The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 3

So I've figured out what was causing the horrible breathing noise on the last podcast, but the bad news is I didn't figure it out until after this podcast. Essentially the recorder I was using was picking up my breathing. I switched back to my old method of recording with a headset and from here on out that noise should be gone. It is truly annoying and I tried to remove it but simply couldn't without reducing the rest of the sound quality even more than it already is. In any case this is another conversation with Jonathan Pruitt. It is a new one thankfully. I'm going to repost all the old ones from ResistanceTV also.

Check it out here

Video Game Addiction and Good Uses of Time

Gaming Addiction

There has been a lot of news about The World Health Organization's classification of excessive video gaming being an addiction or disorder.  Some of the links that I provide also give responses to the studies, saying that it is premature or that the research done on the subject is poor, so I am hesitant to believe the studies.  My goal here, however, is not to argue for or against the studies, but to talk about the thoughts this kind of study brought up in my mind when I heard about it.  Namely, I want to talk about video games and wise use of our time.  I will do this by talking about my own experience playing games.  This is mostly a personal story, but I hope it will be helpful to readers as well.

Time Well Spent

Here's a picture from my Steam account

This is showing the total number of hours that I have put into this game.  739 hours is roughly equivalent to a month of my life spent playing this game.  This doesn't necessarily mean that the World Health Organization's criteria for what count as video game addiction apply to me.  I do not neglect work or friendships because of video games, I do not spend several hours a day playing video games, and I have not experienced "withdrawal symptoms" when I get off of them.  These 739 hours are also spread out over a two or two and a half year span of time.

Despite this, I think it is clear that playing this game was not the best use of all of those 739 hours.  I can't help but imagine how I could have spent all of that time.  Imagine the kind of skill or strength I could have developed if I had spent 739 hours practicing something or exercising.  Imagine the expertise I could have in an academic subject if I would have spent those 739 hours reading and studying that subject.  Imagine the kind of job I could have if some of that time went to working towards a career.  There are things I could have done that wouldn't have just been beneficial or edifying for me, but also helpful for others as well.  Studying a particular subject can help make me a better apologist, making me more able to bless others by teaching.  I also could have spent a lot of that time volunteering for a charitable organization that helps people.  When I think back at the time I spent playing this game, I can't help but wonder what might be true of me now if I didn't use all of that time playing this game.

This doesn't mean that I think it is always bad to play video games.  There is nothing necessarily immoral about entertainment.  Video games also don't strike me as any more of a time waster than binge watching a T.V. show or spending a Saturday on a Lord of the Rings or Marvel movie marathon.  Despite this, I think a guy like me can learn how to exercise more wisdom in how he uses his time.

I strongly suspect that what is true of me is also true of others.  What do you think?  Do you feel the same as I do, or are you better at balancing entertainment with more productive uses of time?

Apologist Recommendation: Neil Shenvi

In this series, I will recommend certain scholars and apologists to our readers and listeners.  These are people that I believe are worth listening to because they are informed and give good arguments and insights into the subjects that they study, which helps intellectually equip Christians so that they can grow in their own faith and their outreach towards non-Christians.  I am not claiming that these scholars and apologists have everything correct, but I think they are intellectual powerhouses that we can learn much from.

Neil Shenvi

Neil Shenvi has his Ph.D in theoretical chemistry from UC-Berkeley and was a research scientist at Yale and Duke University before becoming a homeschooler for his kids.  When we look at most of the scientifically trained critics of Christianity like Dawkins, Krauss, Stenger, and others, Christians often rightly notice that their knowledge and credentials as scientists does not make them intellectual heavyweights when it comes to philosophy, ethics, religion, history, theology, or any other subject that connects to apologetics.  Scientists who are critics of Christianity often make very elementary blunders because they are simply not well educated or well read in philosophy, theology, biblical studies, or history.  Dr. Shenvi, however, is an exception when it comes to scientists.  Having read his articles and seen his extensive interactions on Facebook, I can say firsthand that this guy is well versed in philosophy, ethics, and biblical studies.  His intelligence, thoughtfulness, winsomeness, and his ability to engage in multiple subjects of inquiry make him a valuable resource to Christians.

His Website

His website is, of course, the best place to look at his content.  Neil Shenvi-Apologetics is where you can find his essays, book reviews, talks, notes, and more.

The Resurrection and the Bible

As I've stated, he is well read in subjects outside of science.  He has material on evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in multiple places.

Christianity and Science

Being a scientist, he is well qualified to talk about sciences connection with Christianity.  He has talks on quantum mechanics and miracles and science and religion that you can check out.

Social Justice

Lately, Dr. Shenvi has been putting most of his time into learning about critical theory and intersectionality and how they have become part of the modern social justice movement.  This is an important topic in cultural apologetics.  His conclusion is that critical theory is a worldview that, while getting some things right and having some usefulness, has significant incompatibilities with the Christian worldview.  These two articles are where you can get his introduction to the ideas of social justice and critical theory and their compatibility with Christianity.  You can find his reviews and analysis of the books, Race, Class, and Gender, and Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, as a good start, but he also has other book reviews on the subject to look at.  You can also check out his interview on the subject if you would rather listen.

