized my strong preference to remain in the United States so that I could be home every weekend with my family. The U.K. work was strictly business process mapping, and while I do have lots of that experience, so do many others. The rail/reorg experience combo, however, was a much different and rarer requirement. I therefore agreed to the London gig reluctantly, which I realize now—too late—didn't help matters.

I’m not making excuses or pleading for forgiveness. I made a commitment to go work in London for a month, and I backed out once I got there. The politest thing I can say about my action is that it was “inconvenient” that I experienced the epiphany once there, instead of before I left, that being with my kids is more important to me than being absent from them for a month.

It was certainly inconvenient for them to have to scramble for a sudden replacement, and it was an extremely costly decision for me, since the consulting firm will not now reimburse me for any of my substantial expenses to get there, to reside in London at a Hilton, and to get home.

Be that as it may, last week’s extraordinary experience is a life-changing turning point. I don’t want to be away from my family that long ever again. This is a revelation to me. It may seem obvious to others, but it wasn’t to me, until now.

I am completely at peace with my decision last week to come home. Even in immediate hindsight, I recognize that it was foolish of me to think I could be away that long. Old habits die hard. I thought I could do what I’d been doing for thirty years, and I can’t, not any more. Having my kids has changed everything.

A little background is in order to put this into sharper perspective: I took off about half of 2007 because I could afford it (for awhile). I wanted to see what life would be like at home every week. Honestly, I didn’t know.

I found the adjustment to being at home difficult at first last year. Though my wife and I have a strong bond, I frequently felt like a stranger in the house. Her frantic routines to balance her professional career as a research sociologist and our two kids’ school and extracurricular activities were constructed of the necessity to act as a single parent during the five days each week that I had been gone for years. Frankly, from Monday to Friday each week I was in the way and unappreciated for the first few months.

Gradually, my wife and I retooled child responsibilities such as after-school activities (soccer, basketball, swim team, piano lessons, Chinese lessons, etc.); meal preparation for breakfasts and dinners; doctor appointments and emergency response to child sickness; homework monitoring and assistance; and coaching the kids in their own daily chores (bed-making, garbage-emptying, table-setting, dishwashing, pet feeding and pet care, yard work, etc.). I took over the myriad of tiny but persistent headaches, like keeping the vehicles licensed, inspected, maintained and filled with fuel. Home repairs and upkeep also fell to me. And so on.

Over time my wife became far happier, and so did I! I found the rhythms of our new routines suited me, to my great surprise.

I have especially enjoyed the immense amount of time spent with both my kids. Our son is in the third grade (age 9), and our daughter starts Kindergarten in the fall (age 4). I love every minute I am with them! They fight to have me lie down with them each night and to talk before they drift off to sleep. Their sleep problems and behavior issues, while low-grade, have all but disappeared with me home. My wife is not over-stressed and grouchy any more; she is, instead, happy. Two weeks ago I was here when we taught our daughter to ride her bike without training wheels.

I’d been missing all these things, and many more, by being away all week, every week. But just exactly what I was missing was abstract to me until I stayed home and immersed myself in my family’s lives. I could justify being away, despite my own persistent stress and a nagging feeling that I was missing something important, because it wasn’t concrete for me until I became involved.

Why I didn’t see that the last six months of 2007 had changed me I don’t know. It seems obvious now.

Thus I should not have agreed to take the gig in London because of the long absence. I had become much more “normal” than I realized during my time at home last year, and it took a kick in the teeth like going to London and facing four weeks without them to come to grips with it.

Even though I will keep my hat in the consulting ring (for stateside travel only), I intend now, with the sharpened focus of my needs gained suddenly from the experience this week, to look hard for something interesting locally.

I’ve written often since I began this blog about my desire to stop flying so much, because the whole experience can be so difficult these days. Looking back on every post now, I can see my blog was borne of this need, and I am just reaching the point in my journey where the end may be in sight.

This blog’s header, lamenting how airlines routinely rob us of it, says, “Time is all we have… .” I finally grasped last week in London that I want to spend more of the time I have remaining on this rock with my family rather than alone in some hotel room. That knowledge was worth the price.

