Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics Archives | CrossExamined.org

One Woman's Quest for Straight Answers from Public Health Organizations

After three years’ research on traumatic brain injuries he’d seen in prematurely deceased football players, Dr. Bennet Omalu wrote a paper in 2005 detailing his findings on the syndrome he named Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE). He was hopeful that NFL doctors would build on his discovery for the well-being of NFL athletes. But instead of welcoming his data, an NFL medical committee called for it to be retracted. A thoroughgoing medical scientist, Omalu would do no such thing, and it took a full four more years of increasing pressure before the NFL publicly acknowledged the link between concussions sustained on the field and CTE.

A similar kind of David versus Goliath challenge may be developing between investigative journalist Punam Kumar Gill and the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). A Canadian citizen of Indian descent and a lifelong pro-choice feminist, Gill became troubled after hearing questions raised about potential long-term risks of induced abortion. An honest investigator, she was quick to notice two things: (1) Although the questions did not concern the legality of abortion, because they were associated with abortion, few people seemed willing to listen, let alone talk about them. And (2) she herself might be guilty of allowing bias to blind her to a valid women’s issue where one might lie.

The dual discovery set her mind to thinking: What if there really were critical health risks to abortion? What were women actually being told before having one? And how were they doing afterwards? These were serious health care concerns, in some cases, matters of life and death. Shouldn’t they be discussed openly, rather than being dismissed as pro-life propaganda?

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

She thought they should be, as did pro-life filmmaker Joses Martin of Mighty Motion Pictures. And so, although they came down on opposite sides of the pro-choice/pro-life divide, Gill and Martin teamed up to search out the truth about these questions for the sake of women everywhere. Their investigation is chronicled in the excellently produced documentary Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women’s Health. Here’s an overview.

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Gill interviewed several medical doctors. Is there evidence of a link between abortion and breast cancer? She asked. Yes, said Dr. Ian Gentles, coauthor of Complications: Abortion’s Impact on Women (2013); there have been “many dozens of studies [that] show a real, statistically significant link.” Yes, said Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast cancer surgeon who has seen it in a textbook and in her practice. No, said Dr. David Grimes, an ob-gyn and abortionist for more than four decades, “there are no long-term consequences from abortion.” This issue is settled, he said. Doing continued studies would not only be inappropriate but unethical.

Thus, right off the bat, Gill and Martin encountered the deep divide between medical professionals. But Grimes had underscored his point by adding that his opinion was the same as that of all the major medical organizations. This did seem to add credibility to the “no consequences” side, so that’s where they went next.

One after another, Gill contacted them: The American Cancer Society. The Canadian Cancer Society. The National Cancer Institute. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in London. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. And finally, the World Health Organization. But to her surprise, not only would none of them consent to an interview, they would not even speak to her. Not one. The case was closed, they all said. Anything she needed to know could be found on their website. It was as if they were all working off the same script.

With no other option, and now starting to feel suspicious of those denying any link, Gill went to their websites. Each one referred to a 2003 conference held by the NIH cancer division, the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where it had been concluded once and for all that there was no link between abortion and breast cancer. Upon this discovery, she tried again to speak with someone at the NCI, going so far as to visit in person. But when she arrived, she was swiftly escorted off the grounds by security. What was going on here?

A thoroughgoing journalist, Gill was not one to be intimidated into silence. She continued to dig and question until, eventually, she located a recording of the 2003 conference online and got to the bottom of the “no abortion-breast cancer link” conclusion. She explains her findings in some detail in the film but suffice it here to say that a careful look raises serious questions about who or what dictated the outcome of this seminal conference. Was it honest medical science? Or was it abortion politics?

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Pre-term birth rates have doubled in the U.S. since Roe. Every year, more than 11,000 newborns die on the day of their birth in America due to prematurity, and those that survive exact untold emotional and financial costs on health care resources and families before ever leaving the hospital. After discharge, they face heightened risks of such lifelong disabilities as cerebral palsy, autism, chronic lung disease, and other vital organ maladies.

“It seems there’s a real clear unwillingness to deal with the science on this,” said Dr. Martin McCaffrey, a neonatologist who has frontline experience in caring for preemies and their families. He was invited in 2008 to serve as an expert panel member at the Surgeon General’s Conference on Preventing Preterm Birth, held by the NIH. He brought up the abortion-prematurity link and presented 122 articles as supportive evidence, but the co-chairs would not allow discussion, even though the link has been demonstrated in more than 80 studies. McCaffrey estimates that abortion accounts for 18 percent of very preterm births (earlier than 32 weeks’ gestation), yet in all the material published to raise awareness of prematurity, there is no mention of prior abortion as a possible risk factor. None. The question is, why not?

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

This has been covered in Salvo before. Gill cites the alarmingly high rates of such maladies as PTSD, eating disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicide in post-abortive women, but the most moving evidence of post-abortion trauma comes from the post-abortive women she interviews, many of whom suffer heart-wrenching grief and regret decades later.

Shouldn’t women considering abortion be provided with this information? Gill asks. No, insists Dr. Grimes, the abortionist. That would be “a very overt attempt to dissuade or discourage women from exercising their right to have an abortion.” Apparently this is what passes in his world for medical ethics.

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

For people of conscience, though, informed consent matters, and women considering abortion deserve factual information. Since neither the abortion industry nor the bureaus of medical apparatchiks will so much as countenance the data, Gill and Martin have brought it to the public themselves. Meanwhile, they continue to press the NIH and NCI to address the questions Hush raises, but so far, they have received no response beyond the same scripted suggestions to visit the NCI website, which in turn still cites the 2003 conference.

Hush is top-notch work. In many ways, you, the viewer, feel like you’re along on their quest. And where appropriate, well-crafted graphics depict the medical explanations, making the breast cancer and pre-term birth connections understandable.

“Over time,” said Dr. Patrick Fagan, who coauthored a 2014 paper on the abortion-breast cancer link, “the 2003 NCI conference is going to become an embarrassment in the history of the NCI itself.” Indeed, it may. It took Dr. Omalu four years to awaken the conscience of the NFL. The consciences of the NIH and NCI have already been slumbering for over thirteen years. One can hope that Hush will, paradoxically, finally wake them up.

LGBT activist calls for “hardball” “fight” to empty the church pews of Christians

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Transgender woman calls for “hardball” “fight” to “empty the pews”

Previously, I blogged about how transgender activists shut down a discussion of transgender issues on a university campus in Canada. You might think that suppressing debate and disagreement is something that only happens north of the border. But an LGBT activist with 50,000 Twitter followers is being re-tweeted by prominent people on the left after demanding a “fight” to “empty the pews”.

Look at this Twitter thread from “Chrissy Str00p“, a transgender woman:

The Christian Right has won its culture war under the noses of “liberal elites.” Long before Trump, abstinence-only #FakeSexEd came to dominate public schools. Abortion became effectively inaccessible in most areas.

We’re fighting to take ground back and even to realize rights that have never been fully realized, and it’s time we understood that. We’re the goddamn Rebel Alliance; the Empire is in power.

If we win big in 2020—far and away not a given—we need to play hardball.

#EmptyTheP3ws

I’m talking adding justices to the Supreme Court hardball (Roe is lost in the meantime, and likely Obergefell and even Griswold into the bargain). Maybe even finding a way to remove Kavanaugh and Gorsuch from the bench hardball. They hold their seats illegitimately.

The Christian Right will impose minority authoritarian rule for as long as it can, and it’s about g*dd*m time we started acting like we’re fighting an anti-democratic force, a real threat to democracy and human rights because we f*cking are, and not by choice.

Get in the fight.