This should get you started on his material.  My understanding is that he is also in the process of writing a book defending Christianity, but it is not out yet.  I think this guy should have more recognition for his contribution, so I hope this post contributes to that.

Things I Like: Part 1

In this series, I will recommend things that I happened to come across that I like.  That's about as simple as it gets.  While this sounds frivolous, I will focus on recommending things that I think will be informative and edifying to people.

Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath

Leah Remini is an actress that you may recognize in shows like King of Queens and others.  She was a long-time scientologist, but left the religion several years ago.  In this docuseries on Hulu, she interviews many people who have left scientology, exposing the abuses of the church and the controlling nature of the beliefs and structure of the church.  It is also an interesting look at the practices of scientology and how cults work.

Social Justice in Video Games

Troy Leavitt, a former video game developer, has an interesting series responding to a controversial feminist in video game culture named Anita Sarkeesian.  He has a series of videos responding to her claims that there is rampant sexism in the video game industry and criticizing the worldview and premises she holds that lead her to make the claims she makes.  Part one of his series can be found here.

Philip DeFranco

Philip DeFranco is a Youtuber who releases new 15-18 minute videos every weekday giving the news.  He covers anything from news regarding Youtube and youtubers to important world events and world politics.  He is a very fair and balanced person, he makes it known when he is giving the facts and when he is giving his opinion and he is often quick to correct himself if he makes a mistake.  I recommend him as an alternative news source.

I like these things and I hope you do too.  God bless.

The AK47 Podcast Season 1: Episode 2

This is an actual new episode. Kyle and I had a phone conversation with my Dad on the book of Hebrews. I wanted to have it up for Father's day but clearly failed to do this. In any case I think you will benefit from this discussion because my Father is an expert on this particular Epistle. He has a Doctorate in Theology. He edited and contributed to this excellent anthology on the Puritans and also contributed the most interesting and I think correct view to this Four Views book on the Warning passages in Hebrews.

Here's the episode

Apologist Recommendation: Timothy McGrew

In this series, I will recommend certain scholars and apologists to our readers and listeners.  These are people that I believe are worth listening to because they are informed and give good arguments and insights into the subjects that they study, which helps intellectually equip Christians so that they can grow in their own faith and their outreach towards non-Christians.  I am not claiming that these scholars and apologists have everything correct, but I think they are intellectual powerhouses that we can learn much from.

Timothy McGrew

Timothy McGrew is a philosophy professor at Western Michigan University.  His philosophical specialties are epistemology, probability theory, logic, and the history and philosophy of science.  When it comes to Christian apologetics, he frequently speaks and writes on the meaning of "faith" and the possibility and actuality of miracles.  Don't let his credentials as a philosopher fool you, however, he is also very competent when it comes to biblical studies.  Dr. McGrew has spent years researching the reliability of the Bible and he has shared his knowledge in numerous talks and debates over the years.  In the next section, I will provide resources on the various topics McGrew has been involved in over the years.

Miracles

Dr. McGrew has said a lot over the years on the possibility and actuality of miracles and the rationality in believing miracles.  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a fantastic source for learning philosophy, features Dr. McGrew's helpful article on miracles.  McGrew has given helpful talks on how to think about miracles and has participated in debates on the rationality of believing in miracles.  I also highly recommend this talk on the history of the discussion of miracles among philosophers over the centuries.  Many people make it seem like David Hume basically closed the issue of miracles, but Dr. McGrew shows that Hume has had his critics over the centuries.  Tim and his wife, Lydia, who is also a scholar, also have an article defending the resurrection of Jesus Christ in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (chapter 11).

Faith

Many people claim that faith is believing without evidence.  Being a philosopher who regularly thinks of evidence and rationality, Dr. McGrew has spent a lot of time showing that faith is not against the evidence.  In Tom Gilson's book, True Reason, Dr. McGrew and Dr. David Marshall respond to the charge that faith is unevidential belief by giving a historical perspective on how faith was understood and defined by thinkers in the church (chapter 11).  McGrew has also debated the atheist Peter Boghossian, who wrote a book arguing that faith is an unreliable way of knowing things because it doesn't rely on evidence.

The Reliability of the Bible

My favorite stuff from Dr. McGrew is his material on the reliability of the Bible.  He has spent a lot of time researching the subject and has helped to resurface an old argument for the Bible's reliability that, while good, has been forgotten for some time.  Dr. McGrew has an excellent series responding to alleged historical errors and contradictions in the Gospels.  He has debated the well-known biblical critic, Bart Ehrman, on the reliability of the Gospels.  The most interesting thing that Dr. McGrew has brought back into the apologetic discussion is the issue of Undesigned Coincidences.  An undesigned coincidence occurs when two or more people give completely different details about the same event, but despite the details being different, they fit together and explain each other like pieces of a puzzle, which gives a full picture of the event.  Undesigned coincidences are marks of reliability and truthfulness because they are subtle and unlikely to be made up or planned by the group of people giving the details, but despite this, the details still fit together well.  The kicker is that these undesigned coincidences are found all over the Bible.  Tim McGrew has spoken extensively on these things, but it is actually his wife, Lydia McGrew, who has put the most work into bringing this argument for biblical reliability back.  Lydia's book, Hidden in Plain View, explains undesigned coincidences and details a massive number of them in the Bible.  You can also find a number of her posts on various undesigned coincidences in the blog, What's Wrong With the World.

