For those of you who are Facebook users, feel free to add me as a friend there. Be warned, I am seldom to be taken too seriously there! My Facebook name is “Glenn Andrew Peoples” of New Zealand.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I’m a bit of a fan of the moral argument for the existence of God.  I think that theism provides a foundation for moral truth. There are a few ways that Christians have made this argument, but the model that I have settled on is a divine command theory of ethics, where moral right and wrong is determined by the commands or will of God.

Raymond Bradley isn’t a fan of the moral argument. Not at all. I know, infidels.org hasn’t exactly built up a reputation for stellar or fair minded scholarship in the philosophy of religion, but bear with me. Not only does Bradley not buy the moral argument, he also thinks that Christian theism, if true, would fail to provide a basis for moral truth. He goes even further: Christians find themselves in an unavoidable contradiction.  Observe:

[T]heists are confronted with a logical quandary which strikes at the very heart of their belief that the God of Scripture is holy. They cannot, without contradiction, believe all four of the statements:

(1) Any act that God commits, causes, commands, or condones is morally permissible.
(2) The Bible reveals to us many of the acts that God commits, causes, commands, and condones.
(3) It is morally impermissible for anyone to commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.
(4) The Bible tells us that God does in fact commit, cause, command, or condone, acts that violate our moral principles.

The trouble is that these statements form an inconsistent tetrad such that from any three one can validly infer the falsity of the remaining one. Thus, one can coherently assert (1), (2), and (3) only at the cost of giving up (4); assert (2), (3), and (4) only at the cost of giving up (1); and so on.
The problem for a theist is to decide which of these four statements to give up in order to preserve the minimal requirement of truth and rationality, viz., logical consistency. After all, if someone has contradictory beliefs then their beliefs can’t all be true. And rational discussion with persons who contradict themselves is impossible; if contradictions are allowed then anything goes.

Let’s have a look for this contradiction.
Read the rest of the entry »

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Kenneth Gentry

I like a lot of Kenneth Gentry’s work on preterism and on the book of Revelation, its dating and the way that it refers to first century events in a way that some people miss.

I didn’t know he had said anything about the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the annihilationist viewpoint in particular, until tonight. I’ll never know exactly what he has to say, except that he thinks annihilationism is bad. Apparently he once gave a one hour lecture on the subject and you can listen to it for nine bucks. He’s pretty sure that he did a good job, because the lecture is called “Annihilationism Annihilated.” Here’s the description:

In this two hour lecture given at Christ College, Gentry sets out the annihilationist objections to eternal hell, then analyzes the annihilationist argument exposing its superficial nature.

Given that, as far as I know (and yes this could just be my ignorance at work), the man has no reputation as an expert on the subject (and I say that as someone who makes a habit of trying to stay on top of “who’s who” in the field), I am somewhat surprised to see this – for sale at least – and I was surprised to see it called “Important critique of the resurging annihilationist view.” I had never even heard of the critique until now. I think it’s a tactical mistake, but one that works in my favour, both because of the way the confidence is presented in a form that closely resembles flippancy, and also because it is very obviously marketed to those who share Dr Gentry’s view. Annihilationism would be helped if all of its critics worked this way: preaching over-confident sermons to the choir.

No serious, fair assessment of annihilationism will yield the conclusion that the arguments in its favour are “superficial.” And unlike Dr Gentry, I have self consciously titled and marketed (for free) my materials on the subject in a way that is genuine about not merely impressing those who share my view, but reaching out and explaining the reasons for that view to those who are hostile to it.

So here’s a reminder to those who haven’t encountered it before: For not a single penny, you can listen to my three part series on the doctrine of eternal punishment where I outline and defend the claim that annihilationism is biblical and then one by one address the arguments against annihilationism in an effort to show that those who use them have engaged in either fallacious reasoning or poor hermeneutics of Scripture.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Also over in the Theology Articles at my site, you can check out my published response to the work of Robert Peterson, the most vocal evangelical opponent of annihilationism. You can see his reply to that article, and my follow up, where I explain why his response is ineffective.

Whether or not it’s an “important” critique is something that you can decide that for yourself, but it won’t cost you a bean.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Thomas Talbott is Professor Emeritus of philosophy at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon.

One of Dr Talbott’s online activities is as a scholar in residence at The Evangelical Universalist (along with Gregory MacDonald). Talbott (I hope he won’t object to me just referring to him by last name) is a proponent of universal salvation, the view that everyone who has ever lived and will ever live shall, at some point, be reconciled to God, trust in Him and enjoy eternal life as a redeemed child of God. I’ve made no secret of the fact that I don’t share this view (click the “heaven and hell” category to see what  I mean).

One thing that’s done at the Evangelical Universalist is that a guest is invited to have a one on one dialogue with Dr MacDonald or Dr Talbott on a subject, and when they’re done, questions are invited from onlookers. At the moment Dr Joel Green from Fuller Theological Seminary is in discussion with Dr MacDonald on Universalism and the issue of free will. I’ve been asked to take part in a discussion with Dr Talbott. I’m not sure that the subject has been hammered into shape yet, but my guess is that it will be something involving universalism (no surprise there) and annihilationism. We’ll see how it shapes up and I’ll let you know when it’s about to take place.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

A couple of nights ago on TV I watched with interest a news story about the actions of a group in Papatoetoe, Auckland, called “Papatoetoe Reclaiming Our Streets” (PRO). You can see the story yourself here.

It’s a group that has been patrolling the streets, telling street sex workers in Papatoetoe that their trade is not welcome on the streets, that it is immoral, that it is disgusting, making fun of them, telling clients that they are “sleazy,” taking note of the car registrations of clients and sending letters to their homes, letters that warn of the risks associated with street workers. PROS does not take part in violence or force of any kind against those involved.

In response to the public reaction and fresh attention drawn to the plight of their neighbourhood, PROS has agreed to put their activities on hold for a month.

Depending on what your thoughts are about freedom, you might look at PROS and think “what judgemental busybodies, they have no right to do that!” By that I mean, if you do not believe in liberty, you might think that. What’s more, if you’re not a believer in liberty, my saying that might surprise you. Perhaps you thought that it was the people who might side with PROS who don’t believe in liberty. If you did, you were wrong.

When the Prostitution Reform Bill was passed into law, one of its key proponents, Labour MP Chris Carter announced that it was a positive step in ushering in a “good free liberal society.” If he really meant what he said and liberty is his thing, I don’t expect to see him trying to silence anyone over this. Here’s why:

If you don’t believe in liberty for those people that you don’t like or agree with, then you don’t believe in liberty at all.

Just think how absurd it would be to say that you’re such a liberty lover that you’re prepared to let a man dress as a woman and perform whatever sex acts are requested of him by a paying married man with a faithful wife and three kids in some dark alley in Papatoetoe, but you’re not prepared to let someone open her mouth and express to those involved what she thinks about it all.

The loudest supporters of the supposedly liberty loving party that made prostitution legal in this country have, it seems, not yet managed to wrap their heads around the concept of liberty. Here’s an absolute howler from John Kingi at their website:

While I sympathize with the residents who may or may not have been affected by the prostitutes and their clients, this is not the way we as a society want to go about settling our differences! Mocking and abusing those less fortunate? Abusing people’s legal rights! Making moral judgments without knowing the full facts! It reeks of a time long gone and I for one will definitely be writing to this group to express my outrage and I hope many of you watch the video via TVNZ on Demand and condemn this as well!

So let’s see, this person admits to not knowing how much local residents may have been affected by what happens on these streets, expresses apparent shock at the fact that people would make “moral judgements” about people without knowing the full facts (just what type of facts Mr Kingi might be alluding to, he does not say), and then after making his own moral position clear announces that he is going to make a strong moral judgement in writing to this group and urges others to make the same moral judgement.

I have to wonder whether this poor guy even realises what a moral judgement is. One thing is clear about the outrage I’m seeing. The people behind the outrage don’t really want a liberal society – that is, one where everybody has liberty. What they want is an anti-conservative climate where their moral judgements are cushioned from criticism and the views of those who disagree with them are anathematised. Why are they so afraid of letting the free market of ideas sort this one out?

In saying all of this, I’m not saying that I think open slather prostitution is alright, harmless, victimless or even that it’s the kind of thing that the principle of liberty should allow. I make absolutely no comment on that here. My point is just that these folk attacking PROS apparently do think that. Sorry folks, you can’t have it both ways.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Julian Baggini is an atheist who’s quite happy for people to know about it. I wish he weren’t, but hey, whatcha gonna do?

Recently Mr Baggini has commented on the embarrassing spectacle that is the “new atheism,” a movement marked by volume and vehemence rather than substance and insight, spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, unconcerned by the need to study or understand the target of it’s frothing at the mouth, tub thumping tirades and wide eyed cheering, stomping and whooping from its young zealous audiences at speaking engagements that would easily pass for “God sucks” rallies.

I think that in a relatively short space, Baggini was exactly right and exactly wrong. He’s right about the new atheism. he says:

What [another writer's opinion piece] revealed is the negative perception people have of the godless hordes, and the New Atheism must share responsibility for creating its own caricature. You can’t publish and lionise books and TV series with titles like The God Delusion, God is Not Great and The Root of All Evil? and then complain when people think you are anti-religious zealots.

This can’t be dismissed as “mere perception”. Appearances count, which is why those able to present a more agreeable face have come to dominate the moderate middle ground, even if their arguments are often vapid and shallow.

and:

Perhaps a period of New Atheist exuberance was necessary. At least it got people thinking, although I fear it has confirmed every negative stereotype about it.

Indeed. If ever conservative Christians needed to be encouraged to think that atheism is as much a fanatical sect as any other, the new atheists have given it to them on a silver platter.

Now, along the way, Baggini reveals the odd bit of ignorance of his own here and there. In arguing that historically, religious people have indeed cared about the truth of their beliefs, he asks, “Did doctrinal differences about Christ’s divinity have no role in Rome’s split from the Orthodox church?” Well actually – no they didn’t The divinity of Christ was a dispute primarily associated with the Arian controversy, not the split of Rome from the East. But such errors are excusable coming from someone who doesn’t set himself up as an expert in the subject, unlike the targets of his criticism.

But he manages to go quite wrong in a different way. One of Baggini’s stated goals is to encourage atheists to challenge fluffy liberal religious people to snap out of it and realise that the truth value of a religion really matters. He says:

Liberal believers and agnostics get away with this nonsense because religious belief is much more than a matter of doctrine, and practice can be as important, or more so. So while the atheists destroy simplistic, traditional creeds and dance on the ruins, much of the rest of the religious edifice remains intact. The fluffy brigade are then free to plant their flag on it unchallenged.

Atheists need to challenge these liberal theologians, so that they admit their vision of doctrine-lite faith is not a description of how true religion always was, but a manifesto for how it should be. If they do that and succeed, then good luck to them. I don’t care if people want to retain a sense of being religious, as long as what they believe stands up to intellectual scrutiny. Atheism needs critical friends as well as true non-believers, so that it is subjected to such scrutiny itself.

Perhaps a period of New Atheist exuberance was necessary. At least it got people thinking, although I fear it has confirmed every negative stereotype about it. We now need to turn down the volume and engage in a real conversation about what of value is left of religion once its crude superstitions are swept away.

The impression I get from the article as a whole is that he thinks that truth oriented Christianity with a belief in its own serious intellectual defensibility is really on the wane, and liberal religion has stepped in to fill the void, trying to keep the religious flame burning now that we can’t go around taking it intellectually serious any more due to the fact that astute atheists have torn it down and are dancing on the ruins.

Baggini is the editor of “the Philosopher’s magazine” according to the article I’m quoting from, but I have to think that he spends very little time staying abreast of the literature in analytical philosophy addressing issues in philosophy of religion, and he surely has no exposure to actual intellectual exchanges between Christian scholars and their critics. In those fields in particular, it is precisely the type of religion that Baggini thinks is in ruins that is actually thriving. The top journals on philosophy of religion are no longer dominated by skeptics but by believers. Within academia addressing at least, what the world has witness is a resurgence of religious faith: Conservative, truth oriented religious faith that is prepared to not only defend itself but actually take the intellectual fight to the nay sayers.

But the article was half good.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

In this episode of the Say Hello to my Little Friend podcast I start a four part series on philosophy of mind. I know I recently said that it would be a three part series, but hey, even four parts isn’t really enough to give the subject the full treatment it deserves. In part one I start with the dualist end of the spectrum. Today it’s Cartesian/Platonic dualism, which I take to be the most popular variety.

After recording the episode I thought maybe I should have thrown this in, so I’ll add it here. It’s a rather witty wee argument offered by Kevin Corcoran in the book that this series gets its name from, In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem. The argument appears in his reply to Cartesian dualist Stewart Goetz:

Stewart Goetz sometimes kisses his wife.

Stewart Goetz’s substantively simple soul never kisses anyone. (It has no lips!)

Therefore, Stewart Goetz is not a simple soul.

If you’re not yet familiar with what the term “simple” means in this context, listen to the episode, then come back and read Corcoran’s argument. Also in this episode I have my first ever “caller,” Joe Johnson from the “Watching Theology” podcast. You too can call into the show by emailing me an audio clip of your comments and questions. Send them to podcast at beretta-online.com

Enjoy!

Glenn Peoples

 Episode 026: Whatever happened to the Soul? Part 1 [41:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I like The Colbert Report. Here Colbert hosts and tackles Bart Ehrman, a scholar I’ve said things about before. The result is pleasing to me. That skeptics with a penchant for the sensational like this get so much favorable press among skeptics without a background in biblical studies is a source of some frustration to many who know better. I think the treatment his work receives in this interview is more in keeping with what it deserves.

The one thing I can’t figure out is why Ehrman here seems to think that a concession to a critic, like “yeah,” “right” or “exactly,” is a rebuttal of the criticism.

Some hat tipping is in order here. Firstly to Pansy and Peony where I saw this clip. Secondly to Dr Tim McGrew for bringing the link to my attention, and thirdly to Matt and Madeleine’s M and M blog where Tim posted the link. I’m running out of hats!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

According to atheist celebrity Richard Dawkins in his work Growing up in the Universe, “We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA … That is exactly what we are here for.”

In the minds of some, perhaps most, this robs human beings of purpose. I want to add my two cents by saying that from a purely naturalistic point of view, Dawkins is trying to claw back more purpose than he is entitled to. In fact, if he is right, species do not evolve for the purpose of making more copies of their DNA. They do not evolve for any purpose whatsoever. Allow me to elaborate, drawing on the work of Alvin Plantinga and throwing my own two cents in every now and then.

To say that something has a proper function is equivalent to saying that there is a way that this thing is meant (dare we say intended?) to function. In the mid-twentieth century Errol Harris outlined the two major objections to explaining physical processes with any appeal to teleology or goal orientation:

First, it is maintained, teleology is supposed to be the causal operation in the present of future events. A teleological process is one that is purposive and seeks a goal, so that every event in it must be explained by reference to this goal, which determines the course of the whole process. Now it is held to be impossible to understand how a future event (the goal) can causally influence an event that precedes it, and teleological explanation is therefore explanation obscuri per obscurius. The case of human action is understandable, so it is alleged, in terms of consciousness and intention. We are aware of our purposes and aim at them consciously, so our actions are caused not by a future event, but by our present awareness and the intention to act which we consciously form. But, it is argued, teleological explanation in other cases, where consciousness may not be presumed, cannot be justified. This is the second main objection. Human action and possibly that of some higher vertebrates may be explicable in terms of consciousness, but in the case of invertebrates and lower species such explanation becomes highly dubious. When we turn to physiological processes, such as those of metabolism or the process of morphogenesis and phylogenesis, any account presuming conscious direction is plainly inadmissible and teleological explanation is ruled out altogether. [i]

Writing slightly later, Francisco Ayala exhibits the tendency to switch without differentiation between genuine forward-looking teleology in scientific explanation and the backward looking conduciveness of certain inherited traits in the evolutionary process:

Darwin recognized, and accepted without reservation, that organisms are adapted to their environments, and that their parts are adapted to the functions they serve. Fish are adapted to live in water, the hand of man is made for grasping, and the eye is made to see. Darwin accepted the facts of adaptation, and then provided a natural explanation for the facts. One of his greatest accomplishments was to bring the teleological aspects of nature into the realm of science. He substituted a scientific teleology for a theological one. The teleology of nature could now be explained, at least in principle, as the result of natural laws manifested in natural processes, without recourse to an external Creator or to spiritual or nonmaterial forces. At that point biology came into maturity as a science. [ii]

Notice the way in which Ayala, unfortunately, draws no distinction between being suitably adapted for survival in a given setting, and having a certain feature for a certain purpose. The fact that fish are adapted to live in water is set next to the facts that “the hand of man is made for grasping, and the eye is made to see,” as though nothing different were being said, even on a semantic level, in each case. No one would doubt that Darwin gave an account of the former occurring, and organisms that did not adapt in the best way for the purposes of surviving in the environment in which they lived stood a lower chance of surviving than those whose adaptations turned out to be more conducive to survival. But saying that something is “well adapted to survive” is very different from saying that something “adapted to survive.” In the former description, the adaptation was accidental, and the survival appropriateness of the adaptation was determined after the fact. In the latter, the adaptation took place for the purpose of surviving. To speak as Ayala did then is not at all to speak of a natural teleology as a replacement of a theological one. It is simply to fail to distinguish between fortunate adaptation and teleological adaptation.

More recent Darwinist writers have underlined the fact that naturalism point blank rules out the possibility of genuine teleology. In urging the scientific community to keep “creationism out of the classroom,” Anna Marie Gillis tells us that “What makes Darwin’s thinking such a challenge is he refuted purpose and teleology.” [iii] It seems clear that by “refuted” Gillis means “denied.” [iv] The message here is that in order to keep religious mumbo-jumbo out of classrooms, evolution must be taught with no concept of teleology.
If Dawkins is right about naturalism, then he’s wrong about purpose, and we did not evolve to do anything, serve any end, meet any purpose, to be good at anything at all (and nor, for that matter, did any of our bits and pieces).
Notes:

i. Errol E. Harris, “Teleology and Teleological Explanation,” The Journal of Philosophy 57:1 (1959), 6-7.

ii. Francisco Ayala, “Teleological Explanation Is in Evolutionary Biology,” Philosophy of Science 37:1 (1970), 2.

iii. Anna Marie Gillis, “Keeping Creationism Out Of the Classroom,” Bioscience 44:10 (1994), 652.

iv. This, at least, is a more charitable reading or what Gillis meant. If she meant that Darwin demonstrated that there in fact was no teleology involved in adaptation, she was mistaken, since it is difficult to conceive of how such a demonstration might be made.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Easter is a time of year that seems to bring skeptics out of the woodwork. The proverbial Grinches (wrong holiday, I know) find this to be a natural time of year to rain on the parade of Christians celebrating the death and resurrection of Christ. I still recall listening to the debate between Willian Lane Craig and Brian Edwards on the resurrection a few Easters ago (gosh, has it been that long? The year 2001 or 2000, I forget). You can check that debate out for yourself – PART 1 PART 2.

It’s only fair, then, that Christians take this opportunity to capitalise on the flimsiness of skeptical arguments out there (hence my last post on the supposed virgin birth of Buddha), and also to continue to illustrate the way that the biblical account of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus stands up well to critical scrutiny.

So here’s a brief thought to consider for today: Why were so many (although not all) of the Apostles martyred? What was the reason for killing them? That’s something of a no-brainer. They were killed for their proclamation of their religious beliefs in an effort to convert the local populaces where they lived. They proclaimed the message of the resurrection of Christ, and it cost them.

Here is where I think many skeptics fail to appreciate the way an interesting apologetical case can be made in favour of the resurrection of Jesus. What some of them hear is “the Apostles were so passionate about their beliefs they were willing to die rather that give them up. So the belief must be true.” The way I’ve personally seen skeptics react to this is to say something like “so what? Deluded fools die for false beliefs all the time, whether they’re a breakaway cult in Texas or a suicide bomber in Iraq. What does that prove? It certainly doesn’t show that the belief is true.”

This objection is correct – dying for a belief does not prove that the belief is true, but the objection seriously misunderstands the nature of the argument to begin with. The point is not just that since the Apostles died for a belief, it must be true. The point is that if Jesus did not rise from the dead and did not meet with his apostles after the resurrection, then the Apostles would be in a unique position to know that he did not. In other words, unlike skeptical enquirers today, the Apostles actually knew whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. It’s true that many people do die for beliefs that are, in fact, not true. It is not true, however, that a lot of people willingly die for a belief even though they are fully aware that the belief is a load of rubbish.

If a Mormon dies for her faith, she will do so fully convinced that Joseph Smith met an angel and found golden plates, but the reality is that she could not have been a witness to the fact and so is not in a unique position to know these things.

If a Muslim dies for his faith, he will do so fully convinced that the events surrounding the life of Muhammed centuries ago really took place, but again, he simply wasn’t there and must trust accounts handed down to him (and I am not saying this necessarily leads to false beliefs).

But when the Apostles died for their proclamation that Jesus was risen from the dead, they did so knowing full well whether these events had taken place in their lives or not. That this is the case, and that none of them shrunk back from death and retracted their story, but all were willing to suffer and die rather than say that Jesus had not risen from the dead, is itself a striking historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus.

(The alternative thesis that by an amazing coincidence they all began to suffer from exactly the same delusion about a man being raised from the dead is not a compelling explanation, but that’s another story.)

C. Michael Patton has spelt out this argument in further detail HERE.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...