Now, you have to ask yourself, given the previous post about transgender activists using threats of violence to suppress basic human rights like free speech, what does Str00p mean by emptying the pews? How does Str00p intend to get the Christians in those pews to vacate the pews? Does Str00p sound like a tolerant, law-abiding person who respects a diversity of views? Does Str00p sound like someone who engages in a rational debate?

I don’t mind that Str00p has those views, or speaks them. I hope Str00p’s words don’t incite violence against Christians, as they could easily be interpreted to be a call for violence by someone mentally unstable. It’s happened before. Remember the gay activist Floyd Lee Corkins II, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison for domestic terrorism, after attacking the Family Research Council building armed with a gun? We just don’t know what Str00p meant.

I hope that Christians take note of Str00p’s views and that they don’t just vote in 2020. I’d like Christians to get informed, and be persuasive to their undecided neighbors using facts and evidence. All it takes for Str00p to win is for us to be so intimidated by Str00p’s rhetoric that we decide that it’s not worth it to share facts and evidence with our neighbors. If you have to use an alias to share facts and evidence with your neighbors, then get an alias.

Book Review: Time for Truth: Living Free in A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin

1. Does Truth Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

“Time for Truth: Living Free In A World of Lies, Hype, and Spin” by Os Guinness has been on my reading list for several years now. It is a relatively short book, so I popped it in my bag to read during downtime on a trip to see family. By the time I had made it through the first chapter, I wished that I had made time to read it sooner!

In today’s cultural and political climate that seems to twist and spin reality to fit certain narratives, it is vital that people be able to distinguish between truth from falsehood. The history of the East demonstrates the implications of denying truth as an accurate reflection of reality. In “Time for Truth,” sociologist Os Guinness takes the reader through the philosophies and events that led to the fall of the East and compares them to current philosophies and events in the West. He warns that if the West continues on its current trajectory, it is headed for a similar collapse.

As usual, this review will take the form of a chapter-by-chapter summary and conclude with my thoughts and recommendation.

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Guinness opens his book by recalling the revolutionary event of the fall of communism in eastern Europe and Russia in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The significance of this at the time was that under communist rule, propaganda was taught instead of truth so much so that the populace believed what was false to be true. But it was only when some members of the populace pointed out that what was being taught by their government were lies told in order to maintain power and control. The taste of and for truth grew and grew until finally, the purveyors of false narratives were overthrown, and the truth set these nations free from the lies and tyranny.
Ironically, at the same time, this revolution of truth took place in the East, the West was busy relativizing truth the way the communists already did in the East. Guinness sets up the rest of his book by pointing out that such a postmodern view of truth violates reality and morality (why it was overthrown in the East), and the West is on the road to accepting the same view of truth. However, if the West does not recognize the mistakes of the past (in the East), then it will suffer a similar fate. But it is not enough to merely make observations about the past; the people of the West must take action now and become “people of truth” to prevent a repeat of history.

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

In order to show that the West is, in fact, on this same path, Guinness takes a look at the change in students’ reactions to the morally repugnant practice described in the story “The Lottery.” The 70s, 80s, and 90s saw a dramatic shift in the schools regarding moral judgments. The 70s and 80s saw students gradually shift their focus from outrage over the most heinous human behaviors (human sacrifice, in the case of “The Lottery”) to focusing on the more trivial aspects of the same tale. Fewer moral judgment were made, and more stylistic critiques became the main focus. In the 90s, this shift seemed almost complete, to where students were allergic to giving moral judgments about another’s cultural practices, no matter how heinous the action.

Guinness observes too that ethical training in today’s higher academy has also shifted from making any moral judgments to merely providing information about cultures and how to avoid punishments if one does not agree and wishes to participate in prohibited practices. On this new view, no one is truly deviating from any objective standard; they just act differently from others. Guinness ties this to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. These writings take the idea that “God is dead” and vehemently attacked the very concepts of knowledge and morality- stating that nothing can be known or trusted, and nothing is as it seems. Nietzsche supports a radical skepticism and distrust about everything and everyone, and thus, a meaningless and purposeless existence is all that any individual has.

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

With Nietzsche’s idea that with God’s death comes the death of all knowledge and truth about anything, people are free to tell whatever stories they wish that will accomplish their personal goals (or a “greater truth”)- whether the stories are true or not. As multiple people tell their own contradicting stories and these lies are discovered, others’ trust in these people and those who support them dwindles. This causes a vicious cycle of skepticism that self-perpetuates. The singular truth stands alone in a multitude of lies promoted by their own multitude of untrustworthy sources. In this sea of “spin,” the truth ultimately becomes unidentifiable by the individual and even outside their grasp. The individual has nothing solid to grab onto to ground themselves in reality, so they are forced to make up stories of their own and live their own lie of a life.

Guinness illustrates this in practice with the very public figures of Mark Twain and Rigoberta Menchu. The stories that were told by both (Samuel Clemens, in the case of “Mark Twain”) were false, but they each acted as if they were true, and the culture responded accordingly. Clemens’ false story had more pop-cultural effects, while Menchu’s lies had political and educational ramifications. Even after the lies were discovered, both held firm saying that these were “their truths.” Guinness makes the point that when knowledge is not attainable, lies can perpetuate like this easily in a culture, and the culture is eager to accept them even if the stories are discovered to be false. On this postmodern view of truth, everyone is free to make up their own truth from moment to moment, all depending on their feelings at the moment or whatever they feel will accomplish their goal at that moment.

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Quite often, this battle for the concept of truth has been seen as an “East vs. West” battle. Where the eastern philosophies held to relative and subjective views of truth and western philosophies held to the objective view of truth. Guinness observes that Geoge Washington and the other Founding Fathers saw their newly formed country as an experiment with “ordered liberty”- freedom exercised within the confines of objective truth. But postmodern views of truth have sneaked their way into western culture, not unlike a Trojan horse. This attack has been so successful since the formation of America that even the President of the United States in the 1990s saw and exercised the liberty to attempt to adjust truth to fit his own desires.
Guinness takes the time to demonstrate how seven unique characteristics of a postmodern mind were exhibited in President Bill Clinton during his sex scandal. Because of Clinton’s public face and the respect of Americans for the office of the President of the United States, his postmodern actions shifted western thinking more permanently toward postmodern views of truth. This view of truth has become so ingrained in western thought now that the battle is now the older western though versus, the newer western thought. The west is engaged in a war against itself for itself.

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Unfortunately, many people do not see why it makes a difference in what view of truth one holds. Guinness explains that the way one views truth can have great implications. He takes the atheist survivor of Auschwitz, Primo Levi, and the theist Russian revolutionary, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to compare and contrast the views’ implications. Levi held that no God exists to ground truth. He tasked himself with ensuring that Auschwitz was never forgotten or repeated, but the weight of such a task, without any ultimate purpose or truth to ground his claims in, ultimately led to his suicide. On the other hand, Solzhenitsyn merely publically promoted his view of truth to release Russia from the shackles of the communist regime, that made a habit of presenting falsehood to its people as truth in order to subjugate them. Solzhenitsyn had an ultimate purpose and objective truth behind his actions that made them meaningful. Levi had no purpose and only relative truth behind his actions that made them meaningless.

These differences are not trivial; rather, they are impactful. Guinness offers that the West has become so hypnotized by the supposed “freedom” that having no objective truth brings, that it has not been able to experience true freedom. True freedom requires identity and limits. But if there is neither (what relative views of truth assert), then the individual must endlessly wrestle with their identity and what limits exist before they can even begin to experience true freedom. Because there is no objective truth about identity or limits, there is no end to their wrestling; thus they never will experience true freedom, and their pursuit becomes a prison. It is only when one recognizes that objective truth exists and the Foundation of Truth (God) that objective identity and objective limits can be discovered and freedom is even possible to experience.