Where Am I ?

Three business trips in three weeks. Slammed or out of town on the weekends. Add it all together, and we get a paucity of postings.

.

I'll be back . . .

This Blog is Rated NC-17

Is that good or bad?


Here's a site that will analyze the content on your blog or web site and tell you how it would be rated - if it were a movie - based on the language. It appears you will currently find on my blog: death (20x), abortion (19x), dead (13x), hell (10x), sex (9x), murder (7x), torture (5x), steal (4x), kill (3x), shoot (2x), and gay (1x). Not bad for a Christian blog . . . though if you could analyze my "Christian" mind the same way, I'd get a NC-1700 rating.


Oddly enough, my buddy at FriendlyAtheist.com only gets a PG-13. What's wrong with this picture?

Yes, I'm Famous

As I mentioned last week, Hemant Mehta added me to his Friendly Atheist blogroll. That was exciting enough. But now he's gone a step further and actually reproduced one of my posts on his site: check it out here. (Actually, I think he lifted a second one from my site, too, but without attribution. We'll overlook that.)

.

I didn't notice any paparazzi hanging around the house this morning, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

.

Now, if I could just get him to reference one of my serious posts. . .

Am I Famous?

Hemant Mehta - a.k.a. Friendly Atheist - has added me to his blogroll, which you can see here. You'll find me in the "Christian Blogroll" section.

.

OK, I admit I asked him to do it, after he solicited submissions and said Christians would be welcome. But still, these brushes with fame can be exciting.

Thanks to Hemant, and if you haven't yet checked out his site, it's a good thing to do from time to time.

Now, if I could just get on the Pope's (double entendre intended for those "in the know") blogroll, I'd really have the bases covered.

A Century of Posting

Well, this is my 100th post!

Since beginning this blog in February, 590 different people have visited this site - some of them by accident, I'm sure. They've come from 43 countries. And 2/3 of the visits to my blog have been made by people coming back for more.

It all works out to about 15 visitors per day. Not quite enough to rival the New York Times, but they probably started small, too.

I hope I've been able to bring you some valuable items of interest, irritation, and humor. I appreciate the comments you've made along the way.

And now, as a reward for your loyalty, I'm happy to announce that the next 100 entries will be offered free of charge! Enjoy.

How Not to Share Your Faith

Friendly Atheist asked his readers to submit stories of "Christians who were well-meaning about sharing their faith, but actually ended up pushing you further away from Christianity. . . . Is there someone who intended on helping you find God. . . but did it in a way that just backfired completely? What happened? Why didn’t their 'tactic' work? What were you thinking/feeling?"

Read the post and responses here and learn what not to do. I'd categorize it this way:

• Be a hypocrite.
• Harp on hell.
• Harp on sins.
• Focus on denominational distinctives.
• Use terminology that no one ever uses in normal conversation.
• Pretend to be interested in the other person, but do so only as long as he's interested in talking about Christian stuff.
• Argue or pretend to listen, but don't actually discuss.
• Talk a lot, because time is too short to spend it listening.

Anything you'd add to this list?

.

Bonus Question: How many of these people rejected Jesus because of Jesus? (Isn't HE supposed to be the stumbling block?)

The Bullies Just Get More Refined

Source: http://indexed.blogspot.com/2007/05/fitting-in.html

Lessons for the Inhibited

Guys: If you, like me, grew up in a "no contact" family, you'll find the following lesson to be of great benefit. I can't wait to practice it. (Thanks, David, for pointing this one out. I owe you a hug.)

Noted and Quoted: Good Advice for All Blog Writers

"I was learning that one writes for a reader. Writing is too often described as self-expression. But writing is the art of making a story that will engage and hold and satisfy the interest of the reader. I typed a slogan and pinned it over my typewriter: Nobody Owes You A Reading."

• Ralph M. McInerny (philosophy professor and creator of the Father Dowling mystery series), "The Writing Life," First Things, March 2006, p. 22

When Whales Make Waves: A Meditation on Grace

Jenell Paris teaches English at Bethel College. You might appreciate a recent entry (May 5), from her blog, about demonstrating grace to others. I know I did.

