Monday, August 31, 2009
Combat the Lies and Killing
Obama is lying (again). The Democrat bills coming up for votes in the Senate and House, if passed, would provide federal funds to pay for abortion. See Charles Colson's article and contact your representatives.
Groothuis on Cyberspace and Scholarship
One of my peer-reviewed articles, "Christian Scholarship and the Philosophical Analysis of Cyberspace Technologies," is now in cyberspace. This is from JETS.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Victor Davis Hanson on Obama's Worldview
Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves.
Read the entire article.
Read the entire article.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
How Do I Know?
Curmudgeons call me a well informed ignoramus. But I do know stuff, dude, and here's how:
1. Wikipedias. So many people adding so much just makes it "true." And I chose which Wikis to believe.
2. Perception is reality. What else is there?
3. Subjective satisfaction does the trick. It feels good, so it works, so it is "true."
4. Oprah said it.
5. Truth is what my social networking site lets me get away with, which is just about anything.
6. All absolutes are false!
7. All restrictions on my free-flowing, ever-evolving self are false.
There's my epistemology, you curmudgeons! Deal with it.
1. Wikipedias. So many people adding so much just makes it "true." And I chose which Wikis to believe.
2. Perception is reality. What else is there?
3. Subjective satisfaction does the trick. It feels good, so it works, so it is "true."
4. Oprah said it.
5. Truth is what my social networking site lets me get away with, which is just about anything.
6. All absolutes are false!
7. All restrictions on my free-flowing, ever-evolving self are false.
There's my epistemology, you curmudgeons! Deal with it.
Biomimicry: Nature as Model for Technology
Although the ID perspective on biology has yet to gain wide acceptance (despite its impressive recent gains), a new approach to biology has recently captured the imaginations and funds of many in the larger scientific establishment: biomimicry. This discipline studies the complex and specified structures of biology and uses these as models for humanly-engineered technology. Recall Bill Gates’s statement made above that the information structure of DNA is far more complex than any computer. If so, that structure (and others like it) can provide ideas for various machines. Reueters reports that: “International Business Machines Corp is looking to the building blocks of our bodies—DNA—to be the structure of next-generation microchips.”[1] Microchips are obviously intelligently designed for a particular function. They evince specified complexity. Yet engineers in search of better information structures are looking to DNA, and other aspects of biology, for better models of efficiency in engineering.[2]
In light of biomimicry, consider this argument
1. Scientists are mimicking naturally-occurring mechanisms in nature (such as DNA) in order to develop better design plans for various manmade technologies.
2. If (1) is true, this assumes that these naturally occurring mechanisms are themselves designed, since they evince design plans superior to human design plans.
3. Therefore, these naturally-occurring mechanisms (such as DNA) are designed, otherwise
they would not be candidates for imitation by technologies.
[1] Claire Baldwin, “IBM uses DNA to make next-gen microchips,” Reuters, August 16, 2009 at: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57F1K720090816
[2] See Bharat Bhushan, “Biomimetics: lessons from nature – an overview,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, Vol. 367, 1445–1486 (2009). The author does not advocate ID. The whole issue in which this paper appears is dedicated to biomimicry.
In light of biomimicry, consider this argument
1. Scientists are mimicking naturally-occurring mechanisms in nature (such as DNA) in order to develop better design plans for various manmade technologies.
2. If (1) is true, this assumes that these naturally occurring mechanisms are themselves designed, since they evince design plans superior to human design plans.
3. Therefore, these naturally-occurring mechanisms (such as DNA) are designed, otherwise
they would not be candidates for imitation by technologies.
[1] Claire Baldwin, “IBM uses DNA to make next-gen microchips,” Reuters, August 16, 2009 at: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57F1K720090816
[2] See Bharat Bhushan, “Biomimetics: lessons from nature – an overview,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A, Vol. 367, 1445–1486 (2009). The author does not advocate ID. The whole issue in which this paper appears is dedicated to biomimicry.
Tony Jones on Perverse Unions
Tony Jones, in a short video, defends blessing and legalizing homosexual and lesbian "monogamous" relationships. He stares into the camera and opines idiocy with great smugness, packing fallacies and absurdities tighter than sardines in a can run over by a steam roller. The claims is that there is no slippery slope. If we allow these "unions" it will not lead to inter species unions or to polygamy. It's all OK in a democracy. Tony said so.