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

So far, Guinness has argued against relativistic views of truth by demonstrating the implications of such a view. But that is not always the most effective way to argue. It tends to be more effective if one argues on the skeptic’s own grounds. Guinness proposes two strategies for argumentation: one negative and one positive. The negative approach takes the relativist’s own relativism and follows it to its logical implications until it violates something of great value to the relativist. This usually doesn’t take long since the relativist values their own objectivity. While they desire that everyone else be a relativist, they do not apply such a requirement and fate to themselves. Seeing that their own views may be thought but not lived may be enough to jerk their thinking about truth back to reality.

Guinness argues that it is often not until a person is brought face-to-face with the dire implications and emptiness of their view of truth that they are willing to entertain an alternative. Ironically, when an individual or even a nation is at its philosophical and ethical breaking point, is when the opportunity to argue for the alternative is most effective. This opens the door to the positive approach. It also appeals to what the relativist values. With the inability for relativism to produce what the relativist values now in place, the positive approach shows how the objective view of truth genuinely provides what the relativist values. Guinness encourages the reader to consider that while it may seem that darkness has overtaken the individual relativist or a relativistic culture, that darkness may actually be an indicator that a new day is coming.

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

In Guinness’ final chapter, he encourages the reader to be a seeker of truth. As one is seeking objective truth, though, it is important to realize that there are subjective perspectives that do cause people to come to different conclusions about reality. While this is no excuse for seeing things inaccurately, it is an explanation for such and a beginning point to recognize in our own search for truth to guard against. One more thing can keep people from seeing reality as it is.
The biblical worldview holds that by nature, we are not just truth-seekers; we are truth-twisters. It is a sin in our lives that pushes us towards false narratives and rationalizations. Interestingly enough, it is the dual nature of man that explains both the successes and failures of modern and post-modern views of truth. Guinness explains that is it only the biblical worldview that can provide a foundation for not just the pursuit of truth but also how and why such a pursuit can go wrong. He encourages the reader to accept, because of its explanatory power, the biblical worldview of our sinfulness and our need for the Savior, Jesus Christ. Christ is the truth; thus it is in accepting Him that will allow us to truly be “people of truth,” and it is only as true “people of truth” that we can experience real freedom.

Reviewer’s Thoughts

“Time for Truth” was a fascinating read. I have to admit that I had picked up the book a couple of times in the past and (re)started before I was able to make it through this time. The introduction was a little slow, but once I passed that, it picked right up, and I was hooked! I really enjoyed how Guinness took the reader through several events in recent history that have led to the crisis of truth in American culture. I found myself stopping many times to reflect on events in my own lifetime that Guinness described and older events’ effects on what I experience today. The way that Guinness connects modern events with the crisis of truth that he speaks against is what will draw the reader in. This is not merely a theoretical treatise on truth; it is an analysis of events in our lifetimes and a warning of what will come if the West follows in the footsteps of the East regarding the ideas of truth.

Post-modernism has saturated our culture, and its effects are being played out before our eyes and in ways that are so subtle that we may not even recognize it. For anyone who is concerned about modern western culture’s treatment of truth, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is fed up with the claims of “fake news,” this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is tired of seeing politicians change the truth for their own agendas, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with history, this book is highly recommended. For anyone who is concerned with their children’s future, this book is highly recommended. Needless to say, this book is highly recommended for all serious readers and those who are fascinated by politics and modern culture. It will enhance your perspective on what is taking place today and give you not only an explanation for what is taking place but also provide a solution. Go get this book!

Correcting four myths about the history of the Crusades

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Wintery Knight

Here is an interesting article from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Intro:

The verdict seems unanimous. From presidential speeches to role-playing games, the crusades are depicted as a deplorably violent episode in which thuggish Westerners trundled off, unprovoked, to murder and pillage peace-loving, sophisticated Muslims, laying down patterns of outrageous oppression that would be repeated throughout subsequent history. In many corners of the Western world today, this view is too commonplace and apparently obvious even to be challenged.

But unanimity is not a guarantee of accuracy. What everyone “knows” about the crusades may not, in fact, be true. From the many popular notions about the crusades, let us pick four and see if they bear close examination.

The four myths:

Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.
Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.
Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.
Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

Here’s the most obvious thing you should know. The Crusades were defensive actions:

In a.d. 632, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, Spain, France, Italy, and the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica were all Christian territories. Inside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, which was still fully functional in the eastern Mediterranean, orthodox Christianity was the official, and overwhelmingly majority, religion. Outside those boundaries were other large Christian communities—not necessarily orthodox and Catholic, but still Christian. Most of the Christian population of Persia, for example, was Nestorian. Certainly, there were many Christian communities in Arabia.

By a.d. 732, a century later, Christians had lost Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa, Spain, most of Asia Minor, and southern France. Italy and her associated islands were under threat, and the islands would come under Muslim rule in the next century. The Christian communities of Arabia were entirely destroyed in or shortly after 633, when Jews and Christians alike were expelled from the peninsula.6 Those in Persia were under severe pressure. Two-thirds of the formerly Roman Christian world was now ruled by Muslims.

What had happened? Most people actually know the answer, if pressed—though for some reason they do not usually connect the answer with the crusades. The answer is the rise of Islam. Every one of the listed regions was taken, within the space of a hundred years, from Christian control by violence, in the course of military campaigns deliberately designed to expand Muslim territory at the expense of Islam’s neighbors. Nor did this conclude Islam’s program of conquest. The attacks continued, punctuated from time to time by Christian attempts to push back. Charlemagne blocked the Muslim advance in far western Europe in about a.d. 800, but Islamic forces simply shifted their focus and began to island-hop across from North Africa toward Italy and the French coast, attacking the Italian mainland by 837. A confused struggle for control of southern and central Italy continued for the rest of the ninth century and into the tenth. In the hundred years between 850 and 950, Benedictine monks were driven out of ancient monasteries, the Papal States were overrun, and Muslim pirate bases were established along the coast of northern Italy and southern France, from which attacks on the deep inland were launched. Desperate to protect victimized Christians, popes became involved in the tenth and early eleventh centuries in directing the defense of the territory around them.

If you asked me what are the two best books on the Crusades, I would answer God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades by Baylor professor Rodney Stark and The Concise History of the Crusades by Professor Thomas F. Madden. If you get this question a lot from atheists, then I recommend you pick these up. Anything by Rodney Stark is useful for Christians, in fact.

Can We Be Good Without God?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Ryan Leasure

This past weekend, two mass-scaled shootings transpired on American soil. El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio experienced unspeakable carnage. Two men, fueled by hatred for mankind, slaughtered dozens of innocent people in cold blood.

In response, people of all stripes spoke out against these atrocities. Men and women, democrat and republican, Christian and atheist, all condemned these crimes. In other words, the denunciation of these senseless and cowardly acts has been universal.

But doesn’t this universal agreement fly in the face of our relativistic cultural values? “Don’t force your morality on others” suddenly doesn’t sound so appealing in situations like this. Don’t we all want everyone else to adopt our same moral position on murder?

This, of course, raises important questions. Does objective morality exist? That is, were those two men objectively wrong in what they did over the weekend? And if so, where does this agreed-upon morality come from?

Objective Morality?

Relativists argue that there is no such thing as objective morality. Rather, morality is subjective — dependent on individual opinions. So in situations like these mass shootings, the relativist cannot say that the shooters were wrong. If so, that would imply that an objective standard exists that these two individuals missed.

