I’ve decided to pull this post for the time being until I’m entirely satisfied with my interpretation of the Unpardonable Sin.
A fantastic interpretation by Mark Horne can be found here. It doesn’t completely satisfy me, but I think it’s elegantly succinct, and helps to clear up most of the questions surrounding this passage of Scripture.
I switched to Wordpress, started publishing feeds with Feedburner, and changed web hosts, all in the span of about a month.
Stupid me, I forgot to update my Feedburner info to take note of some of those changes. Everything’s kosher now – the Internet is safe once again.
What interests me most in Philosophy of Mind are defeaters to arguments that mind – that consciousness – arrived Naturalistically. I plan to explore this idea here soon.
In the mean time…I caught this post on The Prosblogion reviewing Plantinga’s argument that a Naturalistic system cannot in-and-of-itself create content (thus out of that system, beliefs cannot arise).
In Knowledge of God, Plantinga writes:
When light strikes photo-receptor cells in the retina, there is a complex cascade of electrical activity, resulting in an electrical signal to the brain. I have no idea how all that works; but of course I know it happens all the time. But the case under consideration is different. Here it’s not merely that I don’t know how physical interaction among neurons brings it about that an assemblage of neurons has content and is a belief. No, in this case, we can’t see how such an event could have content – that is, it seems upon reflection that it could not have content. It’s a little like trying to understand what it would be for the number seven, e.g., to weigh five pounds (or for an elephant to be a proposition). We can’t see how that could happen; more exactly, we can see that it couldn’t happen. A number just isn’t the sort of thing that can have weight; there is no way in which that number or any other number could weigh anything at all. (The same goes for elephants and propositions.) Similarly, we can see, I think, that physical activity among neurons can’t generate content. These neurons are clicking away, sending electrical impulses hither and yon. But what has this to do with content? How is content or aboutness supposed to arise from this neuronal activity? How can such a thing be a belief? You might as well say that thought arises from the activity of the wind or the waves. But then no neuronal event can as such have a content, can be about something, in the way in which my belief that the number seven is prime is about the number seven, or my belief that the oak tree in my backyard is without leaves is about that oak tree. (p. 54)
I love it.
I’ve been bandying back and forth with Andrew on City of God (here too) over the weekend about pacifism and the justification for the State’s (meaning government in general, not specifically the USA) use of force. I thought I would post the comment here regarding Romans 13. It’s nothing new, but I think it’s useful.
God has ordained the State’s power. He has not only ordained its power, but has approved its use of force. How do we know this?
From Romans 13 we know the State has force (it bears the sword) but we also know that it is right for the State to use that force (it does not bear the sword in vain – lit. inconsiderately; without just cause).
According to the passage, the State does bear the Sword unjustly. Who is the arbiter of justice? The Lord. Who has placed the sword into the hands of government? Also the Lord. Therefore, the Lord has deemed it just (thus right) for the State to use the sword. In fact, the State exists for that very purpose.
Now, if one takes “not in vain” to mean “God uses evil for good,” I think one is playing fast and loose with the passage; it is emphatic that what we see here is not the “accidental” will of God, but rather the very specific, foreordained will of God. God is not turning lemons into lemonade. Granted, force wouldn’t be needed if there was no sin, so in a way there will always be an “accidental” quality to justice. This, however, does not mean that God’s will for the State to use force in a fallen economy is itself accidental. The passage has a bias and this bias is toward intentionality. God is not improvising, He’s being intentional regarding the State. Thus, in it’s justice it is justified.
Now, Rom 12 just told us not to take revenge for ourselves, but that revenge is the Lord’s…
“But Apostle Paul, how does the Lord avenge us?”
“Keep reading! It’s in the next chapter!”
Sometimes the Lord is pleased to avenge us through Divine intervention, but He often works through a minister or agent. What is His agent of revenge? Who bears the sword on His behalf? The State! How do we know this? Rom 13 says so! It calls the State a minister of God’s justice – an avenger.
Consider, much of the law, the “10 Commandments” in particular, are directed toward individual conduct. This is why the Israelite army could go and kill yet not be in violation of the Law. God was not being inconsistent in anyway or creating a special “alternate” Law so that He could calling them to war – different rules apply to the State than do to the individual.