The Existence of God

I have not seen Dr. McGrew talk as much about the arguments for God's existence, but he does have some material on it that I think is worth looking into.  Here is a talk by him giving three arguments for God's existence and answering questions and criticisms from people.

I hope Dr. McGrew's materials are helpful to you all.

The AK47 Podcast: Season 1 Episode 1

We are super excited to launch our new podcast. Unfortunately it is mostly an old episode from the Resistance TV days. We've got new content coming soon. Jonathan Pruitt and I just recorded one, and there's two hours on the book of Hebrews with Kyle and my Dad coming also. But until then I hope you enjoy this imperfect walk down memory lane.

Here is the first episode of The AK47 Podcast

Racial Reconciliation in the Church and the Methods and Worldviews Involved

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

We live in a somewhat heated racial climate in America right now.  Because of perceived injustices towards racial minorities in America, people are more loudly and fervently calling for racial reconciliation, relational healing between races.  As Christians, we should be in full support of racial reconciliation because we are all made in the image of God and our faith in Christ brings us together into God’s family.  There are, however, a lot of bumps in the road.  What we often don’t realize is that people adopt different methods of racial reconciliation and that these methods are often based on different worldviews.  When a person who wants racial reconciliation doesn’t adopt a particularmethod of racial reconciliation or does not see the world in the exact way that some activists see it, that person is often condemned as a racist.  While I believe we as Christians should care about racial reconciliation, we need to be clear on what methods are being espoused and the underlying worldviews that influence those methods, otherwise we may unwittingly adopt beliefs that are incompatible with the faith and cause damage.  In the next section, I will give two different resources for Christians to read and explain them.  Christians need to be aware of the methods of racial reconciliation that are proposed and the worldviews that often influence those methods.

Methods

Dr. George Yancey, a sociologist at the University of North Texas, gives a speech at a church on four different methods of racial reconciliation, their pros and cons, and his own method of relational healing between races.  This talk is a condensed version of his book.  Dr. Yancey makes it clear that there are different methods of racial reconciliation that we see espoused in the West (colorblindness, white guilt, multiculturalism, etc.) and that, despite each of them having some positive aspects, they have some major problems too.  He suggests a method that he calls Mutual Responsibility.  When wanting to achieve a great good, it is good to realize that not all ways of achieving that great good are created equal.  We need to think clearly about the methods we are adopting and ought to adopt.

Thinking deeply and critically about methods is one thing, but the methods we adopt are often influenced by our worldviews.  That is where this next resource comes in.

Worldview

Dr. Neil Shenvi, a scientist at Duke University, in his post, A Long Review of Race, Class, and Gender, reviews a book about the inequalities found in society.  He gives the pros and cons of the book, but the most important thing is that he analyzes the philosophy that underlies the viewpoints of all the authors.  Neil reveals that the underlying viewpoint of all the authors in this anthology is critical theory and that critical theory is a worldview.  Neil says that critical theory “often functions as a worldview (that is, as a comprehensive, interpretive framework for understanding reality),” and that the beliefs expressed by the authors are “not a random assortment of disconnected beliefs. Instead, they form a unified, coherent framework for viewing everything about our lives, from our identity, to our fundamental problem (oppression), to our fundamental moral duty (fighting for liberation), to the basis for unity between individuals (common oppression/solidarity).”  The problem with the worldview of critical theory, argues Neil, is that it is incompatible with Christianity in very important and fundamental ways. Many Christians do not realize that some or all of their viewpoints on race and racial reconciliation are based on a worldview that is not compatible with their Christianity.  It is important for Christians to think deeply about their worldview and the worldviews of others so that they can see how they are being affected by the world.  Racial reconciliation is important, but if Neil is right, we should not unwittingly adopt beliefs about racial reconciliation that are based on an incompatible worldview, or at the very least, we shouldn’t adopt those beliefs for the same reasons.  It can affect our faith and our actions.

I hope and pray that these two resources will help people think clearly about this issue and that clear thinking can aid us in finding a good, biblical solution.

Abortion and the Death Penalty

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

I recently published a post on Twitter and Facebook that went something like this:

People often claim that pro-lifers are being inconsistent for being against abortion, but supportive of the death penalty.  Not everyone who is against abortion is for the death penalty, of course, but some are.  It is not clear to me, however, what the inconsistency is, because people usually don't explain what it is.  Here is my best attempt at two propositions that anti-abortion, pro-death penalty people believe:

1. It is never justified to take the life of a human being that is innocent of any wrongdoing.

2. It is sometimes justified to take the life of a human being that is guilty of wrongdoing. 

What, exactly, is inconsistent about believing these two propositions?  Keep in mind that I'm not asking if (1) or (2) are true, I'm asking what is inconsistent about believing them both.

I posted this because I frequently see people accuse pro-lifers of being inconsistent in being against abortion, but in favor of the death penalty.  This objection can come from pro-choice people who want to criticize pro-lifers for being hypocrites and it can come from pro-lifers who believe that the “pro-life” label can only apply to people who are against both abortion and the death penalty.

