Washington Upholds an “Everything-but-the-Name-Marriage” Law

I just became aware of another referendum related to same-sex partnerships, this one in Washington State.  In May 2009 Washington’s legislature approved a bill that expanded the rights of domestic partners to include all the same rights as married couples, lacking only the name “marriage.”  Again, this was put to the voters as a referendum, and the citizens said, “Yes.”  The final vote was 51% to 49%. 

I find it interesting that those who supported the referendum to expand domestic partnership rights, raised nearly 1.1 million dollars for their efforts.  Those who opposed the referendum, however, only raised $60,000.  And yet still, the vote was within 2% points.

 

Voters in Maine Reject Same-Sex Marriage

Once again, when the question of same-sex marriage is put to the voters, the voters say “No” (the 31^st time).  Last spring, Maine’s legislature passed a law making same-sex marriage legal in that state.  The law was stayed, however, until the people had a chance to vote on it yesterday.  And they said no, but not by much (53%).

 

Biological Components in Size Perspective

Very cool.  Use the scroll button beneath the picture to zoom in.

 

HT: William Dembski

 

Christians are not Objective?: Two Kinds of Objectivity

It’s common to hear people say Christians are biased, not objective.  How can we respond to this charge?  J.P. Moreland makes a distinction that I find helpful.  He notes that there are two ways to be objective: (1) psychological objectivity: the absence of bias (2) rational objectivity: the ability to tell the difference between good and bad reasons for a belief, whether or not you accept that belief.^[1]

Humans are psychologically objective (50/50) only in areas we know nothing, or care nothing about.  Once we come to know something about a topic we typically go from being psychologically objective to psychologically biased, even if the degree of our bias is minimal.  Such bias is to be expected, and is good.  After all, what would be the use of studying out an issue/topic if after having studied it you could not draw a conclusion?  We should expect informed people to be psychologically biased.

But does the presence of psychological bias eliminate the possibility of being rationally objective?  Are we locked into our own culturally relevant way of viewing the world?  Is reason and argumentation useless for the person who is no longer psychologically objective?  No.  We all know this to be true because we have all had experiences in which we changed our beliefs on an issue because they were challenged by good arguments.  It should be clear, then, that our psychological bias (lack of psychological objectivity) does not eliminate our ability to be rationally objective.  Postmodernists understand this.  That’s why they try to reason with the modernists to change their worldview, while at the same time denying the validity of reason and argumentation!

[1]J.P. Moreland, “Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn,” a paper presented at the November 2004 Evangelical Theological Society meeting in San Antonio, TX.

 

---

 

Marriage in Decline

I found the following statistics from the Marriage Index quite interesting:

• In 1970, 78.6 percent of adults age 20-54 were married. In 2008, it dropped to 57.2 percent
• In 1970, 77.4 percent of first marriages were intact, but only 61.2 percent were intact in 2007
• Today, only 60.3 percent of all babies are born to married couples, compared to 89.3 percent in 1970.
• Half of all children born to cohabiting couples see those unions end by age five.
• In 1970, 68.7 percent of all children lived with their own mother and father. In 2007, that percentage had dropped to 61.

 

HT: Al Mohler

 

Fear Error, not Terror

If I were a bumper-sticker manufacturer “fear error, not terror” would be my next product.

I was thinking this morning about all the things people tend to fear in this world.  People fear local thieves and robbers, rapists and murderers.  We fear for our financial future (or present in many cases).  We worry about our relationships with other people, and the well-being of our loved ones.  We fear terrorist attacks on this nation.  But how often is it that we fear error?

I am bothered by the moral evil that runs rampant in our day.  I am concerned for personal, relational, and national safety.  But there is nothing I fear more than error.  I’m not referring to some sort of emotional fear that grips my heart, but an intellectual fear that grips my mind.  I am always cognizant of the existence of truth and error, and do my best to maximize true beliefs and minimize false beliefs.  Why?  Because nothing matters more in this world than the truth.  Nothing has greater power than truth, but likewise nothing can be more damaging than belief in that which is false.  You may live your whole life untouched by the egregious evils that occur in society, but if you embrace false ideas the consequences will be far worse than any terrorist attack.

