Moot The Point

What does that even mean?  I don’t know.

I do know that the atheism/theism debate has dominated this blog recently.   And I for one am wholly opposed.  However this puts me in the awkward position of censuring myself as I am the post of said offensive posts.

Here’s the point.  For about 5 months I’ve been holed up in the an ongoing debate with an atheist.  He was later joined by an agnostic (I think agnosticism is worse but I can’t be sure) for a perfect storm of unresolved debate between the three of us.  On a side note I’ve convinced both of them to recant their non-belief and become missionaries in Papua New Guinea.   They started a ministry called  “Former Atheists Rescue Team” or F.A.R.T. for short.  Oddly, they’ve found fund-raising particularly difficult, potential donors aren’t taking them seriously and we can’t quite figure out the problem.

Either way all in all F.A.R.T. is doing a great work.  There ministry has been explosive.  Which has caused a mushroom cloud of good-will and cheer to spread to all men in the region.  If you are interested, donating to the cause is easy.  You can simply show your solidarity with a small donation of $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 dollars.  As a token of our gratitude we’ll send some beautifully cut Indonesian cheese.  It’s the best.

So to make a short story long, I just wanted to say that we’ve gotten away from our roots here at “Moot the Point”.  This blog always has, and always will be, about striving for the status quo.  I regret to confess that I’ve been lax in that pursuit.  Rather than mundane and common, we’ve been articulate, persuasive and passionate.  Well no more!  Mediocrity is not just our motto it’s our way of life.  So the next time something on this blog makes a difference, leave a comment and remind me what it’s all about.  We’re regularly rocketing to lower plateaus!

More often than not in the discussion of the existence of God someone inevitably brings up the question - “If God is real why does he let people do bad stuff?” While this is a simplistic question that’s been answered countless times it put the theist on the defensive. A better (and certainly more interesting) question is - If God doesn’t exist why is there evil?

If God were absolutely removed from the picture it would probably not mean that everyone would automatically join the KKK or pillage their neighborhoods. Likewise, I have no doubt that Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins have contributed to charity or helped little old ladies cross streets.

The theist and the atheist agree that humanity experiences a sense of morality distinct from belief in God. One could argue that this is a result of strictly naturalistic means such as social norms or evolutionary biology. These are the stock answers from a naturalist.

But the problem is not just an innate sense of morality but, conversely an innate sense of immortality. While we have lofty moral goals such as altruism and peace we more regularly observe in human nature exploitation, greed and rage. (And no doubt the list of human failures could be much longer.)

So, the fact that I have within me two distinct and clear voices presents an interesting dilemma: Which is a result of social norms and evolutionary biology? If the answer is both, then which is the “right” one to choose? Or what makes choosing the other “wrong”?

If the answer is, “only the good is a result of naturalism” then where did the other come from?

If atheism can only point to instinct developed through evolution for moral guidance then I have a problem because those instincts are at war.

Furthermore, how is it irrational or wrong for someone to dismiss social conventions and do what they want? The atheist has no way to say that they’re wrong for doing so. In fact the atheist is left with nothing but evolution to explain why someone would cast off the social norms that are supposed to have guided naturalistic morality. So evolution makes the retro-assumption that people should be moral and then has nothing to say about those who choose not to be normal according to naturalistic standards. Quite a quandary.

Theism explains the dual nature of our morality and clearly upholds one and discourages the other. While the believer may fall short on a regular basis but yet the ideal, and the means to reach the ideal, remain. I can get back up dust myself off and be a better person.

In a world without God the existence of those ideals living side by side with human failure seems pointless. Evolution has granted us conflicting instincts and often the much stronger one is precisely the one we should be ignoring.

All in all evil is really more of a problem for an atheist than a believer

In the movie “Fracture” a Ryan Gosling portrays a prosecutor that is convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt of a defendant’s guilt. The problem is that there’s no evidence that will legally stand up that proves that guilt. Gosling is enticed by a detective to use planted evidence in order to ensure a conviction. If Gosling doesn’t use the planted evidence, he loses the case and the antagonist (Anthony Hopkins) goes free. If he does, he’s sacrificed his personal integrity and manipulated the legal system but ensures that the bad guy pays for his crimes. The movie, in part, wrestles with this moral dilemma - Is it OK to deceitfully manipulate the evidence to convince someone of the truth? I think this is a great question that has to be posed in the ID/Evolution debate.