I was swimming laps the other day, hatefully. An Asian woman, much smaller than me, did slow breaststrokes in the lane to my right. Along with everyone else in the lockerroom, I had overheard her the day before shouting over her hairdryer, "I never struggle with weight. Never! I just try to stay toned." But that wasn't what I hated. A size-regular white man swam crawl strokes in the lane to my left. Every single move he made, especially approaches and turns, created waves. I think they were about four feet high, and probably surfable.

Swimming is precious alone time. Oliver and Wesley go to the health club child center, and Max stays at home with dad. I have between 100-180 minutes between nursings, and driving takes about 12 minutes, car seat strapping 3 minutes, child center check-in 4 minutes, etcetera, and the pool gets about 20 turns of the clock. The other day, I wasted most of them plotting the death of the man to my left. Given that I weigh less than him, could I drown him? Would I have time to wait by his car, quickly eliminate him, and still get home in time to nurse my newborn? Why did God create such a monster (him, not me)?

I was graceless, and am again today with respect to a person much more important to me than the wave-maker. Grace requires understanding - the man is just swimming, for heaven's sake, and wasn't I already wet? And might my postpartum flapping belly have been creating waves toward the small woman to my right? People do what they do for good reasons, and understanding those reasons yields compassion.

Which is more real - my belief in grace, or my practice of gracelessness? The truth is that I'm really tired. I haven't slept more than 3 hours at a time since April 6. Most days are fine, but the difficult ones leave me without strength to extend a friendly hand toward any other human. Perhaps I'm not a bad person, or quickly becoming a bad person - I'm just temporarily underrested. It's inevitable that, when swimming with others, you'll get splashed. And besides, I was already wet. Same goes for living in the world with people. They'll splash you, snap at you, offer insults barely disguised as compliments, mistreat your children and your pets...and those are your family members who love you the most. But they have their reasons, and when I'm not so tired, I can find some compassion by understanding the wounds that motivate the bullshit. And besides, I do all of those things, too.

But today I am so tired, so there. Grace, for me, means taking my husband's help, minimizing my workload (just feed the baby and then lie down!), and going to bed as soon as possible. Perhaps just accepting that much today will help me give some tomorrow.

King Kong vs. Godzilla

The big boys have come out to play. Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens are conducting a web debate/exchange over the course of this month around the question, "Is Christianity Good For The World?" The first two installments show that this has the potential to be interesting, indeed. It certainly shows promise of being a juicier engagement than my own attempts on the Evolution Blog.

(I've talked about both Wilson and Hitchens in previous posts. If you want to see where, click on the labels at the bottom of this post.)

Part 1 of the debate is here, which will provide you a link to Part 2 - and, presumably, all subsequent installments. I don't know how many "rounds" there will be when all is said and done.

Blogs, Blogs, Blogs: Bible Girl

So many things to post, so little time . . .

I recently discovered "Bible Girl," who writes for the Dallas Observer. The only way to subscribe to her blog appears to be subscribing to ALL the Observer blogs, which is a bit of a pain, but I'll manage.

The Observer is a "secular" newspaper, apparently similar to Atlanta's Creative Loafing, and Bible Girl is a Pentecostal. That alone should tell you something. She's also an engaging writer with a conversational, "take no prisoners" writing style. Check out her recent (May 4) column on race relations in the church, here. (I'd reprint it here, but the formatting gets all messed up, and I don't want to spend 30 minutes making something pretty that you can find on you own in 0.3 seconds.)

.

And here's a link to her collected essays for the Observer. Enjoy. (Be careful what links on that page you click on, or you'll be reading something that's not by Bible Girl and thinking it is. The Observer could get a bit more organized, methinks.)

Can You Have an Intelligent Philosophical Discussion With an Atheist?

Well, you can try. Evolutionblog is apparently one of the more popular atheist blogs, and the author isn't reluctant to attack the faults and idiosyncrasies he sees in religions (Christianity in particular, of course). But Jason Rosenhouse and his commenters seem to be at their best when "preaching to the choir." Maybe we're all that way.