Rather, the relativist can only say they didn’t care for these events. They found them distasteful. “Murder is wrong,” and “rape is evil” are just opinions on par with “pepperoni is better than sausage.”

But isn’t it self-evident that mass murder is in a different category than pizza toppings? The very fact that society has universally condemned these acts ought to tip us off that something more than mere opinion is at work here. When we all cry “foul” in unison, we’re implicitly affirming that “fair” exists.

C. S. Lewis made this argument years ago. He wrote:

[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe to when I called it unjust?¹

What Lewis and so many others have argued is that objective morality exists, and this is most evident when people don’t live up to that moral standard.

If we learn, for example, that a man raped a little girl, brutally murdered her, and dismembered her body, would we say that he committed evil? If yes, then we recognize an objective moral standard exists that was not met. Our senses tell us that acts such as abuse, rape, theft, deceit, murder, etc., all fail to measure up to a standard of some sort.

This moral standard seems so patently obvious; it’s odd when people try to deny it. A quick rule of thumb is that when a certain group can’t condemn the Holocaust as evil, we conclude that their views are absurd. Of course, if those same relativists had been in those concentration camps, they’d drop their relativism and recognize evil for what it is.

Even the most committed relativist will come around if you steal his wallet or spread false rumors about him. Phrases like “that’s not right” or “that’s not fair” will come spewing out faster than you can blink your eye.

Where Does Objective Morality Come from?

The reality of objective morality raises a significant question. Where does it come from? For the naturalists (those that believe only the natural world exists), these objective morals are mere illusory by-products of evolution and social conditioning.

For most naturalists, science is the only begetter of knowledge. But science itself is amoral. Science cannot tell us how things ought to be. It can only tell us how things are. That is, science can tell us how to make chemical weapons, but it cannot tell us whether we should use them.

Objective morals simply cannot derive from something morally neutral like science. And they certainly don’t arise from Darwinian evolution. According to Darwinists, people only do good because it aids in their survival. But if that’s the case, can we really call their actions morally good? Fundamentally, the motivation behind “good” acts is self-serving, and thus not worthy of praise.

Also, doesn’t Darwinism, on the whole, make morality arbitrary? Couldn’t the human race have found rape or killing each other for food acceptable if it would have evolved like other species from the animal kingdom? Sharks do this all the time, but are they immoral?

Darwinists who find this notion uncomfortable typically adopt humanism — the belief that humans are the center of the universe and morality is based on what helps them flourish. But again, isn’t humanism purely arbitrary in a Darwinian world?

Darwin, after all, taught that every living species descended from the same common ancestor in the primordial soup. Thus, humans are simply one small branch on his tree of life. Other branches include crickets, lions, fungus, and every other living species. Why should we think the human branch is the most valuable? Why are we more important than crickets? Doesn’t this make us guilty of speciesism?

Ultimately, atheism’s understanding of morality is purely arbitrary. It simply cannot account for objective morality.

In the end, God is the best explanation for objective morality. God’s very nature grounds morality so that anything done that goes against his character is wrong and/or evil. Furthermore, because God made humans in his image, each person possesses intrinsic value.

Answering the Skeptics’ Objections

Without a doubt, the first objection raised to the claim that objective morality doesn’t exist without God is that atheists do good without believing in God. But this misses the point. Of course, people can still do good things without believing in God. The question is not: do we have to believe in God to do good? Rather, the question is: if God doesn’t exist, is anything objectively good at all? As I’ve argued, moral categories are arbitrary in an atheistic world.

If we acknowledge, however, that the two mass-shooters committed evil, then objective moral categories exist. And if objective moral categories exist, then a transcendental lawgiver is the best explanation.

Which leads to the second objection — the Euthyphro Dilemma. The dilemma goes like this: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? Skeptics raise this objection to put the theist between a rock and a hard place.

For if we say something is good because God wills it, then good is ultimately arbitrary. But if we say God wills something because it’s good, then the objective standard exists beyond God. But the skeptic presents us with a false dilemma here. A third option exists which states God wills something because he is good. That is to say; he is the standard by which we get all moral categories.

Another frequent objection is that we don’t need the Bible to know that we shouldn’t murder or steal. After all, other religious books tell us the same as do most legal codes. But again, this is not the argument theists make.

Nobody’s arguing you need to read the Bible to know right from wrong. Rather, we’re arguing that objective right and wrong don’t exist in a world without a transcendent moral law. But the very fact that every world religion and legal code agree on basic fundamental morals suggests that a moral law exists that transcends the human race.

The Apostle Paul tells us in Romans 2:14-15. He writes, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.”

That is to say; people don’t need the Bible to know right from wrong. God has instilled this moral code in the hearts of all people.

Which raises a final objection. If a moral law exists, why is there so much disagreement on morality? Disagreements certainly exists around issues like abortion and sexuality. But does that imply no right view exists? Of course not. Which is why we strive to make our views the accepted ones. In fact, if culture adopts our views, we’ll say things like our culture is progressing. Progressing toward what? The moral standard we believe to be right.

Be that as it may, the human race generally agrees on several basic points. People have certain rights. We should treat others with respect. Love is better than hate. Honesty is better than deceit. Courage is better than cowardice. And so forth. As C. S. Lewis aptly states:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.²

The universal agreement on the most basic moral categories suggests a transcendent moral law.

The Moral Argument for God

I believe that objective morality is one of the strongest arguments for God’s existence. Perhaps a more helpful way of looking at it would be this syllogism:

If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
Objective morality does exist.
Therefore, God exists.

This argument is logically air tight. If premises 1 and 2 are true, then 3 necessarily follows. I’ve made a case for 1 and 2 in this article. It concludes then that God exists.

So can we be good without God? No, because if he doesn’t exist, nothing objectively good exists either.

Ryan Leasure Holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He currently serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2KJFXnY

August 27, 2019/by Guest

Should Christians Abandon Social Media?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Luke Nix

Introduction

With all of the recent news of various social media platforms purposefully hiding and censoring Christian and politically conservative content in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance,” many people have abandoned Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and other popular social media outlets in protest. While I have been tempted to do the same, because of their relative popularity (compared to more traditional communication media), I do believe that if we abandon these platforms, we will not only limit our audience but encourage the behavior of limiting reasonable content to and stifling intellectual discussion among the users of these platforms. The new generation of consumers prefers social media for their news, media consumption and discussion of various issues, so it cannot be abandoned by those who hold and can defend the truth with gentleness and respect.

The Liberal View of “Tolerance” and “Diversity”

I recently heard Candace Owens interview Lauren Chen about the modern liberal view of “tolerance” and “diversity.” They discuss the deliberate attempt to remove even the slightest (appearance of) disagreement from the public square. This attempted removal is targeting the internet and specifically, social media. If you are considering leaving popular social media platforms (or already have), I encourage you to listen to this discussion in full and consider that removing your voice of reason from today’s public squares may do more harm than good:

Christians Should Master The Media

The new culture primarily consumes image-driven messages, and social media is the primary avenue to get images before this audience. In his book “Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates The Claims of the Gospels,” J. Warner Wallace encourages Christians to not just embrace new media but to master them. Christians must master the content itself, the presentation of the content, and the delivery mechanisms for the content.

Quote from J. Warner Wallace from the book "Cold Case Christianity": "In a culture where image is more important than information, style more important than substance it is not enough to possess the truth. [Christian] case makers must also master the media."