I can say from personal experience that Christians have been quite guilty of providing completely false evidence to bolster what they believe in an ultimately true claim. There are endless e-mails that circulate that serve as evidence of this. The “Missing Day”, the “man who was swallowed by a whale and lived”, “Darwin’s deathbed confession” These and other equally erroneous pieces of evidence are used in the Christians arsenal to move faith from beyond the shadows of doubt into the light of empirical evidence.  The problem is that they’re patently false and those that propagate them are either deceitful or ignorant, neither of which is a particularly confidence-inspiring trait to be found in a Christian.  If anything they ultimately serve to weaken rather than bolster the faith.

My question is this - Has the same thing happened in the evolution debate?  In a zealous desire to see the what is considered an unassailable truth (evolution) has deceit been used in conjunction with the ignorance of those being propagated?

If you’re steeped in evolution and it’s defense you’ll cringe at the mention of the name I’m about to write, but I think it’s a fair target for such a discussion.  The drawings by Earnest Haeckel of developing embryo’s seem like a clear example of such a deceit. Haeckel drew his infamous embryo’s in 1874. Astonishingly, despite the fact that they were proven erronous and dismissed by Haeckel’s contemporaries within a few short years, they’ve continued to show up in textbooks published as late as 2004!

Even in 2000 Stephan Jay Gould, certainly no friend of Intelligent Design, noted his disapproval of the perpetuation of Haeckel’s drawings used in textbooks. Gould mentioned that it was possible that the textbook writers were “probably quite unaware of their noted inaccuracies and outright falsifications”. This may be even more disturbing. It means that either these drawings are used with the full knowledge of their fraudulence or they’re being used ignorantly. Either way it doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Haeckel’s embreyo’s are by no means the only misleading images being used to prop up evolution. Dr. Well’s in his book “Icon’s of Evolution” list a number of false and misleading images.

• a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth’s primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;
• the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from fossil and molecular evidence;
• similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg, and a human hand that point to their origin in a common ancestor;
• fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;

While Haeckel and others may be dismissed by the scientific establishment they’re still being used in many current textbooks. If we truly want the best current information why are these images still being used? Doesn’t it undermine the cloak of impenatrable and unbiased science that seems to surround the discussion of evolution?

Furthermore the perpetuation of these images serves as a reminder that deceit can be passed off as evidence, even to those who should know better, even for decades. How are we to know that many of the “commonly held” facts about evolution that are offered today are true? I’m not advocating being overly skeptical of every and all claims but a quick, “everyone know this is true” from a scientist in a lab coat is no longer good enough. If we are to believe we need good, clear and obviously true, evidence.

This is not an attack on evolution itself but upon the way evolution is propagated.  I think it’s fair to expect clarity and truth (from both sides) in the discussion of such a subject.  It’s fair to point out it’s flaws and strengths.  It’s not fair to plant evidence and hope nobody notices or to be offended when the falsehood is pointed out.  I’m just as offended by the ridiculous e-mails of modern Jonah’s and NASA finding a missing day as I am with Haeckel and his drawings.  Extraordinary claims require proof that is above suspicion.

Worshiping at the feet of naturalism.

If evolution is defined broadly enough there’s little doubt it occurred, and no one really argues it’s existence.  But with evolution we’re not simply talking about a variety of beetles or the length of beaks on finches. There’s is a great deal more to the Design/Evolution debate than meets the carefully cultivated caricature of the creationist. (How’s that for unintentional alliteration?)

If evolution simply means - “evolution of a sort has been known to occur (i.e. finch beaks, and pepper moths) and that natural selection has an observable effect upon the distribution of characteristics within a population” then there’s nothing to dispute or argue.  We can easily distinguish “macro” and “micro” “evolution”, and they should be distinguished, in fact the word evolution should be reserve specifically for changes of the micro-variety and another words should be coined to described mutations of the macro sort.  Calling them both “evolution” makes it seem like the vast chasm between these ideas is much smaller than it really is.The distinguishing claim of evolution as it’s popularly understood is that not just limited to observable changes occur in within a species but that we can extrapolate from that to a theory of how moths, trees and finches came into existence at all.

The problem then is that we should reasonably expect the evidence to support these assumptions clearly, even overwhelmingly. And it should be clearly demonstrated in experiments and fossil records.

Science cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection. In fact the fossil record is so grossly unhelpful that all the major steps in the process must be assumed to have occurred within it’s gaps.