It is not clear to me what the inconsistency is, so I posted this tweet to see what people would say.  I was not asking if the anti-abortion or pro-death penalty viewpoints were right or true.  I was asking if a person is being intellectually inconsistent by being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty.  I am also aware that not all people who are anti-abortion are pro-death penalty.  The question is whether or not those who are both anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are being intellectually inconsistent .  I didn’t get any conversation going on Twitter (I still have a very small following), but I got a lot of interaction on Facebook.  There was a big discussion, but the best answer came from a Catholic philosopher named Ron Belgau, who writes for a blog called Spiritual Friendship.  With his permission, I decided to share his response here.

Are pro-lifers who support the death penalty morally inconsistent? In order to answer this question, it’s important to consider alternate ways of understanding the right to life and the nature of personhood.

A. Regarding life:

1. One view would be that the life of a human person is always sacred, and that it is always wrong to intentionally kill a person.

2. Another view would be that it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human person, but that in certain circumstances–war, or the punishment for very serious crimes, for example–a person forfeits their right to life, and may be killed in order to protect the right to life of other innocent human persons.

B. Regarding persons:

1. One view would be that every human being is a human person from the moment of conception; that is, that they are a person simply because they are a human being.

2. The other view would be that personhood requires something more–a certain kind of self-consciousness that is typical of normally functioning adult human beings. On this view, certain human beings are not human persons, or are only “marginal persons,” and so are not protected by either version of the principle about the sanctity of human life.

A person who holds both A1 and B1 would oppose abortion and the death penalty. Holding A1 and B2 would entail opposition to the death penalty but could permit abortion; and holding A2 and B1 would entail opposition to abortion but could permit the death penalty. Holding both A2 and B2 could permit both. In other words, B1 is the essential conviction for pro-lifers, while A1 is the essential conviction for those who oppose the death penalty. In order for it to be logically inconsistent for pro-lifers to support the death penalty, it would have to be logically inconsistent to accept B1 and also accept A2. Or, to put it another way, accepting B1 would have to logically entail accepting A1. I do not see why it would be logically inconsistent for someone who supports B1 to accept A2; but at the very least, if opponents of the death penalty want to argue that pro-lifers are logically inconsistent, they need to show why the belief that life begins at conception is logically inconsistent with the belief that societies can kill in extreme circumstances to protect themselves from those who are a serious threat to the lives of others

Side Note: When I say that A2 could permit capital punishment, and B2 could permit abortion, I do not mean that they must do so. Consider A2 and the death penalty. To say that people may be killed to protect society against war or murder is not to say that they must be killed. It only means that if there is no other way to defend life except to kill those who threaten it, then killing them is permitted. But if there are non-lethal methods of protecting society from war or murder, these are preferable. In a society with a relatively low level of social development, it may be a serious burden to keep criminals locked up, and may be difficult to establish jails secure enough to protect against escape. So I think such a society could be justified in executing murderers after a serious effort at verifying guilt. But in an advanced society like the United States, it may be possible to adequately protect society without putting murderers to death. In which case, A2 may not provide an adequate justification for the death penalty. Nevertheless, if an unborn child is a person (B1), then A2 provides a much stronger reason for opposing abortion than for opposing the death penalty, because the child is innocent and is not threatening anyone; therefore, killing it cannot be self-defense in the same way that killing can protect society from war and murder. (This principle might be used to authorize abortion in cases where continuing the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother.)

I hope Ron’s response helps everyone think through the logic or this issue.

Ambiguity, Context, and Biblical Interpretation

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Definitions in Context

The SAT is a standardized test that many students have to take.  One type of question in the reading section is called a vocabulary in context question.  These questions will ask the reader what a particular word in the passage “most nearly” means and it will provide four different answers to choose from.  The tricky thing about these types of questions is that, often times, all four options are legitimate definitions of the word in question.  To know which meaning of the word is being used in the passage, the reader has to read the context that the word is in, usually by reading a few lines or even an entire paragraph of the passage.  Only by looking at the context can the reader figure out which of the answer choices provides the correct meaning of the word in that passage.  Context is important in everyday life too.  If you walk into a room and hear me say “I killed that guy” to a friend, that may sound like I committed a crime.  However, if you heard the whole context, you would know that I’m talking about a video game I played earlier.  By “kill” I didn’t mean “murder,” I meant that I took out the avatar that he was controlling.  The phrase takes on a whole new meaning in your mind when you learn the context.  Context is also important when it comes to the Bible.  As many people have pointed out when teaching hermeneutics (the art and skill of proper interpretation), one must know the context of a word or verse in the Bible to really understand it.  This helps with apologetics and our personal devotions.

Context in the Bible: Apologetic Usefulness

This graphic claims to show all of the contradictions in the Bible. Here are two verses that contradict each other according to this graphic.

Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
his understanding is unsearchable.
(Isaiah 40:28)

Your new moons and your appointed feasts
my soul hates;
they have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them.
(Isaiah 1:14)

One verse says that God does not get weary.  The other one says that God is weary.  Is this a contradiction?

