January 2013

The Guardian published a story about pedophilia last week.  You would expect such a story to offer strong moral condemnation against such a practice, but you would be mistaken.

The story begins by emphasizing that experts on pedophilia are not even sure that “consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.”  Really?  A ten year old child is capable of making informed decisions about their sexuality and sexual relationships?  And how consensual can a relationship be between an adult and a child?  Children naturally submit to the desires of adults, even if deep-down they do not want to.

I found this article so appalling not only because of its sympathetic voice for pedophilia and pedophiles, but because it uses the same talking points used by the homosexual lobby to break down the moral and emotional barriers the public once held against homosexuality.  For example, the story begins by talking about the number of people who experience sexual attraction to children.  The author claims that as few as 1-2%, but possibly even up to 20% of men are capable of being sexually aroused by children.  Why bring this up?  The idea is that if so many people experience this, it can’t be so bad after all.  This same tactic was used by the homosexual lobby.  They once claimed that 10% of society was homosexual in an attempt to normalize homosexuality (we now know it’s closer to 2%).



ImperviousThe kalam cosmological argument (KCA) for God’s existence can be stated as follows:

(1) Anything that begins to exist requires a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Thus, the universe requires a cause

Additional logical inferences allow us to identify this cause as God.  Whatever caused space, time, and matter to begin to exist cannot itself be spatial, temporal, or material.  Furthermore, whatever caused our orderly, life-permitting universe to come into being a finite time ago must be immensely powerful, intelligent, conscious, and hence personal.  These are apt descriptions of a being theists have long identified as God.

Both premises have been challenged on scientific grounds.  Premise one is typically challenged on the basis of quantum mechanics, while premise two is challenged by new cosmological models that seek to restore an eternal universe.  I am going to argue that neither premise of the argument can be undermined by scientific evidence, and thus the argument itself is impervious to scientific refutation.  Only philosophical arguments are capable of undermining either premise of the argument.


disembodiedSome atheists claim that God cannot exist because unembodied minds are impossible; i.e. that persons must be physical beings.  I spoke to this in a 2008 post.  Prayson Daniel recently blogged on the subject as well.  I would encourage you to read his post.  I commented on his post, and wanted to share some points I made that supplement the points I made in my previous post. 

This argument begs the question in favor of materialism and atheism. It merely assumes that minds/persons are reducible to brains; that we have no immaterial mind that is capable of existing apart from our bodies. No reason is given for thinking that a mind/person needs a body other than the fact that we are not familiar with it. That’s a very poor reason.  It confuses common properties of persons with essential properties of persons. 


« Previous Page