Evolution is an extraordinary claim and thus requires extrodinary evidence.

I have no problem with theory - but I do take issue with dogma disguised as rational science. Thus we have to separate science from philosophical naturalism.

When serious challenges are leveled at the feet of orthodox evolution a wink and a “cough” aren’t enough to dismiss it.

Irreducibly complex organisms, huge holes in the fossil record and a failure to demonstrate random mutation in the creation of complex life are serious and potentially lethal challenges.

The only way they are currently dismissed is through a dogmatic and, dare I say, occasionally rabid adherence to the religion that worships at the feet of naturalism. It’s fine to believe these things but it’s not OK to say they are more than a belief system.

Let me sum up by saying that none of this by itself means that one must assume that life is the result of intelligence. We just have to be open to the idea that maybe the theory is not as open and shut as we’d like people to believe.

There was a time when organized religion was the system of thought that could nudge it’s buddies and laugh at “crazy old Galileo” but I think it’s demonstratable that to a similar degree philosophical naturalism disguised as evolution has taken it’s place and know is nudging and laughing at serious questions that are lodged against it’s beliefs. The challenges aren’t so ridiculous (nor have they been adequately answered) that naturalism can continue to get away with such a flippant dismissal without raising questions of it’s own validity.

I’m taking a page out of the play-book on another blog that’s led to some fascinating discussions.  I thought it might be interesting to turn the tables so to speak and see if an age old dilemma can be resolved in a different way.

Most dictionaries define athiesm as a positive denial of the existence of God.

However my experience has been that atheist’s often establish their beliefs by pointing out the flaws in the alternatives.  My question is more in regards to independently establishing those ideas vs. concluding them on the basis that the alternative can’t be true.

I realize I’m asking a lot - and yes I know you can’t prove a negative - but are there positive reasons for your non-belief?  If so what are they?

In a previous post I wrote that Atheism is an intellectually dishonest position. That’s not a fair representation and much to broad to take into account the huge amount of thought that has gone into developing and defending atheism. An atheist does however set the bar very high in accepting a position that is tough to defend, just as Christianity is often tough to defend.

Even Richard Dawkins arguably the most famous current atheist admits to not being 100 percent sure there is no God. He says, ” I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.” I’m not sure but it sounds like Dawkins is, by strict definition, agnostic.

My intention was essentially that of Dawkins. While some are functioning atheists, most are agnostics in philosophy. I hope that clears some things up.

I don’t know if I can convince anyone else that God exists but I think I can prove that atheism isn’t a tenable position. People may be atheistic in terms to the traditional Christian concept of God but it’s impossible to be truly atheistic. Here’s why.

First of all you’d have to know God doesn’t exist.

By definition an atheist has to know beyond a doubt that God does not exist. Aside from the point that you can’t prove an negative, to be an atheist you’d have to know everything. In other words you’d have to be able to search every corner of the universe and know (and be able to counter-prove) every possible argument in the support of the existence of God. That’s not an intellectually honest position to have. The possibility that God (or proof thereof) could be hidden in some remote corner of the galaxy is (as far fetched as it sounds) still a possibility.

Let’s say you did know everything.

Given that you have all knowledge and did know that there was not God in any place and there was no argument that could prove he existed, that would mean you were all-knowing. What is it that we call an all-knowing being again…?  Oh that’s right…God.  God, by definition, can’t be an atheist.

So the most intellectually honest position for a person that isn’t convinced of God but doesn’t know everything is agnosticism.

We left off messing around with the concept of marriage. Why stop now…?

Let’s Say There is One Perfect Person Out There.

For the sake of argument, in God’s Master Plan, he’s got the “One” picked out for you. No other person will fit so perfectly, no other person will fulfill or satisfy. If you marry the wrong person it will be like eating diet foods for the rest of you’re life - You’ll be miserable, unsatisfied and die of aspartame induced cancer when you’re 43. (I think I officially took that simile too far.)

With me so far? Well neither am I.

Let’s examine more closely the concept of - If there is “The One”, what if you (or they) make a mistake and marry the wrong person? This is a fun question because answering it blows Point “A” from the previous post out of the water. I take great pleasure in doing so.

Imagine with me a scenario. In our little play five men and five women exist on the face of the earth. They all live in Tahiti but that’s beside the point. According to point “A”, God has one perfect and specific person in mind for each of these ten people. Our ten lucky contestants can determine who their future love should be by flipping a coin, casting lots or fleece-casting. It doesn’t matter as long as it can be supernaturally inspired.

Now let’s take one of our ten, let’s name him Ron. Let’s say Ron is a bit of a idiot and he makes a mistake. Instead of following God’s magically inspired signs he chooses on the basis of who looked best in a Tahitian bikini. (I know we’d never be a shallow as it is to let beauty be the sole deciding factor in a decision of this magnitude but bear with me.) So Ron sweet talks Pretty Young Bikini and they run off to the other side of the island and get married. Now we have a problem. Because of Ron and Pretty Young Bikini’s mistake they’ve married the wrong people. So they’ve not only messed up God’s perfect (and specific) plan for their lives, they’ve managed to mess up the lives of the other two God originally planned on hooking up with Ron and Pretty Young Bikini. Four marriages destroyed by two mistakes.

Now pack up that concept in a carry-on bag and transport it to a global scale. If one person marries the wrong “one” then the whole system is messed up. You and I have no chance and finding God’s perfect (and specific) person meant just for us. One mistake throws the whole system into chaos! Whoops.

Now apply our example of marriage to life in general. If there is one perfect (and specific) plan for our lives designed by God then one mistake (by ourselves or others) can throw that entire plan off kilter!

I Can Hear the Objections From Here.

But…but…but…God is smart enough to account for the mistakes and poor decision of Ron, Pretty Young Bikini and everyone else in the world!

True. But now you’re getting back into an arena that removes free will from the human hand. If my mistakes can’t throw of God’s plan and thus mess up my life - then why avoid making them?

The bottom line is this - either we need wisdom. Wisdom we apply to all our lives decisions, including marriage, in order to make better decisions. Or we need better mystical insight with which to determine the mystical signs laid out like bread crumbs from a mystical God. You can’t really have it both ways.

Let’s say that God wants us not to look for more signs but to be better people. To actually exercise the golden rule (even in our marriages!) Maybe God’s perfect (and specific) will for us is that we actually obey the huge “sign” that he wrapped up in a neat little bestseller called the Bible. Do we really need God to “open” and “close” the proverbial doors, when he’s already given us access to all the decision-making tools we’ll ever need?

There’s so much more to talk about - (The role our desires play in God’s will for example) but for no apparent reason we can’t right now. Maybe it’s a sign.

Christianity as Magic. I like that. I secretly hope that’s why you are reading this first sentence.

I had a discussion recently that brought the Gill of Wod (Will of God for you anagrammatically-challenged Who am I kidding? Nobody reads this.) And it dawned on me that we have a whole subset of mystical Christians and beliefs in the church.

Now let me back up because this is starting to sound ridiculous, even to me.

A few days ago I overheard (that’s a fancy word for eavesdropping) a conversation about discerning the will of God. The funny thing about that conversation was that if I had replaced the concept of God’s will with something like “fortune telling” or “palm reading” the vocabulary would have hardly changed. The conversation went along the lines of looking for signs from God to determine what choices he wanted a certain individual to make.

The age old argument can be characterized something like this.

A. God has a perfect (and particularly specific) plan for you life.

Or

B. God equips us with wisdom with which we make biblical decisions.

At first blush most people aren’t going to see the contradiction between the two positions. The first has had so much “press” in the form of church related teaching that it’s practically become part of the canon of scripture. In fact for me to even make point “A” made some Christian squeak with incredulousness. (It’s true, I heard it with my own ears)

In fact if point “A” isn’t true then years of tract-making and witnessing goes right down the tubes. I can hear it make the particular splatting sound that you-know-what makes when you throw it against a wall.

So what proof can be offered to derail a long and storied heritage? It’s a good thing I wrote the previous sentence or this post would be short, even more confusing and even more problematic for me.

The Dilemma of the Yellow Rose

Let’s pull the emergency brake on this thought process and drift around a logic corner.

Take marriage as an example of the point I’m trying to make. (If you’re not confused yet - just wait - I haven’t even begun) Most young and single church-goers have, by osmosis, learned that there is one perfect person for each of us to betroth. This idea is simply an application of point “A” from earlier. Essentially we are told, “that singular individual is out there, somewhere, beneath the pale moon sky. The way to find them is to discern the signs.”

Evidently we’d go on a date and if by the end of the date our fleece is dry but the ground is wet then they’re the one! (Wait that sounds a little dirty, sorry.)