Rosenhouse authored a blog about the Virginia Tech shootings and focused on Franklin Graham's comments about the sad event. He's not impressed with what Graham had to say, nor with the comments of a group called Answers in Genesis (AiG). If you'd like to read his entire entry and everyone's comments, click here. For the express version, read my comments to him, below, and the responses I received (very lightly edited for clarity):

I'm confused.
You say AiG is totally stupid when they claim the atheist has no basis to call anything good or evil. Then you quote Dawkins who says that in the universe there is, at bottom, no evil and no good. Am I missing something, or are you contradicting yourself?
Posted by: AFB April 18, 2007 03:20 PM

AFB-
No, I'm not contradicting myself. The part of the AiG statement that is stupid is the part where they argue that a belief in God provides an objective foundation for morality, whereas lack of belief does not provide such a foundation. The fact is that regardless of the source of your sense of morality, you will ultimately have to base that belief on some foundation that you simply accept without trying to prove it in terms of something simpler. For the theist, that foundation rests in certain assumptions about the existence and attributes of God. For the atheist it typically lies in some sense of what constitute basic human rights.
The point of Dawkins' statement is that morality is something humans create, and not something that is discovered in nature. That is true regardelss of whether you are a theist or an atheist.
Posted by: Jason Rosenhouse April 18, 2007 03:35 PM

Jason -
Thanks for the clarification. But it leads to another question (which you've probably addressed before, but I'm a new reader): If morality is something humans create, and not discovered in nature or revealed by God, is morality then determined by majority vote, or by something else? And if by something else, why should THAT be determinative?
Posted by: AFB April 18, 2007 04:38 PM

AFB,
morality is the result of many many years of (drumroll please)evolution! yes. humans are social animals. basic trends in moral thinking such as no stealing, don't boff your friend's babe unless he invites you, don't kill your elders because they just might know something...these trends came out because they tended to improve the survival chances of the race.
Now of course there are exceptions, but they play to the rule too, I mean the Nazis had it good for a while, and my friends don't generally think that they were moral, but look what happened in the end. they pissed a lot of people off and were eventually defeated.
human interactions set the rules for morality. also in the past it was much more tribal than today. It used to be actively encouraged to steal from people who were not like you and bring the stuff back to people who were like you. sort of helps the cause if you get what I mean.
Now, even when I put on pirate regalia and sail the seas with my men, I argue that honest trade will gain us more gold than robbing and killing.
Posted by: Kevin April 18, 2007 04:51 PM

Kevin -
Thanks for the clarification. So if I understand you right, morality is whatever tends to improve the survival chances of the race. But that raises some tricky questions, such as how do we define race? As all humans? Whites? Americans? People who went to my college? My nuclear family? Your answer seems to support tribalism in one sense ("bring the stuff to people like you") and discourage tribalism in another sense (the defeat of the Nazi Aryans).
Also, there seem to be some significant public policy disconnects between the goal of perpetuation and what we actually do. For example, abortion is as anti-perpetuation as you can get, and yet (to oversimplify greatly) it seems it's only the Christians who are vocal in their opposition to it. Isn't this somehow backwards?
I'm also left wondering how we get from "is" to "ought." Do we simply calculate which course of action will yield the greatest number of humans in the long run? Is "ought" therefore determined purely empirically, or are there other considerations that come into play?
Finally (for now), the answer to the whole question of morality seems inevitably reductionistic or tautological. What I mean is, the Christians say something along the lines of, "Because God says so," and the atheists say something like, "because it perpetuates the race." But how do you go about proving or disproving either one? Both sides will find plenty of anecdotes to support whichever side they're committed to. And the agnostics, perhaps, just don't want to think about it at all.
Posted by: AFB April 19, 2007 11:24 AM

AFB :"Do we simply calculate which course of action will yield the greatest number of humans in the long run"does not work like that. we act in our own immediate interest, reproductive and otherwise, and over time, by these choices traits and behaviors evolve and become common, IF they "yield the greatest number." if not maybe humans just die out. no one calcs it.
Posted by: Kevin April 23, 2007 09:26 PM

Kevin -
Your response misses the point of the paragraph in which I asked that question. For that matter, it misses the other questions in my post as well.