If we pretend that these passages are in an SAT test and it asks us “What does the word ‘weary’ most nearly mean in the passage?” what would the right answers be?  If, in both cases, “weary” means “fatigued,” then we do have a contradiction.  However, it is clear that “weary” is being used in different senses in each passage.  In Isaiah 40, it is saying that God does not get physically tired.  We can tell this because the next few verses say

He gives power to the faint,
and to him who has no might he increases strength.
Even youths shall faint and be weary,
and young men shall fall exhausted;
but they who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength;
they shall mount up with wings like eagles;
they shall run and not be weary;
they shall walk and not faint.

In Isaiah 1, when God says He’s “weary” of bearing Israel’s religious festivals, He most nearly means that He cannot tolerate them.  The popular English phrase “sick and tired of” fits best in this passage.  This becomes clear when we look at verses 11-13

“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices?
says the Lord;
I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
and the fat of well-fed beasts;
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
or of lambs, or of goats.
“When you come to appear before me,
who has required of you
this trampling of my courts?
Bring no more vain offerings;
incense is an abomination to me.
New moon and Sabbath and the calling of convocations—
I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly.

Can you imagine how embarrassing it would be if, say, an atheist used the two verses above as an example of a contradiction in the Bible when just reading a couple of verses of context reveals that there is no contradiction?  That is exactly what the graphic does.  How many more mistakes does it make?

Context in the Bible: Devotional Usefulness

There are many verses in the Bible that people use for inspiration and knowledge of God, but they may be using them incorrectly.  For example, Philippians 4:13 says “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.”  People often think this verse means that God will help them accomplish any goal as long as they have enough faith, like win a football game or get the girl.  However, this verse is talking about something else.  Look at the context

I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me.  You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.  Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.  I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound.  In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.  I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (v. 10-13)

When we look at the context, we see that v. 13 has less to do with God helping us accomplish goals and more to do with God helping us through whatever situation we are in, whether that situation is joyful or tough.  This verse is still just as inspirational and comforting when we know the context, but our inspiration and comfort is based on the truth of what the passage says instead of a misunderstanding and it gives us more accurate knowledge of God.

Context is Key

The chapter and verse divisions in our modern Bibles are very helpful for us because they allow us to find content easily.  The drawback, however, is that people tend to isolate each verse from their contexts.  Issues like this are why the popular apologist, Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason, say “Never read a Bible verse.”  This provocative-sounding phrase tells an important hermeneutical truth: one should never simply read a verse of the Bible if they want to know what it means, they should at least read a paragraph in order to understand it.  Context helps illuminate meaning.

The lesson here is clear: If you want to understand the Bible, do not just read each verse in isolation.  Reading chunks of the Bible instead of individual verses is one of the most important and simplest rules in hermeneutics.  Recognize that everything that is said in the Bible is part of a whole and understanding context can help clear up ambiguities.

Mackie’s Error Theory: Morality and Naturalism

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Brief Introduction

“There are no objective values.”  So starts the first chapter of J.L. Mackie’s book, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong, where he argues that there are no objective, universally prescriptive moral facts.

Moral facts are the things that make our moral judgments, like “It is wrong to rape people” or “We ought to treat everyone equally” true or false.  The view that moral facts exist is called moral realism or objectivism.  Mackie’s view is a cognitivist view, which means that our moral judgments express believes that have truth-value (they are either true or false), but it is not an example of moral realism.  Mackie argued that all of our moral judgments and beliefs are false.  This is why it is called “Error Theory.”  How does he argue for this position?

His argument combines a conceptual claim about our moral judgments and an ontological claim about the existence of moral facts.

1) Conceptual claim: Our moral concepts are concepts of universally prescriptive, categorical facts in the world.

2) Ontological claim: There are no such facts in the world.

Whether our beliefs are true or false depends on whether they correspond to reality.  If I believe “Earth has one moon,” that belief is true because Earth does, in fact, have one moon.  If I believe “My dog is the same as my cat,” then that belief is false because that belief does not correspond to reality.  My dog is not, in fact, my cat.  Since there is nothing in the world that corresponds to our beliefs about moral facts, our moral beliefs and claims are all false.  That is why Mackie’s view is called Error Theory, because we are literally in error.

Mackie’s Defense of His Claims

Mackie argues for (1) by showing that many philosophers in the Western tradition have defended objective moral values.  While acknowledging that many thinkers are moral subjectivists he says “the main tradition of European moral philosophy includes the contrary claim, that there are objective values of just the sort I have denied,” (p. 30).  He cites philosophers like Plato, Kant, Sidgwick, Aristotle, Samuel Clarke, Hutcheson, Richard Price, and says Hume noticed the prevalence of the objectivist tradition as well.  He also argues that the objectivist tradition has a firm basis in ordinary thought.  When many people ask if a certain action is wrong, they are not asking what they feel about the action or what benefit they think it will give them, they are asking if the action itself is wrong.  Mackie also claims that existentialism and its influence on people shows that people tend to objectify their concerns.  People who cease to believe that objective moral facts or values exist tend to begin believing that nothing matters at all; that life has no purpose.  This suggests that those people were objectifying their moral judgments so that they were something external to them, not just aspects of their own ideas, thoughts, and desires (p. 34).

Mackie argues for (2) in a few different ways, but the argument I will focus on here is the argument from queerness.