Conclusion

Rather than abandoning popular social media channels, we should embrace them and utilize them to their fullest potential! If a challenge arises that limits our reach, it is not to be met with surrender, but with enthusiasm to reach the goal despite the challenges. I have written several posts and reviewed several books on the importance of discussing political and moral issues in a compassionate yet intellectual manner. I encourage you to read the posts and purchase the recommended books to equip you to “always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have…with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15):

Posts:

Quotes:

Books:

Luke Nix holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer Science and works as a Desktop Support Manager for a local precious metal exchange company in Oklahoma.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2GsTqy5

July 30, 2019/by Guest

Ethical Or Expedient? The True Philosophy Behind Abortion

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Madelyn Wood

An American outcry has erupted recently in response to newly legislated restrictions on abortion in certain states. Outraged, public figures have gone so far as to boycott Georgia, an entire state, in protest. Why have the American people fought so hard against abortion restrictions and pushed so vehemently for full-term, easily accessible abortions for all?

They claim it is a woman’s right to choose, and granted; no one acquiesces to being stripped of their rights. Their opposition, however, claims that fetuses should be protected under the label of human rights as well. At the end of the day, both sides appeal to the greater authority of Human Rights, but whose rights are right?

Before analyzing the touchy, and often even the personal, subject of abortion, we must cover the common ground between both sides. Abortion is defined as the “deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.” Pregnancy is divided into three trimesters: the first spanning weeks one to twelve, the second, weeks thirteen to twenty-seven, and the third, week twenty-eight to birth. Again, both sides appeal to Human Rights as lending weight to their respective arguments.

Aside from these few facts, however, disagreement, and even name-calling or personal attacks, abound. Though the recent public backlash seems to be in response to legislation, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate (these are arguably poorly chosen titles, but for the sake of commonly-used terms, they will be used here) represents a deeper philosophical impasse. First of all, each must answer the question, when does life begin?

Three major theories about the beginning of life are in play. The first, commonly held by pro-lifers but widely dismissed, holds that life begins at conception. The next view claims that life begins when a heartbeat is detected, which occurs around eight weeks; additionally, during week eight, “the embryo becomes a fetus, all structures present in rudimentary form.” (Geneticist Ricki Lewis, Ph.D. on DNA Science Blog, When Does a Human Life Begin? 17 Timepoints) Finally, others hold that when a fetus has a chance of survival outside the womb, around 21 weeks, it is living. Notice that all of these definitions of life indicate life begins before the 22-week mark.

So how does abortion work? There are two main types of abortions: medical and surgical. Medical abortion offers a pill, causing the woman to bleed and lose the embryo or fetus, which would otherwise — had it not been intentional — be considered a miscarriage. Surgical abortion removes the fetus by a vacuum or manually. According to an experienced ex-abortionist, Dr. Anthony Levatino, “A second-trimester D&E abortion is a brutal, inhumane procedure… Let’s just say that they call it dismemberment abortion for a reason.” (Fox Host at Point of Tears as Former Abortionist Describes 2nd-Trimester Abortion, CNS News)

~D&E Abortion Process~

Purposeful termination of a human life has a name: killing. According to all three of the above definitions of life, termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester is killing an innocent human being. To deny that is to deny that the fully-formed fetus, with a heartbeat and even the ability to feel pain, is a person. Yet somehow, seven states offer third-trimester abortions, and over 25 states offer second-trimester abortions. As Levatino explains so clearly, these babies are being dismembered, and their body parts reassembled on a doctor’s tray; simply because they are surrounded by amniotic fluid and a political dispute, they are not protected by this great authority we call human rights. It’s inhumane. It’s unacceptable.

We live in a society where soldiers who sacrifice their lives for their country and its people are applauded as heroes; those same hands applaud women who sacrifice their children’s lives for personal convenience. How does that happen? At best, our culture is confused about its values. At worst, it’s decisive about its values and chooses to ignore them.

Modern Western culture values expedience over ethics. Such moral depravity is not limited to an abortion problem. In fact, it affects everyone. When one lies about a colleague to gain a promotion, for instance, expedience is valued over ethics. The fact that it is accepted, even celebrated, to terminate second- and third-trimester pregnancies, and with them, innocent children points to the ethical corrosion of an entire society. It screams through a megaphone, “I’m more important than you! My happiness, convenience, comfort, etc. are more important than the next person’s.” In some cases, even more, important than the next person’s life.

Such a mindset actually implicates all of us. After all, the lying coworker subscribes to the same philosophy as the aborting mother. This truth should change the way we hold pro-life vs. pro-choice conversations. First of all, pro-choice supporters and activists must face the “when does life begin?” question head-on; otherwise, they are blindly endorsing killing, and if they aren’t, they need to prove it. It would also benefit them to appeal to statistics and reason rather than appeals to emotion or petty personal attacks.

Secondly, pro-lifers must be just that: pro-life. The other side has made it explicitly clear that pro-lifers are often hypocrites, supporting fetuses in the womb but neglecting them afterward. Granted, people cannot be perfect, but they can be consistent. They must also support the lives of mothers who feel they want or need an abortion; many of them have suffered domestic or sexual violence, or they are entrapped in poverty, or they feel unsupported and unprepared for a child. Most importantly, if anyone dares advocate for the lives of the unborn, they must root out the expedience-over-ethics ideology from their own lives– the philosophy that says personal convenience is more important than what is right.

Remember, both sides of this argument feel they are standing up for human rights: pro-choice, for a woman’s right to choose abortion, and pro-life, for a baby’s right to live. Because these sides are opposed to one another, they often fall prey to the either-or myth. Human rights is a wide umbrella, wide enough for both sides to take shelter from the rain of injustice. In other words, a child’s right to live and a woman’s right to health care can coexist– so long as the woman does not encroach upon, or end, the life of another.

The only way to remedy the injustice of abortion is to protect life at all stages and to fight against a mentality which prefers oneself over others. As George Orwell put it when describing injustice in his allegorical satire, Animal Farm,

“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

In this clear, satirical wording, it is easy to agree that inequality is wrong. But can we adopt this mentality when it applies to the abortion debate?

All lives are equally valuable: no, a woman does not have the right to kill her child at any stage of its life. Likewise, all lives are equally valuable: no, it is not acceptable to dismiss or attack someone because their opinions differ from your own. All lives are equally valuable. A philosophical reform which values the sanctity of all human lives and respects human rights is the only hope to protect the unborn and overcome our selfishness-saturated society.

Madelyn Wood loves Jesus and gets excited about sharing the reality of Him with other people. Because she grew up in split families with opposing worldviews, she became a skeptic from a young age. When one of those worldviews taught her that Jesus was a made-up, mythical character, she decided to investigate for herself. After spending about one and a half years researching the person of Jesus, God revealed the real Jesus to her via apologetics and the Holy Spirit. Madelyn is so thankful that God is allowing her to use her passion for writing to impact other seekers through apologetics.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2XMeF8L

July 23, 2019/by Guest

When C.S. Lewis Warned Us About Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Bob Perry

Unfortunately, everybody has heard about Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. They were both born with eerily similar and rare genetic disorders. They both died before they reached age two. Sadly, those kinds of things happen too often. But neither of them are the reason you’ve heard of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. You’ve heard of them because they became icons for the inherent dangers of a state-controlled health care system. C. S. Lewis warned us about this more than 70 years ago.

Charlie Gard

Charlie Gard was born in England on August 4, 2016, with an exceptionally rare genetic disorder. His prognosis was not good, but his parents found a hospital in the U.S. that agreed to offer an experimental treatment for the disease. They even raised the 1.3 million Pounds (about $1.74 million) required for the treatment. But the hospital where Charlie was born, and the grossly misnamed European High Court of “Human Rights” (ECHR), would not allow him to go receive the treatment. They didn’t want his case to set a precedent. Charlie Gard died on July 26, 2017.