But even just sticking with that one paragraph, I repeat its first sentence: "How do we get from 'is' to 'ought'"? If it's not the accretion of human beings, then what is it? And if my "own immediate interest" conflicts with yours, who should prevail?
Posted by: AFB April 24, 2007 08:50 PM

"But even just sticking with that one paragraph, I repeat its first sentence: a) "How do we get from 'is' to 'ought'"? b) If it's not the accretion of human beings, then what is it? c) And if my "own immediate interest" conflicts with yours, who should prevail?"
OK let me try again, and I don't know anything or have any special knowledge to be sure....
a) there is NO ought, there is only what is.
b) its the accretion of MY dna
c) there is NO should. its whatever does prevail that counts.
Posted by: Kevin April 25, 2007 12:08 AM

Hi Kevin -
Thanks for clarifying. But I must admit I don't like your answer. It seems to leave no space for me to be opposed to someone raping my wife, molesting my children, stealing my car, and poisoning my dog. It also makes it OK to fly airplanes into towers, to gas Jews in concentration camps and then make lamp shades out of their skin, and to torture prisoners at will. What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine if I can beat it out of you. The strongest will prevail, and that's just the way it is.
If that's really what you think, then I don't think you're going to win a lot of converts for atheism - or at least your strain of it.
Posted by: AFB April 28, 2007 01:45 AM

AFB,
"seems to leave no space for me to be opposed to someone raping my wife, molesting my children, stealing my car, and poisoning my dog"
I don't know how you got that. Why can't you oppose such action? by yourself or in concert with others, others who also don't want that to happen to them. It's not that the offender "ought" not to do it for a supernatural "moral" reason its because you, and/or society collectively, prevents the offender from acting. and this social construct takes on the flavor of morality and is taught as an "ought". or shalt as in the ten commandments thingy.
"The strongest will prevail, and that's just the way it is." That happens under the color of religion anyway. except where the weak are collectively stronger. Even in situations where the weak appear to win (welfare, free housing, free bread) the strong are only acting in there own interests.
and aetheists are not the only ones bonking people over the head for cash so I don't know why you think that's an aetheist position. seems like most religions are designed to separate the ignorant from their money.
as for me I said ten days ago:
"Now, even when I put on pirate regalia and sail the seas with my men, I argue that honest trade will gain us more gold than robbing and killing."
so I'm NOT advocating pillaging your town. and I enjoy the discussion.
Posted by: Kevin April 28, 2007 11:30 AM

Hi Kevin -
Sorry for my slow response. Busy weekend.
I appreciate your answers, but something still doesn't sit right. Your original response (April 18) suggested to me that morality was determined by whatever most effectively increases the "race." But now it sounds like you're back to saying it's majority rule. I'm not trying to "catch" you, as there is no doubt inconsistency in my own thinking.
But let's take your latest response. Most people in my community would agree that no one should steal my car, so stealing is wrong. But there are parts of town where the number of people who think differently is large enough that I'd be in peril. Does that mean that stealing my car is wrong in my neighborhood, but OK in someone else's?
Or take your pirate illustration. If robbing and killing yielded more gold than honest trade, would you then endorse robbing and killing?
So maybe (just maybe) we can simplify it this way. Option 1: Things are right or wrong because of the ends they yield. Option 2: Things are right or wrong because the majority says they are. Option 3: Things are right or wrong because there is some transcultural, transtemporal standard of what "is because it is." Does this seem like a fair summary of the possible approaches to determining right and wrong? If so, what's your choice?
(I'm tempted to call Option 1 the "teleological" option and Option 3 the "ontological" option, but I'm not sure that's the right use of the terms. I like the sound of it, though!)
Posted by: AFB April 29, 2007 08:29 PM