Therefore, Paul’s reminder not to avenge ourselves does not necessarily apply to the State. In fact we see that Rom 13 justifies the State in using force (God establishes the State so that it can execute His judgments, and it wields the sword rightly, justly, “unaccidentally”).
Parents use the family credit card – children cannot. I must obey the speed limit – police can be exempt. The judicial system can incarcerate someone for decades – I would be prosecuted for doing the so.
What is true for the individual is not always true for the group, and the apparent tension between Romans 12 and Romans 13 is resolved when we grant this.
Let’s grant that Evolution is a fact and that morality has evolved in a completely naturalistic way. Morality is what it is with no outside influence (God), but is merely a body of principles that form and remain because they are somehow connected to the success and continued existence of humanity.
Let’s also grant that what is best for the “group” trumps what is best for the individual (thought I think I’ve adequately refuted that Evolutionists cannot make this claim in my previous point).
Let’s get practical: how is all this playing out? Well, it’s not playing out in a way that is consistent with Evolutionary dictates.
As just one example, disabled persons benefit far more from “the system” than many of us able-boddied folks do. Resource upon resource is poured into people whe are Evolutionarily useless.
If we have Evolved, if we have morals that are based on this Evolution, and if the welfare of the group is a “check and balance” for what right conduct is, then caring for the feeble is wrong. Labouring over disabled persons, enabling them to live “normal lives,” and pouring resources into keeping them alive when left to themselves they’d simply die, deprives the group. Weakens the group. Dilutes the strength of the group. Food that could be going to healthy, fit specimens is going to broken, feeble specimens. Care that could be directed toward people who would advance the species is instead going to those that hold it back.
In fact, I think if one was going to be honest, then an Evolutionary-based ethic would have to assert that euthanasia is morally acceptable and preferable: kill the feeble and the elderly, use them for food, fuel, building supplies, stem cell harvesting, etc. This is actually seen in nature as in many species, mothers eat their young if they are feeble. There’s a very pragmatic reason: it reduces the amount of weak genes available to taint and weaken the population. This is beneficial to Evolution! Removing destructive genes from the population allows evolution to continue positively, thus promoting the advantage and existence of the group.
But look at our species; look at how we care for the weak. Look at how we pour care into what are, by all appearances and for all practical reasons, useless people. People that weaken our race. Yes we can do better, but the fact that we care at all says a great deal about us as a species. Clearly our morality has come to be what it is separate from the course that Evolution is supposed to be charting.
A few weeks ago I wrote a series of posts critiquing Kenneth R Miller’s view that Christians can and should accept the teachings of Evolution. One statement he made unsettled me more than all the rest:
“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them”
To this point I responded:
1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.
2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.
According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.
Dan wrote the following in response to my post:
Theft, murder, and rape may temporarily advantage the individual, but they undermine the group. Humanity has lived, in all times and places, in groups - it is to our advantage to constrain acts that disrupt the group.
Dan makes a valid point: certain behaviours are of detriment to the species, and so one can make the case that such behaviours should be labeled as “wrong,” thus, immoral. The point, however, overlooks some rather important issues. Let’s consider, based on Evolutionary concepts, what is actually permitted in an Evolutionary-based morality.
The following post is only relevant for people using Wordpress.
Ok. So, let’s say you read a blog post, and you want to comment on that post on your own blog. So, you write your post and include a link back to the original post. When you publish the post, Wordpress sends what’s called a pingback to the other blog, letting it know that you linked to it. This pingback shows up in the comments section so readers reading that article can click on to yours and read your response.
Enter Gravatars. These are avatars that follow you whereever you go online so if you comment on a blog and enter your information, it will automatically retrieve your Gravatar (if the blog has the feature enabled). Beside every comment you leave, your own custom icon is displayed.
Well, I discovered that when a blog sends a pingback to another blog that has Gravatars enabled, a generic placeholder shows up. No good! When my blog sends a pingback, I want my Gravatar to show up, just as if I had left a comment.