If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe.  Correspondingly, if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty or moral perception or intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else. (p. 38)

In order to argue that moral facts do not exist, Mackie combines a metaphysical argument with an epistemological argument.  The metaphysical argument is that moral facts would be very “queer” properties unlike any other kinds of properties we know.  Moral facts are the kinds of things that have a demand for an action built into them.  They are prescriptive facts telling us how we ought to act.  The facts that we are all acquainted with, however, are prescriptively inert.  The facts or properties that we are all familiar with, physical properties, do not have demands for certain actions built into them.  They do not tell us how things ought to be, they just tell us how things are.  They are descriptive rather than prescriptive. These physical properties, which are descriptive properties that tell us how things are, are the kinds of properties that we are very well acquainted with and they are explicable on naturalism.  Moral properties, which are prescriptive properties that tell us how things ought to be, are strange and not easily explainable on naturalism, since the moral properties themselves would not be natural.

The epistemological argument is that we would need a special faculty that was able to detect these moral properties.  We have different faculties for detecting things in the world, and these faculties are how we gain knowledge about the world.  For example, our eyes pick up light and allow us to see, our noses detect scents in the air and allow us to smell, our ears detect the vibrations in the air and allow us to hear sound.  Through these different faculties we detect different things in the world and learn about them.  But what kind of faculty would we need to have in order to detect non-physical, universally prescriptive moral facts?  It is not clear what on earth this faculty could be or how we can gain knowledge of moral facts through it.  So, Mackie concludes from this that we have good reason to reject the actual existence of moral facts.

Conclusion

To sum up, Mackie claims that our moral concepts are concepts of universally prescriptive facts, but these facts do not exist in the world, so our moral concepts are literally false.  He argues against their existence by showing that such facts would be metaphysically “queer” on naturalism and it is not clear how we would even know their existence.

If Mackie is right, then a naturalist would have to deny moral facts because they are not the kinds of things that would be natural.  If one thinks that moral facts do exist, then one has reason to reject naturalism.

Resources

(1) Mackie, J. L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Middelessex: Penguin, 1990. Print.

(2) Miller, Alexander. An Introduction to Contemporary Metaethics. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2003. Print.

Reading Recommendations for the Winter Break

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Many of our readers may be students who are still in college.  The nice thing about the university is that there is often an entire month off during this time of year.  This gives one time to read books that one does not have time to read during the semesters.  Even non-students like people working in ministry will be benefited from reading.  These are my top apologetics book recommendations.  I will be focusing on beginners material, but I will also suggest higher level books to move onto once you finish these books.

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller

This book, written by the well-known pastor in New York, is a good introductory apologetic for people who have not exposed themselves to the topic before.  In the first half, Keller responds to various criticisms of Christianity like “How can a good God send people to Hell,” “There can’t be just one true religion,” “How could a good God allow evil,” “Science has disproved Christianity,” and many more.  In the second half, he gets into some arguments for the truth of Christianity.  This book will challenge readers who have never exposed themselves to apologetics before, but it is incredibly readable too.  Those who are more familiar with apologetics may be aided by this book because, as a pastor, Keller can put things in a way that is understandable and relatable to many people.

Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl

This book isn’t so much about apologetic content as it is about apologetic skill and strategy.  This book is all about how to engaged in a winsome and intelligent way with skeptics of Christianity by asking good questions that help guide the conversation.  Greg also gets into how to deal with people who are much smarter than you, people who are rude and condescending, and other challenging situations.  The content in this book is valuable for everybody and for every discussion you will have, even if you are discussion issues with other Christians, like whether Calvinism is true.

On Guard: Defending your Faith with Reason and Precision by William Lane Craig

Dr. Craig is one of the most well-known Christian apologists of our time.  He has been in countless debates and has written countless books on the defense of the Christian faith, so any book by him is going to be worth looking into.  This book is his most accessible.  He gives several arguments for the existence of God and the arguments for Christianity in particular.

After this: Read Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics by William Lane Craig

Is God a Moral Monster by Paul Copan

Many objections to Christianity are aimed at the apparent moral depravity of the Old Testament.  What do we do about the conquest accounts, slavery, treatment of women, and countless other moral problems in the OT?  Even many Christians avoid the OT because they don’t know how to handle it.  Paul Copan looks at each one of these moral challenges and responds to them.

After this: Read Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan

I hope these resources can get you started.  God bless.

Faulty Assumptions in Biblical Interpretation

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

I’ve noticed that, when non-Christians point out certain apparent contradictions or alleged historical errors in the Bible, those contradictions or errors only appear that way because of some unwarranted assumptions they are making.  Here are a few.

And these you shall detest among the birds; they shall not be eaten; they are detestable: the eagle, the bearded vulture, the black vulture, the kite, the falcon of any kind, every raven of any kind, the ostrich, the nighthawk, the sea gull, the hawk of any kind, the little owl, the cormorant, the short-eared owl, the barn owl, the tawny owl, the carrion vulture, the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. (Leviticus 11:13-19)

God says that a bat is a bird!  Apparently he’s too stupid to know the difference between a bird and a mammal.

The assumption a person is making when he points this out is that the ancient Hebrews had the same species categories that we do today.  There is no reason to think this.

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark, and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb. (John 20:1)

Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. (Matthew 28:1)

When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. (Mark 16:1)

This seems to be a plain contradiction.  They clearly disagree with each other on how many women went to the tomb.  This is another reason to distrust the Biblical accounts.