1. Set aside any slippery slope concern. These unions themselves are unnatural, wrong, and ungodly in themselves--whatever they lead to. The biblical norm is heterosexual monogamy (Genesis 2; Matthew 19:1-2). Anything else issues from the the results of the fall, not creation. Anything else is not blessed by God but rather erupts from the sinful hearts of human beings bent on creating their own sexuality (Mark 7:21-23). It is sinful autonomy writ large and ugly. We should love, not hate, people in this situation; but to deny their sin does not help them, nor does it honor God, who will bring everything into account one Day.
2. "Monogamy" refers to "one spouse." Spouses are of the opposite sex of their spouse. Using "monogamous," as Jones does, for same sex unions is a semantic absurdity. To invoke Schaeffer, it is "semantic mysticism"--one uses a soft, friendly term to defend a hard falsity.
3. Slippery slopes do exist. Legalizing abortion on demand led to an overall cheapening of unborn life in America. The argument was that abortion would only occur in "hard cases"--threats to the mother's life, extreme fetal deformity, etc. Now people have abortions for sex selection and to murder Down's babies--80-90% of which are now killed before birth. The slope is real, Mr. Jones. To say otherwise to be be a flagrant (if popular) ignoramus. Legal scholars are already arguing for the legal legitimation of polygamy, since same sex unions are considered marriages in some (debauched) states.
We are seeing the degression of Romans 1:18-32 played out in our culture and in our churches. The truth of God is supressed and idols made from human imagination--idols of "liberation" through perverse associations--put on the throne.
May God have mercy on us and lead Tony Jones to repentence. He should read James 3:1 and tremble before the Word of God, which is living and active (Hebrews 4:12).
1. Set aside any slippery slope concern. These unions themselves are unnatural, wrong, and ungodly in themselves--whatever they lead to. The biblical norm is heterosexual monogamy (Genesis 2; Matthew 19:1-2). Anything else issues from the the results of the fall, not creation. Anything else is not blessed by God but rather erupts from the sinful hearts of human beings bent on creating their own sexuality (Mark 7:21-23). It is sinful autonomy writ large and ugly. We should love, not hate, people in this situation; but to deny their sin does not help them, nor does it honor God, who will bring everything into account one Day.
2. "Monogamy" refers to "one spouse." Spouses are of the opposite sex of their spouse. Using "monogamous," as Jones does, for same sex unions is a semantic absurdity. To invoke Schaeffer, it is "semantic mysticism"--one uses a soft, friendly term to defend a hard falsity.
3. Slippery slopes do exist. Legalizing abortion on demand led to an overall cheapening of unborn life in America. The argument was that abortion would only occur in "hard cases"--threats to the mother's life, extreme fetal deformity, etc. Now people have abortions for sex selection and to murder Down's babies--80-90% of which are now killed before birth. The slope is real, Mr. Jones. To say otherwise to be be a flagrant (if popular) ignoramus. Legal scholars are already arguing for the legal legitimation of polygamy, since same sex unions are considered marriages in some (debauched) states.
We are seeing the degression of Romans 1:18-32 played out in our culture and in our churches. The truth of God is supressed and idols made from human imagination--idols of "liberation" through perverse associations--put on the throne.
May God have mercy on us and lead Tony Jones to repentence. He should read James 3:1 and tremble before the Word of God, which is living and active (Hebrews 4:12).
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Limits of Apologetics
Although various apologetic systems have proved useful, even the best apologetic method must squarely face its limits. While a strong proponent of a thorough and wide-ranging apologetic is sorely needed today, apologetics is bounded by at least three realities.
First, the Bible is a long, ancient, and sometimes perplexing book for contemporary people. Defending what the Bible teaches is no simple task, and certainly does not admit of a formula. Even the stellar apologist must face her intellectual limits and never bluff knowing more than she knows. However, to admit this difficulty is not to revel in mysteries, paradoxes, or (worse yet) absurdities. Rather, we should realize that all of our intellectual endeavors—especially those dealing with the broadest and deepest questions of life’s meaning—will be dogged to some degree by misunderstanding, ignorance, and intellectual disappointment. To hold that the Christian worldview is the best rational explanation for the things that matter most does not imply that we have a lock on all the best arguments or have attained all the truths we need.