Alfie Evans

In a more recent but similar story, Alfie Evans was born in England on May 9, 2016. Shortly thereafter, Alfie was diagnosed with another rare degenerative genetic disease. Once again, the prognosis was dire, but Alfie’s parents arranged for their son to be treated at a hospital in Italy. Again, the British hospital refused to allow him to go. The case was appealed to the same ECHR (Family Division) and got the same response. Alfie died on April 28, 2018.

Remember, the families of both of these children were not allowed to seek treatments outside the state-controlled health care system, Britain’s National Health Service. The power of a state bureaucracy trumped the wishes of the family, even when the family had raised the money for treatments on their own.

The Prescience of C. S. Lewis

Many people are unaware that C. S. Lewis wrote a three-book science fiction series called The Space Trilogy. The third installment of that series was titled, That Hideous Strength. In that book, the main character (Mark Studdock) was seduced to corruption by the promise of joining the inner ring of a powerful English society. It was an organization of men who used questionable tactics to establish an “efficient” state bureaucracy run by controllers who saw themselves as being a cut above the rest of the world. The name of the society Mark yearned to join was the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments — N.I.C.E. Lewis described N.I.C.E. as:

the first fruits of that constructive fusion between state and laboratory on which so many thoughtful people base their hopes for a better world. It was to be free from almost all the tiresome restraints… which have hitherto hampered research in this country. It was also largely free from the restraints of economy…

This was a fictional foreshadowing of what Lewis feared would become a socio-political reality. Some of his reviewers begged to differ. At the time, the New York Times described That Hideous Strength as “superlatively nonsensical excitement, challenging implications,” while Time magazine called it a “well-written, fast-paced satirical fantasy.” That was in 1946.

Fast forward to 2009. Writing in National Review on September 21, 2009, John C. Goodman reported on the contemporary Britain’s National Health Commission:

“which currently recommends against any treatment that costs more than $45,000 to save a year of life. Because of [the commission], British cancer patients are denied access to drugs that are routinely available in the U.S. and on the European continent, and thousands die prematurely.”

The name of the commission he is talking about is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The British people refer to it by the more commonly recognized acronym: N.I.C.E.

I wish I could make this stuff up. In fact, when I read this story, I assumed that Mr. Goodman had made it up. He hadn’t. But the creepy stuff doesn’t stop there.

N.I.C.E. Roots of a State-Controlled Health Care System

Mr. Goodman’s story was about the fact that some American politicians thought N.I.C.E. was a great model to use in America. Then Senator Tom Daschle said so in his book, Critical: What We Can Do About The Health-Care Crisis.

Ten years later, the relentless pursuit of state-controlled health care systems continues. And make no mistake. Even though the issue is currently on the back burner of American politics, it won’t stay there for long. Politicians of both parties will revivify it. They will tout a better system. There will be promises of no “death panels.” They will sell it as a more economically efficient system.

Your Children Are Not Your Own

I am reminded of the late Senator Phil Gramm. During hearings about education reform in the 1990s, he was bantering with a bureaucrat who was defending government control. Gramm stated that his policies were based on the fact that “I care more about my children than you do.”

The bureaucrat responded, “No, you don’t.”

To which Gramm replied, “Okay, What are their names?”

The State Has No Moral Conscience

Senator Gramm’s pithy response illuminates the obvious. No government bureaucrat cares more about your family than you do. And the implications of that are inevitable. Behind all the N.I.C.E. talk you hear there will be budget constraints and bureaucrats tasked with keeping them. There will be medical review boards and “human rights” courts happy to enforce them. The state will decide which persons are worthy of living. And the state will replace your family and doctor as the moral authority for the decision.

But the state has no moral accountability or conscience. The state seeks only to be efficient. And when the time comes, you will have no say in the matter. Some bureaucrat will be responsible for deciding who gets what treatment.

Someone like Mark Studdock.

That is a hideous strength for anyone to wield. Just ask the parents of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans.

Bob Perry is a Christian apologetics writer, teacher, and speaker who blogs about Christianity and the culture at: truehorizon.org. He is a Contributing Writer for the Christian Research Journal, and has also been published in Touchstone, and Salvo. Bob is a professional aviator with 37 years of military and commercial flying experience. He has a B.S., Aerospace Engineering from the U. S. Naval Academy, and a M.A., Christian Apologetics from Biola University. He has been married to his high school sweetheart since 1985. They have five grown sons.

Original Blog Source:http://bit.ly/2JSWlm2

May 19, 2019/by Guest

The Kalam Cosmological Argument NOT Debunked

2. Does God Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics

By Evan Minton

I discovered a YouTuber called “Rationality Rules” very recently. One of his many videos is “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Debunked – (First Cause Argument Refuted)” which you can watch here. One of my patrons brought this video to my attention and requested that I respond to it, so here we go.

For the uninitiated, The Kalam Cosmological Argument is formulated as follows:

1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2: The universe began to exist.

3: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Let’s look at each of Rationality Rules’ rebuttals.

Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism

Rationality Rules (RR) says “Even if the Cosmological Argument were accepted in its entirely, all it would prove is that there was a cause of the universe, and that’s it. It doesn’t even suggest, let alone prove that this cause was a being, and it certainly doesn’t suggest that that cause was a being that is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, personal and moral. That is one hell of a leap. Hence, even if accepted, the argument doesn’t even remotely support theism.”

I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. Has RR even paid the slightest bit attention to apologists’ defenses of The Cosmological Argument? This is patently false. Given that everything that has a beginning has something that caused it to come into being, and since Big Bang cosmology, the second law of thermodynamics, and the two arguments against actual infinites establish that the universe came into being out of nothing a finite time ago, it follows that a cause transcendent to matter, energy, space, and time must have caused matter, energy, space, and time (i.e the universe) to come into existence. Now, granted, the syllogism doesn’t define this cause as “God”. It only asserts “Therefore, the universe has a cause”. However, in every defense of The Kalam Cosmological Argument I’ve ever heard given, this is not where the argument stops. Once it is established that the universe a transcendent cause, the apologist (William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, Myself) do a conceptual analysis of what it means to be a cause of the universe. The conceptual analysis part of the argument is being totally ignored by RR.

When you do a conceptual analysis of what attributes or properties the universe’s cause must have, you do indeed end up with a being heavily resembling God.

The cause must be

Spaceless – Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be a spatial being. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence.

Timeless – Since time did not exist until The Big Bang, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be a timeless being.

Immaterial – The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.

Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) – Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.

Supernatural – “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”

Uncaused – Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.

Personal – This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning. Two other arguments for the personhood of the universe’s cause can be given, and I’ve unpacked these in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity available on Amazon.com in both paperback and Kindle.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause, given that the universe began to exist, if follows that the universe has a cause of its existence. The cause of the universe must be a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, supernatural, uncaused, personal Creator.

This being that is demonstrated to exist by this argument is consistent with The Christian God. The Bible describes God as spaceless (see 1 Kings 8:27, 2 Chronicles 2:6), timeless (1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2), immaterial (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16), powerful (Psalm 62:11-12, Job 9:14, Matthew 19:26), uncaused (Psalm 90:2, Isaiah 57:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, Revelation 1:8), supernatural, and is a personal being (John 1:12, James 4:8). Moreover, The Bible credits Him with being the Creator of all physical reality (John 1:1-3).