Consider Jason Ronsehouse's intitial take on it: "If the morality of the atheist is arbitrary and relative, that is no less true for the morality of the religious believer. Moral assertions do not suddenly become objectively true or false when you base them on your perception of God's will. "
and my initital comment: "morality is the result of many many years of (drumroll please)evolution!"
by morality I meant the attitude that people have toward taking certain actions toward other people. I am not attempting to consider all such actions, or the differing motivations of people in various societies.
your questions and my attempts at an answer (again I have to state that I have no special knowledge or training to actually provide a good or suitable answer)
"Your original response (April 18) suggested to me that morality was determined by whatever most effectively increases the "race."" I did say race; I should have said something like "the group" or the "clan" I quess the "race" would fit in there somewhere but I consider that too big a population.
"But now it sounds like you're back to saying it's majority rule." There is no contradiction there. If the majority bands together to enforce certain rules, competition for resources within the group should be lessened and competition for resources outside the group should be more effective.
"Most people in my community would agree that no one should steal my car, so stealing is wrong." - what does this word "wrong" mean? and you THINK : "would agree that no one should steal my car" but I think rather they are more concerned with THEIR OWN CAR and really do not care about you and your car (unless related to you by clan or blood ties) In people's quest to protect their OWN private property it often is the case that EVERYONE's has to be protected.
But there are parts of town where the number of people who think differently is large enough that I'd be in peril. Does that mean that stealing my car is wrong in my neighborhood, but OK in someone else's? - again what does this word "wrong" mean? You park your car in a neighbor hood that has no jobs, food or money and everyone is starving. A brave young man of the community takes your car, drives it to another town, sells it and buys food, pampers, baby formula and malt liquor and then CARRIES it all on his back for miles to bring it in and SAVES his family and friends.
DO you mean that kind of wrong?
"Or take your pirate illustration. If robbing and killing yielded more gold than honest trade, would you then endorse robbing and killing?" well, as a pirate I would have to do so. But I really don't like the killing part because then we can't come back and rob them again.
"So maybe (just maybe) we can simplify it this way. . . . right or wrong . . .right or wrong . . . right or wrong "
I think we would need a working definition of right or wrong in order to proceed down those lines of inquiry. That may or may not be productive. I don't think in terms of "ought"
"But even just sticking with that one paragraph, I repeat its first sentence: a) "How do we get from 'is' to 'ought'"? b) If it's not the accretion of human beings, then what is it? c) And if my "own immediate interest" conflicts with yours, who should prevail?Posted by: AFB April 24, 2007 08:50 PM "
"a) there is NO ought, there is only what is.b) its the accretion of MY dnac) there is NO should. its whatever does prevail that counts.Posted by: Kevin April 25, 2007 12:08 AM "
cheersk
Posted by: Kevin April 29, 2007 09:41 PM

Hi Kevin -
Well, we may be stuck in an endless loop. I don't think "right" and "wrong" need specialized definitions for the discussion we've been having. It might be as simple as, "what you would teach your children about how to live," or "how you think others ought to behave," or "how you think YOU ought to behave."
We all have standards of behavior, and we project those onto other people all the time. When my neighbors let their dog bark for an hour and don't bring it in, I say (and I'd guess you would, too), "That's wrong. It's inconsiderate and not nice. They should bring the dog in." Well, on what basis can I legitimately say such a thing? Or can I? A barking dog doesn't seem to harm my DNA, nor help theirs. If, as you say, "it's whatever does prevail that counts," then if the dog continues to bark, then the dog continues to bark. If I kill the dog, then I kill the dog. The two are equivalent, because (according to you), "there is NO ought, there is only what is." But I don't really believe that the two are equivalent, I'm certain the dog's owners wouldn't believe that, and I'm fairly confident that even you wouldn't believe that.
We do lots of things that don't lead to accretion of our DNA. Sending money to help stop the genocide in Darfur or to rebuild houses destroyed in the Asian tsunami does nothing for my DNA, unless one argues in the tortured logic of the butterfly that causes the hurricane (or whatever it is). Mother Teresa didn't do much for her DNA by founding a hospice for dying street people. And so on.
So I'm left with the idea that there is something innate, something inherent, that tells us right and wrong (and that drives altruism even at the expense of the tribe/race/group). Not that everyone agrees on all the details of what is right and wrong - far from it - and not that everyone lives consistently according to the innate knowledge (I know I don't). But the similarities of right and wrong are strikingly similar across time and culture, and within our own culture, and those similarities hold even when the differences and variations are acknowledged.
Is all this similarity of morality due to biological determinism, or something else? I think it's got to be something else.
Posted by: AFB May 2, 2007 10:15 AM