The assumption a person is making when stating this challenge is that the Gospel writers were trying to give a complete account of every single detail of the event.  There is no reason to think this.  Different people emphasize different things or might leave information out that they do not think is important to the point of the story. I do this when I tell the same story multiple times.

Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. (Matthew 2:16)

Herod had kids in an entire village killed, and yet no historical sources from the time even mention this event.  This means that the Gospel writer here likely made up the whole story.

The assumption here is that 1) no extrabiblical writers wrote about it and 2) any historians at the time would have written about it.  As for (1), we still have very little  information on the first century.  We have very few writings from that time.  How do we know that no one wrote about it?  It is simply an argument from silence.

As for (2), why would anyone have written about it?  While the murder of children is a horrible event, Bethlehem was a small, backwater village and it’s not likely that there were more than a dozen children below the age of two.  This would not have been a huge event.  The fact that historians didn’t mention it isn’t shocking. The eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79 was a very large event, but we only seem to have one written account on it from Pliny the Younger.

When people point out historical errors or contradictions in the Bible, try to see if there are any unwarranted assumptions they are making.  In some cases, the passages only appear mistaken or contradictory because of these assumptions.

Note: A good resource responding to alleged historical errors and contradictions in the Gospels and Acts can be found in this series of lectures by Timothy McGrew.

Be Sure to Clarify Ambiguous Words When Debating

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

Ambiguity

Something that I have quickly learned in my philosophical studies and my job teaching English to Chinese kids is that individual words often have more than one meaning.  When you use a word in a sentence that has more than one meaning, but the meaning of that word is not clear in its context, the word is ambiguous.  This is one way that our words can be unclear. One of the things that affects the productivity of discussion and debate is that people will use the same words, but mean slightly different things by them.  Unless the debaters are clear on what they mean by the words that they use, ambiguity will remain and the debaters will be talking past each other.

An Example from Discussions on Morality

An example of where ambiguity can negatively affect a discussion is in the realm of morality.  The word “morality” is an ambiguous word and, unless the speakers are clear, it can be easy for speakers to talk past each other on this issue.  Most of the time, “morality” can mean one of three things:

1. Moral Beliefs: These are simply what one believes is right or wrong; good or bad.
2. Moral Behaviors: These are the right or wrong behaviors or actions that people engage in.
3. Moral Facts: These are the truth-makers for moral claims.  A moral fact is what makes our moral judgments true or false.

When Christians and atheists debate on how Christianity or atheism ground morality, I think both groups often talk past each other because they sometimes mean different things by “morality.”  Often, when an atheist uses the word “morality,” he is talking about moral beliefs and behaviors.  If an atheist says “We don’t need religion or belief in God to explain morality,” he likely means that we do not need God to explain the development of moral beliefs and behaviors.  Dawkins, for example, says this

We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or ‘moral’ towards each other.  First, there is the special case of genetic kinship.  Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in ‘anticipation’ of payback.  Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness.  And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising. (The God Delusion, pg. 251)

Dawkins gives an account of how moral beliefs and behaviors may have developed, but that does not address whether moral facts exist. However, when a Christian says “morality,” she often means moral facts.  When a Christian says “In order for moral values to exist, God needs to exist,” she is likely talking about the things that make our moral judgments true or false.  Notice that they are not actually disagreeing with each other.  They can both agree with each other because neither of their claims are inconsistent with one another due to the fact that they are referring to different things when they say “morality.”  In fact, William Lane Craig constantly makes it clear that the moral argument for God’s existence is referencing moral facts, not beliefs and behaviors.

Now it’s important that we remain clear in understanding the issue before us.  The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?  There’s no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives.  Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God?  If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there’s no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would also largely agree.  Or again, the question is not: Can we recognize the existence of objective moral values without reference to God?  The theist will typically maintain that a person need not believe in God in order to recognize, say, that we should love our children. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed. pg. 175-176)

When this ambiguity is not cleared up and eliminated, the atheist and the Christian are simply talking past each other and no progress is being made in the discussion.

Be Clear on the Meaning of your Words

The example I gave above is just one subject where ambiguity can come up.  There are many other controversial topics where ambiguous words can pop up, so my advice is to make sure that you clearly know what you mean when you use certain words and that you clearly express the meaning of that word to whoever you are speaking to.  You should also make sure that the individual or individuals that you are debating are clear with their words too.  Ask questions like “What do you mean by x?” or “When you say x, do you mean?. . .”  Being clear will help your apologetic and hopefully make your discussions more productive.

Note: A good book to read on how to discuss your Christian beliefs in a winsome and intelligent way is Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl.

Do Not Dismiss What Someone Says Simply Because of Lack of Experience

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

The Internet Dismissal!