Additionally, as I point out in my book The Case For The One True God: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Historical Case For The God Of Christianity a study of comparative religions demonstrates that only 4 religions are consistent with the Cosmological argument’s conclusion: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (that’s why Ghazali defended it), and Deism. All other religions involve either an eternal cosmos that have God or gods bringing order out of the eternally existing matter, energy, space and time, or else their god is the universe itself (pantheism). Therefore, if you’re picking a view about God based on the cosmological argument alone, your list of options consistent with the evidence is limited to just 4 options, Christianity being among them. Only the Abrahamic religions (and Deism) teach that a God like the one described above brought all physical reality into existence from nothing.

Rationality Rules complains that the argument doesn’t demonstrate the omniscience, omnipresence, or the moral character of the universe’s cause, but the argument was never designed to get those qualities. Richard Dawkins made this same complaint about the argument. Dawkins said it like this “Even if we allow the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and giving it a name, there is absolutely no reason to endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving sins and reading innermost thoughts.”[1] and Dr. William Lane Craig responded to it thusly:

“Apart from the opening slur, this is an amazingly concessionary statement! Dawkins doesn’t dispute that the argument successfully proves the existence of an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful personal Creator of the universe. He merely complains that this cause hasn’t also been shown to be omnipotent, omniscient, good, creative of design, listening to prayers, forgiving sins, and reading innermost thoughts. So what? The argument isn’t intended to prove those things. It would be a bizarre form of atheism, indeed an atheism not worth the name, which admitted that there exists an uncaused, beginningless, changeless, timeless, immaterial, spaceless, unimaginably powerful, personal Creator of the universe who may (for all we know) also possess the properties listed by Dawkins. So we needn’t call the personal Creator of the universe “God” if Dawkins finds this unhelpful or misleading. But the point remains that such a being as described by this argument must exist”[2]

This is just a pitiful objection to The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause.

I facepalmed even harder at this objection than I did the previous one. Rationality Rules said “A second problem that even we accepted the argument. It wouldn’t prove that the universe itself was without a cause. Or in another words, it wouldn’t prove that first cause existed, which for a first cause argument is pretty damn ridiculous. To be fair, the proponents of this argument do indeed offer additional arguments in an attempt to assert that the cause of the universe must be without a cause. But the point that I’m trying to make here and now is that The Kalam Cosmological Argument, by itself, is pretty damn trivial. And hence, the proponents of this argument almost always employ additional arguments to reach their conclusions including the likes of Craig”

There are good reasons given as to why the cause of the universe must be uncaused. I’ve given one of them above. I wrote “Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.” Another reason is that if you do not allow for an uncreated Creator, if you insist that God must have a Creator, you get thrown into an infinite regression. For God to come into being, His creator must have come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and before that creator could come into being, the creator before him had to come into being, and so on back into infinity. No creator could ever come into being because there would always have to be a creator before him to bring him into being. In fact, no creator in the entire infinite past series of creators could ever come into being because each would have to be preceded by a previously created creator. And since no creator could ever come into being, the specific creator that brought our universe into existence couldn’t have come into being. But obviously, here we are. This suggests that there wasn’t an infinite regression of creators begetting creators. But if there was no infinite regression of creators begetting creators, then that logically brings us to an uncreated Creator, a Creator without beginning.

Even Rationality Rules admits that Kalam proponents back up the assertion that the cause is uncaused by arguments, as you can see in the quotation above. However, he doesn’t dispute the arguments. He doesn’t even say what the arguments are. He seems to think that merely having to bolster the conclusion “the universe had a cause” with additional arguments is an invalid move. But why think a thing like that? Yes, the syllogism by itself only gets you to “The universe had a cause”, but why take Christian Apologists to task for unpacking the implications of that conclusion with additional arguments?

The question RR should be asking is not whether additional arguments are needed, but whether the additional arguments given are good. RR’s objection is pretty damn trivial.

Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation

Rationality Rules indicts The Kalam Cosmological Argument for committing the fallacy of equivocation. What is the fallacy of equivocation? The fallacy of equivocation is when an argument uses the exact same word, but employs two different definitions of the word. It would be like if someone argued “God made everything. Everything is made in China. Therefore, God is Chinese”. The word being equivocated on here is the word “everything”. In the first premise, it means literally everything that exists, whereas, in premise 2, it only refers to everything that American consumers purchase.

Rationality Rules says that in the second premise, what we mean by the term “Universe” is the scientific definition of universe (i.e all matter, energy, space, and time), whereas in the conclusion, we employ the colloquial usage of the term “Universe”, meaning literally everything that ever was, is, and ever will be. Thus, RR says that steps 2 and 3 of the argument employ the same words with different meanings.

This objection is just as underwhelming as the previous two. For one thing, why isn’t “all matter, energy, space, and time) not synonymous with “everything that ever was, is, or will be”? Perhaps RR is assuming The Mother Universe theory whereby The Big Bang was not the absolute origin of all material objects, but only the birth of one of many “baby” universes” that come into being inside of a much wider Mother Universe. In that case, the origin of our universe would indeed not be “everything that ever was, is, or will be”.

But as I argue in my blog posts “Does The Multi-Verse Explain Away The Need For A Creator?” and “Is The Universe A Computer Simulation?” not to mention chapter 1 of The Case For The One True God, this Mother Multiverse scenario cannot be extended into past eternity. The Borde-Guth-Velinken Theorem, as well as the impossibility of traversing actual infinites, bring us to an absolute beginning of literally everything at some point, whether that be the beginning of our universe, The Mother Universe, The Grandmother Universe, or whatever.

This leads to my next point; we do mean literally everything in both steps 2 and 3. We mean all matter, energy, space, and time that ever was, is or will be in both steps 2 and 3. Now, RR can dispute whether premise 2 is true, but if I, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel, Frank Turek, Hugh Ross, etc. mean literally everything in both steps, then a charge of the fallacy of equivocation cannot stand. We mean the same thing by “universe” in both steps 2 and 3.

Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing

RR says “And this brings us comfortably to another critical flaw with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It asserts that something can indeed come from nothing – a concept in philosophy known as Creatio Ex Nihilo (creation out of nothing), when this has never been demonstrated to occur. In fact, to the contrary, everything we know about cause and effect overwhelmingly and unanimously tells us that when a new thing is created it is due to the rearrangement of energy and matter that already existed… that is, everything is the result of Creatio Ex Materia (creation out of material).”

Another underwhelming objection. Before I give my response, let me inform my readers that I distinguish causes via Aristotelian Causation. The ancient philosopher Aristotle recognized that there are different types of causes. A “material cause” is the stuff out of which something is made. For example, a chair’s material cause is the wood gathered from chopped down trees. An efficient cause of the chair would be the carpenter who fashioned the chair from the wood. Another type of cause Aristotle identified was Final Causality. This is the teleology, the purpose or end goal of bringing something into being. In the example of the chair, the final cause would be the purpose of sitting. But for this discussion, only efficient and material causes need to be distinguished.

The objection here is that the inductive evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that things can come into being without a material cause. The conclusion of The Kalam Cosmological Argument is that the universe came into being via an efficient cause (God), but with no material cause. God didn’t use previously existing material to manufacture the universe.

Now, I would agree that our experience shows us that whenever something comes into being, it had a material cause as well as an efficient cause, thus rendering us with as much inductive evidence for material causation, but this inductive evidence can be overridden if we have powerful evidence that all physical reality came into being out of nothing a finite time ago. The Big Bang demonstrates just that. To look at the evidence, see my blog posts “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” and “Is The Big Bang The Origin Of The Universe?”

As I explain in the above blog posts, we do in fact have powerful scientific evidence as well as philosophical arguments which show us that the whole of physical reality (space, time, matter, and energy) had an absolute beginning.