 

CIRM is now directing their funds into non-embryonic stem cell research

CIRM is the CA agency that oversees the distribution of 3 billion dollars for stem cell research in CA.  The agency was created by constitutional amendment via a ballot initiative in the 2004 election.  From its inception, it has directed most of its energies and funds to promoting embryonic stem cell research (ESCR).  It seems, however, that they have finally caught on to the fact that ESCR is not the most promising area of stem cell research.  Of the $230 million in grants awarded to 14 institutions yesterday, 10 of them were for adult stem cell research (ASCR).  Good.

HT: Wesley Smith

 

Theistic Evolution

Darwinian evolution entails more than just the concept of one species changing into another over a long period of time.  It involves a fully naturalistic process: natural selection working on random genetic mutations, genetic drift, etc.  If Darwin’s theory of evolution is scientifically sound—meaning the naturalistic processes it invokes are fully capable of producing life and all of its many variegates—then adding God to the equation is superfluous.  It would be like providing a scientific account of water boiling by saying water will boil at time t1 when X amount of heat is applied to Y amount of water at Z altitude, but then adding that fairies are also involved in the process.  If naturalistic processes are adequate to explain why water boils, then not only is there no need for the fairy hypothesis, but there is no room for it.  The same is true of Darwin’s theory of evolution.  If the theory is scientifically sound, and naturalistic processes can fully account for all of life, then there is no need for, and no room to fit God into the picture.  In other words, if Darwin’s theory is scientifically sound, positing a theistic form of evolution is superfluous.

One might say, however, that naturalistic processes are not fully adequate to account for all of life, and this is why one must add God to the equation to make it work.  To make such a claim, however, is to admit that the scientific theory itself is not sound on its own.  It requires some outside supernatural force to patch it up.  Here’s the rub: If Darwin’s theory of evolution is not adequate in itself to explain the data, why should we feel compelled to fit theism into the picture?  Let’s face it, the only reason a theist would postulate a theistic form of evolution is if he was convinced that the evidence for evolution was so compelling that intellectual honesty demands that he reconcile the scientific evidence with his theistic belief.  But if Darwin’s theory of evolution lacks the evidence necessary to make it a sound scientific fact, what compelling reason is there to reconcile the theory with theism?  If Darwin’s theory is not sound in itself, it doesn’t need God to shore it up.

For further reading see my article titled “Theistic Evolution: The Illegitimate Marriage of Theism and Evolution”

 

Life Reflections: Money and Happiness

I’ve come to learn that while money cannot buy happiness, a lack of money can purchase a lot of misery.

 

America’s Religious Identity: Statistics

I’m late to the game on this one, but I just discovered some great statistical information regarding changes in the religious identity of Americans between 1990 and 2008, as well as a great interactive online chart visually displaying the information.  Here is some of the most pertinent information:

• Those who claim to have no religious affiliation (called “Nones”) have grown in every state since 1990. 
• The west and northeast coasts dominate the no religion category.  VT comes in 1^st with 34%.  CA ranks 15^th with 18%.  MI ranks last with 5%. 
• Non-Christian religions have grown in all but 6 states since 1990. 
• Protestants have diminished in all but 4 states. 
• Catholics have diminished in all but 20 states. 
• Catholics have increased in CA from 27% in 1990 to 38% in 2008. 
• The northeast has the highest percentage of Catholics (RI has 46%).  CA ranks 5^th with 38%.  AL ranks last with 6%. 
• The south is mostly Protestant (AL has 80%).  CA ranks 45^th with 35%.  MA ranks last with 26%. 
• CT has the most non-Christian religious adherents (8%).  CA ranks 6^th with 5%.  Wyoming ranks last with 1%. 
• For those who simply don’t know what to say their religious identity is, OR comes in 1^st place with 7% (compared to 2% in 1990), and DE last with 2% (in 1990 they were ranked 1^st with 6%).  CA has 5%.