Something that I have noticed in this age of online discussion and debate is that people often dismiss what others say because of certain facts about them, whether that’s facts about their race, life experience, gender, or other things.  If you have experienced something in your life that is persistent and at least sometimes very difficult to deal with, such as infertility, depression, singleness, unwanted pregnancy, divorce, unjust discrimination, or a myriad of other struggles, it can be easy to dismiss the wisdom, advice, or arguments of people who have not gone through what you have gone through.  In this tense political and racial climate, I often hear people dismiss each other’s arguments because of their race.  Some black Americans will dismiss anything a white person says about racial injustice.  In the abortion debate, it is common for women to dismiss pro-life arguments because the arguments are coming out of the mouths of men.  I certainly understand this mentality and see where it comes from. As someone who has been single for a longtime, it can be easy to dismiss the things people who have been married since their early 20’s say to me about singleness. One one hand, it makes sense, since they have not experienced the particular trials of long-term singleness and don’t understand what it is like.  Personal experience does give a person valuable insight into the circumstances they have experienced, so it makes sense to think that the lack of that experience means that the person also lacks that insight.

I don’t, however, think that people should always be dismissed if they do not or have not personally experienced certain circumstances in life. Just because someone hasn’t experienced something you or I are struggling with doesn’t mean that person has nothing good, true, helpful, wise, or valuable to say. There are a couple of reasons why I think this is the case.

Don’t be so hasty to Dismiss out of hand

One, there is often overlap of experiences between people who are dealing with different struggles, life stages, conditions, and other things. A couple struggling with infertility struggles with at least some similar things as the single person, since both desire a really good thing that is just not coming. They have both experienced the wait, unfulfilled longing, and disappointment of each thing, so there can be an understanding between them even though they are going through different things.

Second, when you have been dealing with something for a really long time, you often become very emotional about that thing. Those emotions can often cloud your ability to see your trial from a different perspective or see all of the facts of the situation. A person who has never gone through what you’ve gone through likely does not have that emotional clouding, so he may be able to see facts or perspectives that are valuable, but you cannot see.  So, while someone being an “outsider” about a certain struggle is often used as a reason to dismiss anything that they say, I think the fact that a person has not experienced a certain trial in life actually gives one reason to at least listen to and consider what the person says because they may have a perspective on the situation that the struggler does not have.

What I’m saying is that if you are struggling with a particular thing and an “outsider” about that struggle gives their insight, it is worth at least considering what the person says to see if it is true or helpful.  Don’t automatically dismiss the wisdom, advice, or general thoughts that they give simply because they’re an outsider. They may actually be getting at the truth.

The Problem With Quick Appeals to Mystery

This article was originally featured on ResistanceTV.

How do Some People Respond to Deep Questions about God?

There are many questions that Christians have about the existence of God.  Some of these questions have to do with the coherence of the concept of God or other theological issues in Christianity.  How can God be three persons?  How does God’s sovereignty work with our free-will?  How is Jesus both God and man?  These questions, and many others, are often on a Christian’s mind and will inevitably be asked in church and Bible studies.  A common response to these questions is to appeal to the mystery of God.  God, being infinite, is beyond complete comprehension, so it is a mystery how these things work together.

Potential Problems with this Kind of Response

There is truth to this response.  God is not completely comprehensible by us because He is infinite.  We will never fully understand a being like God and we would be fooling ourselves to think that we can.  However, my concern is that Christians and pastors will use quick appeals to mystery as an easy way to dismiss a legitimate question about God and certain theological doctrines.  While acknowledging the mysteriousness of God has legitimacy, it leads to a few problems if it is used as a quick response to complex questions about God.  Here are the problems.

1. Quick appeals to mystery stop us from thinking deeply about God.  When you love something, you think about that thing as often as possible and seek to understand it more.  Quick appeals to mystery can cut that deep thinking short and it comes off as saying “No, don’t think that deeply.  That’s far enough.”  Thinking deeply about God is a worshipful and prayerful act, which is clearly shown in writings like Augustine’s Confessions or Anselm’s formulation of the ontological argument, so quick appeals to mystery can stop us from doing something that is worshipful and glorifying to God.
2. Quick appeals to mystery also invalidate people’s legitimate questions about God.  Those appeals can come off as saying “Don’t ask those questions.”  I think that if God and theology are important to people, then it is good for them to ask questions and we should help cultivate a desire to ask questions and seek to understand God better.  We do not want to discourage people from asking those questions.
3. Finally, quick appeals to mystery can make God look absurd.  If a pastor or small group leader continually uses quick appeals to mystery as a response to deep questions about God’s nature and his actions in the world, it will make it seem like there is no answer to those questions, which makes the concept of God look more and more incoherent and ridiculous.  If there is anything that the God of Christianity is not, it’s absurd, incoherent, and ridiculous.  People probably think that appealing to God’s mystery is a way of glorifying God because it acknowledges His infinite nature.  This is not wrong, but using appeals to mystery as a lazy response to legitimate questions can actually have the opposite effect and make it look like there is no answers to these questions because the concept of God, in actuality, doesn’t make sense.

Do the Hard Work

Again, I am not saying that God is not significantly mysterious to us.  He is infinite and we are limited beings who can hardly even comprehend our own world.  I also understand that I have not answered every question one may have about this topic.  When is an appeal to mystery “quick?”  How do we know when we are relying too much on human reason to understand God perfectly?  These are good questions and I do not have answers.  My problem is when appeals to mystery lead to laziness and discourage deep thinking about God.  If you are in a position of leadership in the church or have the opportunity to talk about your faith with non-believers, take the questions about God seriously and be willing to do the deep thinking that we ought to do about our Lord.