Objection 5: Special Pleading Fallacy

RR says that Kalam proponents commit the special pleading fallacy. What is that? The Special Pleading Fallacy occurs whenever you make an exception to an established rule without justification. RR says “they [Kalam proponents] assert that the cause of the universe didn’t begin to exist and therefore it didn’t have a cause, without adequately justifying why this cause is an exception.”

My face is hurting from all the facepalming I’ve been doing throughout watching this dude’s videos. First of all, there’s no exception to even be made! The argument is that “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” The Kalam proponent would only be special pleading if he or she said that God began to exist, but made him the exception by saying he came into being uncaused. However, all proponents of The Kalam Cosmological Argument hold that (A) God is uncaused, uncreated. And (B) we give arguments for that. I’ve given arguments for that above.

Objection 6: Argument From Ignorance

Of course. The overused “God Of The Gaps” objection. This is not based on what we don’t know. It’s based on what we do know. As I explained in subheader 1, the cause of the universe must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, uncaused, and personal. And I didn’t just arbitrarily assign these attribute’s to the universe’s cause, I gave positive arguments for why the universe’s cause must have these attributes. I, nor has any proponent of this argument ever said, “Scientists can’t explain how the universe came into being, so it must be God” or anything of that sort. One must suppose that atheists continue to illegitimately accuse the Kalam of committing this fallacy because they just don’t pay attention when it is explained to them. If you keep falling asleep in class, it’s no surprise that you don’t know what you’re talking about when it’s time to do your essay.

As for being the specific God I believe in, I’d recommend a look at The Case For The One True God. I admit that The Kalam doesn’t get you to the uniquely Christian conception of God, but it does get you to a conception of God that doesn’t match the majority of the ones most religions out there. Abrahamic religions and Deism are consistent with this argument, but polytheistic, animistic, and pantheistic religions are not. And atheism certainly is not consistent with the argument’s conclusion.

Conclusion

When my patron Kevin Walker, asked me to make a response to this video, I was actually bracing myself for some pretty hard-hitting rebuttals, if not refutations. I was like “Boy, I hope I can handle these responses.” I never expected the pitiful, flimsy objections RR put forth.

Notes

[1] Richard Dawkins, “The God Delusion” p. 158.

[2] William Lane Craig, “Deconstructing New Atheist Objections To The Arguments For God,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/videos/short-videos/deconstructing-new-atheist-objections-to-the-arguments-for-god/

Evan Minton is a Christian Apologist and blogger at Cerebral Faith (www.cerebralfaith.blogspot.com). He is the author of “Inference to The One True God” and “A Hellacious Doctrine.” He has engaged in several debates which can be viewed on Cerebral Faith’s “My Debates” section. Mr. Minton lives in South Carolina, USA.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2VrWpAg

May 12, 2019/by Guest

Desire and God: Should I Always Do What I Feel?

Legislating Morality, Culture & Politics, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Robby Hall

The debate over homosexual behavior has taken many surprising turns. The national debate has involved a Fast Food franchise and a maker of Duck Calls. It has involved extremes from Fred Phelps and his clan to groups like GLAAD comparing the whole thing to the civil rights movement of the mid-20th century.

What is missing from all of this is honest discourse. And what is missing from those who tell us that what they are doing is ok is “why it’s ok?”.

We hear arguments like:

“I was born this way.”
“My Love is real.”
“Why would I choose to be gay?”

So, for the Christian who believes that God teaches homosexual behavior is sin and that those who practice this need repentance and forgiveness, the message they give to LGBTQ people is very important.

Ultimately, the discussion boils down to desire. It’s at this point that the discussion breaks down most often because neither side really understands their desires, their position as a human being in a fallen world, and how God views all of humanity.

So let’s take a look at desire. Most homosexuals would say that they desire romantic/sexual relationships with those of the same sex and that they did not choose these desires any more than a heterosexual chooses their desires for opposite-sex relationships. I believe this is true, but not for the reasons most homosexuals or Christians believe. [though, I believe these homosexual desires developed at an early age rather than a person being born with them “out of the box”]

I do not believe God created people with homosexual desires. Homosexual desires are a result of the fallen, sinful state every person finds themselves in. It’s no different than my desire to sleep with multiple women or someone’s desire to get as drunk as they can, etc. Desire is not the benchmark for God’s holiness or His creation. People desire many things – Money, Sex, Power. All of our sinful actions can be traced back to a desire. As a Christian, we must see ourselves before our salvation. The bible says we were “enemies of God.” Enemies. At our hearts, we were evil. So it should not be surprising that people have sinful desires.

A big question here is “how do I know my desires are sinful?”. The only real answer to that is to put it up against God’s standards. We know from Romans 1 that homosexual behavior is sinful. Now, notice that I said homosexual behavior. Having a desire and entertaining that desire are two different things. Simply being attracted to the same sex is not sinful in itself [that is, that the desire exists] unless you were to dwell on such thoughts [as Jesus says, “if a man lusts in his heart…]. This is an important distinction for a Christian to make as he/she approaches those in the LGBTQ community in conversation about this issue. It is no more sinful than being tempted. Jesus was tempted in all things but did not sin.

Now, instantly, someone will say “well, Jesus never said homosexual behavior was a sin!”. Well, what did Jesus say? In Matthew 19, the Pharisees asked Jesus about the lawfulness of divorce. His response tells us many things about the Old Testament:

“He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning, it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Here, Jesus not only affirms the OT, but He also tells us what God’s design for marriage is. Held up against this standard, the only holy marital desire is that of a heterosexual nature. We must ask ourselves if we should give in to any desire we have? If I have a desire for lying, should I lie and not be held accountable because I was born that way? What about theft? We could list many more, but you understand the point.

So, when someone says they can’t help the way they feel, they are correct. Only the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a result of salvation through faith and repentance can change desires. But, desire is not an excuse for sin. And it may be that the desire itself does not change, so the Christian must then choose to remain pure and, perhaps, unmarried.

When we as Christians see our own selfish desires that are to be crucified daily, we can understand a homosexual’s position and can offer understanding. Truth with gentleness and respect.

And for those in the LGBTQ community, understand that God does love you just as you are. But you are in no different a position than I or anyone else. Salvation comes by grace through faith in Christ alone. And repentance leads to faith.

Be prepared to have honest conversations. Discard bumper sticker slogans. Let go of the Us vs. Them mentality.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2UUQ8bn

May 5, 2019/by Guest

An Unlikely Team & A Balanced Report

Abortion & Breast Cancer

Abortion & Pre-term Birth

Abortion & Adverse Psychological Effects

The Moral Imperative of Informed Consent

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Book Introduction: But Not Through Me

Chapter 1: Back to The Moral Stone Age

Chapter 2: We’re All Spinmeisters Now

Chapter 3: The West Versus Itself

Chapter 4: Differences Make A Difference

Chapter 5: Turning The Tables

Chapter 6: On Record Against Ourselves

Reviewer’s Thoughts

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Objective Morality?

Where Does Objective Morality Come from?

Answering the Skeptics’ Objections

The Moral Argument for God

Charlie Gard

Alfie Evans

The Prescience of C. S. Lewis

N.I.C.E. Roots of a State-Controlled Health Care System

Your Children Are Not Your Own

The State Has No Moral Conscience

Objection 1: The Argument Doesn’t Support Theism

Objection 2: It Doesn’t Prove The Universe’s Cause Was The First Cause.

Objection 3: It Commits The Fallacy Of Equivocation

Objection 4: Nothing Has Ever Been Demonstrated To Come Into Being From Nothing

Objection 5: Special Pleading Fallacy

Objection 6: Argument From Ignorance

Conclusion