The beliefs of Nones was broken down further:

• 51% believe in a deity of some sort
• ~24% believe in a non-personal God
• ~27% believe in a personal God
• ~36% are agnostic (~19% hard agnostics, ~17% soft agnostics)
• ~7% are atheist
• 22% of 18-29 year old are Nones

 

You are so closed minded

It’s common for those who reject the Christian worldview to accuse Christians of being closed-minded.  Often this retort comes on the heels of a Christian’s outspokenness about his/her beliefs.  How can you respond when someone tells you you’re being closed-minded, or that you need to be more open-minded?

The first thing you ought to do is ask the person what s/he means by such terms.  S/he could mean one of several things, so we should not presume to know the answer.  In fact, s/he may not even know exactly what s/he means, and our inquiry may force him/her to think it through for the first time.  The truth of the matter is that those who use such terms often sling them blithely at anyone who disagrees with their point of view,^[1] never stopping to think about what exactly it is that they mean.  And since the accusation is usually effective at silencing their opponents they continue to use it over and over again as the trump card of choice when discussing religion with “right-wing, fundamentalist wackos” such as ourselves.  If we can respond thoughtfully to his charge, not only will we rescue ourselves from a distasteful allegation, but we may disarm him/her from using this unfounded charge on other Christians in the future.

While there are several ways people define closed-mindedness, typically it is a label given to anyone who comes to a conclusion on a controversial matter, and believes that conclusion is true to the exclusion of all others.  We are told we must be open-, rather than closed-minded, which means we have an intellectual obligation to remain “on the fence” of all divisive issues, never taking a definitive position, and never claiming that one position has more merit than another.  There are a few ways to respond to this understanding of open- and closed-mindedness.

 

Remember Ida?

It wasn’t many months ago that a fossil named Ida graced the cover of every magazine and was the talk of all the news channels.  There was a media blitz over what some called the “fossil that changes everything.”  Extravagant claims were made about it being an ancient ancestor to humans, and proving beyond doubt the truth of evolution.  Of course, many saw through the hype and exaggerated claims right away.  It’s no surprise, then, that upon further study scientists are reporting that the claims were wrong.

 

Arguing from Silence

While arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, I think there are times that an argument from silence must be reckoned with.  For example, in discussing whether Matthew 28:19 originally read “in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” or “in my name,” some Trinitarian scholars argue that the latter is original.  “In my name” does not appear in any extant manuscript, so what is there basis?  One reason is Justin Martyr’s silence on the passage.  In one of Justin’s work he was arguing for “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” as the appropriate baptismal formula, and yet he never once appealed to Matthew 28:19 for support as we would expect for him to have done if Matthew 28:19 originally read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”  Since he did not, it stands to reason that Matthew 28:19 did not read “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” in Justin’s day (or at least in the manuscripts he had access to), but rather “in my name.”  While this is an argument from silence, it is a strong argument nonetheless.

 

The Gruesomeness of 2nd Trimester Abortions—A Female Abortion Provider Speaks Out

Lisa Harris, a feminist abortion doctor has written a journal article dealing with the emotional impact on abortion doctors from performing 2nd trimester abortions.  It is one of the most engaging, honest, moving, confusing, and appalling articles I have ever read.  I am amazed that a woman who can be so honest about the violence of 2^nd trimester abortions, and the effect it has on those involved, can still support the procedure.  Here are some key excerpts:

When I was a little over 18 weeks pregnant with my now pre-school child, I did a second trimester abortion for a patient who was also a little over 18 weeks pregnant. As I reviewed her chart I realised that I was more interested than usual in seeing the fetal parts when I was done, since they would so closely resemble those of my own fetus. I went about doing the procedure as usual, removed the laminaria I had placed earlier and confirmed I had adequate dilation. I used electrical suction to remove the amniotic fluid, picked up my forceps and began to remove the fetus in parts, as I always did. I felt lucky that this one was already in the breech position – it would make grasping small parts (legs and arms) a little easier. With my first pass of the forceps, I grasped an extremity and began to pull it down. I could see a small foot hanging from the teeth of my forceps. With a quick tug, I separated the leg. Precisely at that moment, I felt a kick – a fluttery “thump, thump” in my own uterus. It was one of the first times I felt fetal movement. There was a leg and foot in my forceps, and a “thump, thump” in my abdomen. Instantly, tears were streaming from my eyes – without me – meaning my conscious brain – even being aware of what was going on. I felt as if my response had come entirely from my body, bypassing my usual cognitive processing completely. A message seemed to travel from my hand and my uterus to my tear ducts. It was an overwhelming feeling – a brutally visceral response – heartfelt and unmediated by my training or my feminist pro-choice politics. It was one of the more raw moments in my life. Doing second trimester abortions did not get easier after my pregnancy; in fact, dealing with little infant parts of my born baby only made dealing with dismembered fetal parts sadder.

 

Something I Agree with Richard Dawkins On

In his book, A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, the ardent evolutionary atheist, Richard Dawkins, writes:

Why has our society so meekly acquiesced in the convenient fiction that religious views have some sort of right to be respected automatically and without question?  If I want you to respect my views on politics, science, or art, I have to earn that respect by argument, reason, eloquence or relevant knowledge. I have to withstand counter-arguments. But if I have a view that is part of my religion, critics must respectively tiptoe away or brave the indignation of society at large. Why are religious opinions off limits in this way? Why do we have to respect them simply because they are religious?

While he wrongly concludes that there is no evidence for religion and, therefore, it should not be respected, he has a good point nonetheless.  In the pluralistic age in which we live everybody believes we ought to respect what other people believe, even if we think their views are mistaken.  While we should tolerate the individual who holds to flawed religious beliefs, why should we have to respect their views if they do not reflect reality?  Why shouldn’t we press people to justify their beliefs with sound reason and good evidence; and if they can’t, tell them their views are mistaken, if not ridiculous?  Would we do any less to the person who believes he is a bird who can fly, or who claims water freezes in the oven?  Then why won’t we expose errors and absurdities when it comes to religion?  Have we bought into the idea that it is wrong to tell someone they are mistaken?  Have we bought into the idea that religious claims are beyond testing?  Or could it be that we don’t have the goods to defend our own faith, and fear that the tables might be turned on us if we pressed others to the task?  As Yoda would say, “Faith with no evidence you have, hmm?”

 

Quote of the Day

“They don’t seem to realize that their moral outrage presupposes an objective moral standard that exists only if God exists. … In effect, they have to borrow from a theistic worldview in order to argue against it.  They have to sit in God’s lap to slap his face.”^[1]–Frank Turek, speaking about atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

---

^[1]Frank Turek, “Sleeping with your Girlfriend”; available from http://townhall.com/columnists/FrankTurek/2009/03/02/sleeping_with_your_girlfriend; Internet; accessed 10 April 2009.

 

How we Came to Privatize Faith

We find ourselves in a world in which religious truth-claims have been demoted to private, subjective opinions or values.  Religious knowledge is not considered “real” knowledge.  In fact, religious truth-claims are not even testable, and thus must be taken on blind faith.

How did it come to this?  Here I offer a very condensed, if not simplistic path to how we privatized faith, drawing largely on Dr. James Sawyer’s work in this area.

It started with Renee Descartes.  He demanded that what we claim to “know” we know with the same level of certainty as mathematical principles.  This drove a wedge between faith and knowledge, because religious claims cannot be known with that degree of certainty (virtually nothing can).