Well, if you own a Wordpress blog, there’s a very simple way to make sure that your Gravatar appears when your blog sends a pingback. To make YOUR Gravatar appear on the blog you’re pinging, you need to do the following: read the rest of this entry »
The third premise that Kenneth Miller presents is as follows:
“evolution may explain the existence of our most basic biological drives and desires, but that does not tell us that it is always proper to act on them.”
I do not see, based on the goals of the evolutionary process what is required for evolution to succeed, how this claim can be true?
1) If our Universe is independent, by definition, every moral principle inside the Universe must be developed internally.
2) If we are creatures that have evolved, the doctrine of Survival of the Fittest is the ultimate, primary, and most reliable basis for the establishment of moral truth. Thus, any action that promotes my survival is justified.
According to evolution, Survival of the Fittest is conclusively, inextricably connected to life. Life depends on this principle — if Miller is right. Based on his premise, advantageous acts must be morally justifiable. Theft and murder and rape can all enable me to survive and pass on my genetic material to future generations, making the acts morally justifiable. We find examples of this throughout the animal kingdom.
The animal kingdom, of which we apparently are a part, is within the Universe, and the Universe is apparently independent. Now, Miller keeps assuring the reader, “Well, we have to look elsewhere for our morality,” but what is the justification in doing so? Looking elsewhere for anything taking place within the Universe renders the Universe not independent! Independence demands that nothing external be sought out or included. Why does Miller set aside morality and meaning, giving them special privileges? Either the Universe is independent or it is not, and we can’t allow these kinds of logical contradictions in our thinking.
I can’t test Christ’s ideas in the same way that I can test evolutionary principles. Assuming Miller’s premise, why would anyone be more justified in looking to Christ for morality than to evolutionary principles? In fact, since this is an independent self-sufficient Universe in which human life is the result of evolution, I am actually more justified in looking to evolutionary principles as a basis for morality than I am to Christ. This leaves theft, murder, and rape open to me (being advantageous acts) and renders Christ useless (as His presence compromises the independence of the Universe).
Miller, and anyone else that holds to evolution, believes essentially that humanity is no more important than any other species of living thing. Sure, we might have a leg up in some areas, but all things being equal, we’re all just an amalgam of cells that have “made it.” On this grid there is no need or use for Christ and so it would be interesting to hear why Miller believes humans are in need of a Saviour at all.
In closing, here are some questions I would like to as Mr Miller:
At what point in human evolution did we become savable as a species?
Are all creatures savable? Is it conceivable that there could be a Gopher Jesus, and Zebra Jesus, and an Amoeba Jesus?
Since Christ took on human flesh, and ascended in bodily form to heaven, does Miller believe that the incarnation made Christ part animal?
When did the simple evolutionary instincts that allowed humanity to evolve transform into the existential quandary of sin — why are evolutionarily advantageous acts sinful at all?
I started this blog in November of 2007 and decided to use Movable Type as my engine. It appeared to the geeky web designer in me. Over the past few months I’ve become unsatisfied with Movable Type. Every time I set up a blog for a friend or a client, I use Wordpress because it’s very fast for me to setup and skin, and is easy for the client to use. When I decided to setup my own blog, I mistook this intuitive quality to also mean a lack of robustness.
I was wrong.
My reasoning was that since Movable Type is so complicated with so many layers and so much back-end (the Movable Type installation package is four times the size of Wordpress’) it must be better and more highly configurable. My experience has been that the opposite is actually true!
Here are several advantages I found in Wordpress that eventually made me switch:
Of course one of the biggest advantages of Wordpress is the speed and ease of installation. It’s a brilliant platform and I’m glad to be on the Wordpress train!
P.S. I should add that migration was extremely simple. The only snag I hit was making sure that all my old Movable Type links would point to the new Wordpress pages. You have to keep Google happy and since I only have 30 posts at the time of this article, I just opted to do a manual htaccess redirect for each link.
If you are a subscriber to the B-Log, please update your settings. The URL for my feed used to be http://www.roestudios.com/b-log/atom.xml and http://www.roestudios.com/b-log/rss.xml. It is now:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/roestudios/blog
Updating your subscription settings will help me a great deal. Thanks!
recent comments