I actually heard of one case where the singular girl, looking for the singular guy made a mini-pact with God. In this case God would supernaturally encourage “the one” to show up for a date with a yellow rose. That seems reasonable. A yellow rose is sufficiently unusual that the appearance of such a rose would indeed constitute a sign from God.

However if you’re going to set up these sorts of checks and balances it’s much safer to keep them to yourself. If, for example, you shared your “sign from God” with, say a younger sister - she might bring to bear an undue amount of influence on the situation and thus your future.

Yes, in this case the little sis told a prospective young man to bring with him one yellow rose. This was sign enough for the young maiden and in short order they were wed.

Match made in heaven, right? God had a perfect plan for her life and, as part of the package, a perfect young man and a perfect yellow rose. Everything worked, right?

Well that particular couple is divorced. Evidently the young man had a penchant for beating and cheating on those to whom he was wed. Now we’re left with a dilemma. Did God want the young “yellow rose” woman to be beaten and cheated on? If so we have a different sort of problem. If not then there was a problem in the way in which the suitor was determined.

Take God out of the above story insert tarot cards and you essentially have Christian mysticism.

The problem I have is that God has equipped us with plenty of decision making factors when it comes to a mate and not a single one of them involved a rose, yellow or otherwise. God, according to James 1, will freely give us wisdom. Why would we need wisdom if were simply search for the proverbially white rabbit (or the not so proverbially yellow rose)? The short answer is - we don’t. If knowing God’s will is all about following signs we simply need to ask for better eyesight not more wisdom.

But wait that’s not all…

(Part two -coming soon!!!)

I judged a book by it’s cover today and it felt good. I took a few steps back to get a running start at a huge leap of logic. Yes I dismissed the content of a book simply because of what was on it’s cover. And because of my snap judgment I’ll never read the book. Wow I’m really living on the edge.

The book at the center of my storm of my personal prejudice and controversy is entitled “Jesus Without Religion” Snappy title, right? I’m you sure you read a title like that and you think - “Wow some guy is cool and edgy for dissing religion, man! I’m buying this book.” I’m sure that you will by the book and then change your worldview and become the next Mother Theresa. You watch that’s what will happen. I’ll never read the book (at least of my own free will) but the title was enough to make me mad. To be fair I’m sure the book is great but I’m just saying that to sound unbiased.

It’s an example of a current trend to be catchy by juxtaposing what would normally be two congruent topics. The James’ book certainly isn’t an isolated incident. “Repenting of Religion” by Gregory Boyd or “How to be a Christian without being Religious.” by Fritz Ridenour. I’m sure there are more but that’s just another example of my athletic assuming ability.

The issue is that this practice is indicative of a larger problem. James (and I’m too lazy to look up precisely where) said that “pure and undefiled religion” was to help “widows and orphans.” You plug in a scriptural definition into the word “religion” and James, Ridenour and Boyd have a problem. Let use their book titles with our biblical definition of the word “religious”

“Jesus Without Helping Widows and Orphans” Rick James

“Repenting of Helping Widows and Orphans” Gregory Boyd

“How to be a Christian Without Helping Widows and Orphans” Fritz Ridenour

The problem with “Jesus Without Religion” (aside from the fact that it’s by Rick James. If you don’t know what that means you should watch more TV. Elitist jerk) What Mr. James does is to try to identify with potential Christians not by adopting their culture but by adopting their values. Now adopting customs and culture to identify with a potential disciple is a practice encouraged by the New Testament (Read 1 Cor. 9). But what is not encouraged is adopted the values of those we seek to help.

What Mr. James (and those like him) do is get all in a tizzy buddy-up to self-proclaimed-anti-church disenfranchised… (I’m not sure how to finish this thought) …people. Let’s wave the white flag and say “We’re cool too! We can dis religion together!”

Look if we want to be an example we have to be willing to be different. We have to be willing to be misunderstood. We certainly aren’t going be more clearly heard if we keep changing the definitions of perfectly good words. It sounds harsh (and I’m intentionally using harsh language to make my point) “I’m religious, you aren’t but you should be. And I can show you someone that can make you religious.”

What Mr. James does is take a perfectly good concept and turn it into a negative.

Now this certainly isn’t original with James. He’s just bought into a trend that’s been around for years. The Ridenour book was published in the 70’s.

If we really want to influence people why don’t we teach them what religion is rather than agree with them when they have a wrong idea. That doesn’t help either of us. Now you may have to disregard the last few hundred words. I never read the book. I just judged it by it’s cover.