Second, apologetics is not only limited by the difficulty of the subject itself, but by the weaknesses of the subjects who practice it—you and I. We commend and defend Christianity through our speech, our writing, and our demeanor. And we are sinners. We are the medium for this matchless message, but we are flawed. The best argument carried forth by a bad character will not likely have the desired effect. We may know strong apologetic arguments, but lack courage to present them, or, conversely, we may confidently offer arguments that we think are strong, but are not. We may study too much and pray too little, or the opposite. And so it goes. Yet we may be thankful that “God can make a straight line with a crocked stick,” as the medieval saying goes.[1] If we fall short as apologists, this does not mean that Christianity is untrue or irrational or that all our efforts are vain. Our job is to faithfully give the best arguments possible from the purest heart possible.
Third, apologetics must be understood within the framework of God’s secret counsels, as Calvinists like to put it.[2] God often does not tell us how or why he brings some things about. As the hymn puts it, “God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.” God may use any means at his disposal, and every means are at his disposal. As the majestic Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”[3] The apologist might be likened to a physician trying to cure an ailment. He can only use the tools of his trade, but he realizes that some people spontaneously recover without treatment and some do not respond well to treatment that should help them. Nevertheless, he does not despair of his task.
---------------
[1] See also See Francis Schaeffer, “The Weakness of God’s Servants” in No Little People, No Little Places (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 43-60.
[2] They typically appeal to Deuteronomy 29:29; see also Romans 11:33-36.
[3] Chapter V, section 3.
First, the Bible is a long, ancient, and sometimes perplexing book for contemporary people. Defending what the Bible teaches is no simple task, and certainly does not admit of a formula. Even the stellar apologist must face her intellectual limits and never bluff knowing more than she knows. However, to admit this difficulty is not to revel in mysteries, paradoxes, or (worse yet) absurdities. Rather, we should realize that all of our intellectual endeavors—especially those dealing with the broadest and deepest questions of life’s meaning—will be dogged to some degree by misunderstanding, ignorance, and intellectual disappointment. To hold that the Christian worldview is the best rational explanation for the things that matter most does not imply that we have a lock on all the best arguments or have attained all the truths we need.
Second, apologetics is not only limited by the difficulty of the subject itself, but by the weaknesses of the subjects who practice it—you and I. We commend and defend Christianity through our speech, our writing, and our demeanor. And we are sinners. We are the medium for this matchless message, but we are flawed. The best argument carried forth by a bad character will not likely have the desired effect. We may know strong apologetic arguments, but lack courage to present them, or, conversely, we may confidently offer arguments that we think are strong, but are not. We may study too much and pray too little, or the opposite. And so it goes. Yet we may be thankful that “God can make a straight line with a crocked stick,” as the medieval saying goes.[1] If we fall short as apologists, this does not mean that Christianity is untrue or irrational or that all our efforts are vain. Our job is to faithfully give the best arguments possible from the purest heart possible.
Third, apologetics must be understood within the framework of God’s secret counsels, as Calvinists like to put it.[2] God often does not tell us how or why he brings some things about. As the hymn puts it, “God works in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform.” God may use any means at his disposal, and every means are at his disposal. As the majestic Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, “God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.”[3] The apologist might be likened to a physician trying to cure an ailment. He can only use the tools of his trade, but he realizes that some people spontaneously recover without treatment and some do not respond well to treatment that should help them. Nevertheless, he does not despair of his task.
---------------
[1] See also See Francis Schaeffer, “The Weakness of God’s Servants” in No Little People, No Little Places (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1974), 43-60.
[2] They typically appeal to Deuteronomy 29:29; see also Romans 11:33-36.
[3] Chapter V, section 3.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Bradbury on Television (thanks to Erin Heim for this)
From Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451:
"If you're not driving a hundred miles an hour, at a clip where you can't think of anything else but the danger, then you're playing some game or sitting in some room where you can't argue with the four-wall televisor. Why? The televisor is "real." It is immediate, it has dimension. It tells you what to think and blasts it in. It MUST be right. It SEEMS so right. It rushes you on so quickly to its own conclusions your mind hasn't time to protest, "What nonsense!"
ObamaCare/AbortionCare
"The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the federal government's role in the financing of abortions. [...] So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage [...] Nonetheless, the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services unless issues of rape, incest, or life of the mother are at play" -TIME, August 24, 2009, "How Abortion Could Imperil Health Care Reform."
“Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.” -The Associated Press, August 5, 2009, “Gov’t Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion.”
“Obama has said in the past that ‘reproductive services’ would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that… Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’”-Factcheck.org, August 21, 2009, “Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?”
“Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.” -The Associated Press, August 5, 2009, “Gov’t Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion.”
“Obama has said in the past that ‘reproductive services’ would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that… Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’”-Factcheck.org, August 21, 2009, “Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?”
Alone, but Watched
Many have observed that contemporary life in America suffers from a lack of community. Defining "community" is not easy, but a significant factor is the presence of significant and lasting human relationships in public and private living spaces. And by this, I mean face to face interactions, not what occurs on the Internet or cell phones. This is being lost, especially amidst our electronic "connections."
One dominant feature of contemporary life is anonymity. We are often alone together, with others but isolated from them because we do not know them and they do not know us. We shuttle around in our automobiles, isolated spatially and sonically. We may sit next to someone on a light rail, but most are listening to iPods, tapping on laptops, or yakking on cell phones (as if no one in the car was hearing them). And so it goes.
Anonymity also means a lack of responsibility and accountability to others. Who knows if you check into a hotel (where no one knows you) and watch a pornographic film? Yes, God knows and you sin will find out you; but in the short run, you feel safe because you are anonymous. You are unknown. But one would not do this openly at home in front of one's parents or spouse. Of course, anonymity is a way of life for many on the Internet. Many who post on this blog use false names. I always take their comments less seriously.
To compensate for anonymity, however, we have become a surveillance society. More and more of our public activities are monitored electronically. Look at the cameras at busy intersections. The Denver Light Rail cars also have hidden cameras, as I was told yesterday by the conductor through a public address system after someone pulled the emergency stop wire. "We will get you," he said in an annoyed voice.
Surveillance tries to provide the accountability lost in anonymity. It cannot. It can only detect infractions and punish them legally. Surveillance overcomes some aspects of privacy that might be used in anti-social ways, but it cannot provide moral incentive for the common good.
Surveillance is no replacement for friendship, citizenship, and membership in embodied communities. These are being lost at a rapid rate. Love is lost as souls are untethered from one another and their God.
One dominant feature of contemporary life is anonymity. We are often alone together, with others but isolated from them because we do not know them and they do not know us. We shuttle around in our automobiles, isolated spatially and sonically. We may sit next to someone on a light rail, but most are listening to iPods, tapping on laptops, or yakking on cell phones (as if no one in the car was hearing them). And so it goes.
Anonymity also means a lack of responsibility and accountability to others. Who knows if you check into a hotel (where no one knows you) and watch a pornographic film? Yes, God knows and you sin will find out you; but in the short run, you feel safe because you are anonymous. You are unknown. But one would not do this openly at home in front of one's parents or spouse. Of course, anonymity is a way of life for many on the Internet. Many who post on this blog use false names. I always take their comments less seriously.
To compensate for anonymity, however, we have become a surveillance society. More and more of our public activities are monitored electronically. Look at the cameras at busy intersections. The Denver Light Rail cars also have hidden cameras, as I was told yesterday by the conductor through a public address system after someone pulled the emergency stop wire. "We will get you," he said in an annoyed voice.
Surveillance tries to provide the accountability lost in anonymity. It cannot. It can only detect infractions and punish them legally. Surveillance overcomes some aspects of privacy that might be used in anti-social ways, but it cannot provide moral incentive for the common good.
Surveillance is no replacement for friendship, citizenship, and membership in embodied communities. These are being lost at a rapid rate. Love is lost as souls are untethered from one another and their God.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
The Problem of Evil
I have a short essay, "Addressing the Problem of Evil," in The Christian Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4 (2009).
Sunday, August 23, 2009
I now have 28 "followers" on Twitter. I need thousands, of course. I am attempting to give thoughtful links and nontrivial propositions or questions or Scriptures. My name: DougGroothuis. I think that's all you need to be a "follower." Of course, you should only be a follower of Jesus Christ. Again, I will quit if I find it pointless.
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Obama: Single Payer Health Care
Obama wants a "single payer" health care system. He said it. That means: the civil government controls the medical system in its entirety. It's called a socialist take over.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Clarification
The "My Pledge" post does not mean I'm going to respond to every taunt offered me. I received one of these and did not post it. I cannot possibly respond to every attack on Christianity out there. However, my book, What Matters Most (in process) will, Lord willing, deal with most all the major attacks and give the strongest arguments. I am most interested in interacting with sincerely interested people.
Naturalistic Miracle
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."--Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 264.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