So I'm left with the idea that there is something innate, something inherent, that tells us right and wrong (and that drives altruism even at the expense of the tribe/race/group).
Well, good luck with that.....
Posted by: Kevin May 2, 2007 10:58 AM

Hmmm. Maybe he figured out I believe in God or something.

Calvin Stirs Things Up

In case you missed it, my posts on "Calvin's 'P'" stirred up quite a flurry of discussion. Perseverance of the saints ("once saved, always saved"), Catholicism, transubstantiation, . . . the comments and interaction covered quite a bit of ground, and may not be over yet. Thanks to the contributors for their thoughtful replies and their courteousness to each other. You can learn a lot by reading what they wrote.


The orginal post is here (with 4 comments following). The second post - which engendered 27 comments so far - is here.

(The caption of the picture here isn't too ecumenical - sorry about that, Boethius! According to my loose translation, it says something like, "Johan Hus converted the Bohemians, and Luther taught the Germans. In like manner has this Calvin brought the faith to France; by doing so, he murdered the Antichrist, who, like the devil, won't be heard from again." If only.)

People Poison Everything

Richard Dawkins wrote The God Delusion, which has been on the NY Times bestseller list for some time. Then Sam Harris wrote Letter to a Christian Nation, which has been similarly popular. Now Christopher Hitchens weighs in with God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. I predict it'll spend several weeks (or more) on the bestseller list, as well. What's up with the onslaught of anti-religion books?

Here's an excerpt from Doug Wilson's blog, in which he reviews Hitchens' new book. I suspect that if you read this excerpt, you'll know just about everything you need to know about the book.

But the second response is to point out the logical problem with how Hitchens has arranged his thought experiment. Suppose his thesis was not that religion poisons everything, but rather that trousers poison everything. Since trousers are common enough, just like religion, it would not be much work at all for a person of Hitchens' abilities to assemble one horrendous story after another of one atrocity after another, and all committed by men in trousers. See, trousers poison everything.

The problem here is immediatley seen in the availability of counterexamples. We betake ourselves to look at this society, and then that one, and all the men in those societies wear togas. And, sure enough, we find that all the same atrocities are being committed in these differently-appareled cultures. Maybe trousers don't poison everything. Maybe men are a disgrace to trousers. For if trousers poisoned verything, one would think (naturally enough) that to get into a trouser-free zone would pretty much take care of the problem. But toga-men do all the same awful stuff. And then, so do loin-cloth men. Maybe togas don't poison everything either. Maybe men are a disgrace to togas.

The subtitle of this book is "How Religion Poisons Everything." And in this chapter, "Religion Kills," Hitchens points to example after example of religious people behaving badly. And I, for one, don't think he is making this stuff up. But for someone who bases an awful lot on reason, I think he needs to pay closer attention to what he is doing in the name thereof. His conclusion does not follow from the evidence being presented, not unless wet streets cause rain.

Perhaps Hitchens should take a step farther back and argue a much more plausible point, which is that "People Poison Everything." Go back to our trouser example. If trousers were the problem, then getting rid of them should get rid of the basic problem (making all due allowance for societal inertia). In the same way, if religion is the toxic waste in the system, then purging it should deal with the problem. So, then, what did almost a century of religion-free societies (Soviet Union, Red China, and so on) teach us about all this? We had quite a few trips around the sun enjoying life to its fullest, now that religion (that which poisons everything) was banished and gone. But son of a gun, the atrocities sort of picked up speed. The "poison" was purged from the system but the patient was still flat on his back on the hospital bed with his tongue hanging out.

When you look at abominable theistic societies and abominable atheistic societies, the variables are probably not the thing you want to appeal to in order to account for the constant, horrific result. We need to look for the constant. What might that be? People. People poison everything.