Then came the opposite extreme offered by David Hume.  Hume argued that there are no innate ideas or truths that serve as a foundation for knowledge.  The mind is a blank slate upon which our sense perceptions are received, and from which we gain knowledge.  Knowledge, then, does not correspond with reality, but is simply a well-ordered, coherent system within our minds created by sense perception.  This left no room for the idea of truth.  There is no correspondence between reality and what we perceive to be reality.  Each person’s perspective is as valid as the next person’s perspective (relativism).

 

Tolerance Means “Deal With It!”

Tolerance is a two-way street, but in today’s world its application is typically one-way.  In the name of tolerance we are told we must tolerate those who do not believe in God, are pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, etc.  Interestingly, however, those who hold to those viewpoints often refuse to tolerate us.  We are forced to take down religious monuments because somebody is offended that they are forced to look at it.  We are forced to forego prayers at school graduation ceremonies because someone who doesn’t believe in God may feel like an outsider.  Guess what?  The Constitution protects rights, not feelings.  Frankly I’m not concerned with how they feel.  It’s called disagreement.  Everybody experiences it, and the mature person learns how to deal with it.

When you disagree with someone you have one of three options: persuade them to adopt your view, pursue change through democratic initiatives, or suck it up and deal with it.  Christians have to suck it up all the time.  I disagree with atheists, and I disagree with the way religion is being forced out of the public square because of a few cry-babies supported by an out-of-control judiciary, but you don’t see me shouting “offense” because I didn’t get to participate in a public graduation prayer.  No one seems to be concerned about how Christians feel.  We are told to lump it when we cry, but when atheists and adherents to minority religions cry they get the whole world changed for them.

While liberals tell us we need to be tolerant, they have need of their own medication.  They need to learn to tolerate public prayer, religious talk, religious monuments, and national recognition of the Creator on our money and in our pledge.  It’s time they learn that tolerance means “deal with it!”

 

Why Saying Someone is Mistaken is Viewed as a Personal Attack

In a day and age in which religious claims have been demoted to mere personal, subjective opinion rather than public knowledge, any suggestion that someone’s religious views may be mistaken is perceived as a personal attack.  Why?  It’s because they cannot separate themselves from their beliefs.  To attack one is to attack the other.  Their beliefs are not something that stand outside of themselves to which they subscribe, but an autobiography about their personal tastes.  Beliefs do not have a reference “out there” to which we can appeal and evaluate, but are wholly subjective, describing the person who holds them.  To say their beliefs are wrong, then, is to say there is something wrong with them.

People believe that so long as they hold to their beliefs sincerely, they are true (for them), and no one else has any business telling them their truth is not true.  Of course they have no problem telling us that our sincerely held belief that people can be wrong in what they believe to be true is a wrong belief.  This is self-refuting.

If you find yourself in a situation where someone is objecting to your objection to their truth-claim, ask, “If I sincerely believe that sincerely believing something does not make it true, does that make it true that sincerely held beliefs can be false?”  If they say yes, then ask why they objected to your objection.  If they say no, ask them why it is that their beliefs are made true by their sincerity, but your beliefs are not.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

Everyone Thinks He is Right

A few years back I watched a debate between an evangelical Christian (Greg Koukl) and a new age guru (Deepak Chopra) on the issue of truth.  Mr. Chopra employed a common tactic to dismiss Mr. Koukl’s arguments.  The exchange went something like this:

DC: “Everyone thinks they are right.  You think you’re right.  The Hindu thinks he’s right.  The Buddhist thinks he’s right”

GK: Yes, that’s right.  And that’s why psychological confidence in one’s faith is not enough.  Something more is needed.  I am not interested in knowing that someone believes their view is right; I am interested in knowing why they believe their view is right.  This requires evidence.  We must weigh the evidence to determine who has better reasons supporting their view.

DC: chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp…