Over the last few years I’ve noticed a pattern. I’ve seen plenty of skeptics present arguments against Christianity or certain aspects of Christianity like its moral code, its metaphysical beliefs and so forth. What I’ve noticed is that when a spokesperson presents an argument (say, against the “horrible” God of the Old Testament) and the fans or fellows gather around and agree loudly, it is seen as not merely mistaken, but actually inappropriate or somehow bad form – ruining the party I guess – to step forward and point out that whatever its logical merits (or lack thereof), the argument actually gets the facts wrong.

I can recall discussions on abortion, for example, where skeptics have regarded me as “pedantic” for explaining the meaning of biblical language in Exodus 21 or Genesis 2:7 (even where the meaning of this language was central to their own argument). I’ve encountered skeptics who try to argue that the Old Testament teaches polytheism, and they’ve gotten literally angry with me when I explain the way the plural elohim is used in Scripture (because that word forms a key part of their argument). Sometimes the facts are just annoying, and to bring them up is just nitpicking and anti-social.

The most recent case is that of John Loftus. Loftus has complained in the past about the fact that the Old Testament endorses slavery. He describes the brutality of slavery in the southern states (when people were kidnapped in Africa and sold to slave traders traveling to the New World ) including the vicious beating and mistreatment of slaves, and connects this to the Old Testament, saying “Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?”

One response that has been available to this challenge for a very long time is that offered by John Locke and by a whole range of Christian thinkers as well. For a good summary of these argument check out a recent blog by Matt over at M and M. The thrust of the reply is to point out certain facts about “slavery” as described in the Torah. The word `eved refers to anyone who works (or worships, actually), and is related to the verb for “work,” so that a farmer who “works the soil” slaves away at the soil. The actual description of Old Testament slavery is revealing. As Matt notes, 1) Kidnapping is a capital offence in the Torah (Ex 21:16), and slave trading appears to be condemned in a couple of New Testament texts as well, 2) an `eved is stated to be a person with the same value as other people, 3) harming or killing an `eved was prohibited and subject to punishment, 4) being an `eved was a temporary arrangement and did not last indefinitely, and 4) it was against the law to return a fleeing `eved to a master.

Given what the Bible actually prohibits and condemns in these requirements, the Old Testament actually condemns what we call “slavery” as it was practiced in the southern states. Check out Matt’s post and the comments for a fuller explanation. In short, if the facts presented by Locke and others are indeed facts, then the Old testament does not endorse “slavery” but clearly condemns it. But what I noticed in particular is that Loftus has now replied with a post of his own – not a post about how Matt has the facts wrong. No, nothing of the sort, but instead a complaint that what Matt is doing is “nit picking”! In his post, “Nit pickers have started to attack,” he replies:

What I find interesting, Matt, is that you have not addressed my main question in my book: “Why didn’t the Christian God ever explicitly and clearly condemn slavery?…why didn’t God tell his people, “Thou shalt not own, buy, sell, or trade slaves,” and say it as often as he needed to?

Apparently it’s just in poor taste and really just skirts around the edges to point out that contrary to the claims that some skeptics love to make, the Old Testament does not endorse what we call slavery. But I daresay that annoyance has clouded John’s vision, for what has been shown is that in fact God did condemn kidnapping and/or mistreating people, the very things that Loftus is concerned about and which he is calling “slavery.” it may be irritating to have the rug ripped out from under your argument, but getting annoyed and demanding that people deal with the “main” argument by pretending that the rug is still there (for the sake of your argument and nothing else) is a bit of an ask, don’t you think? Why not just graciously thank the other person for their helpful explanation and remove the argument from your repertoire? Does skepticism really need this argument to work that much? Are the facts really that annoying that when they are brought up you dismiss them as side issues or distractions?

But as if this isn’t enough, look at the emphasis given to the false claim about a “side issue”:

Was your God as clear on this issue as he was about murder? Oh, that’s not a good analogy because, well, you know, genocide, the witch hunts, heresy trials and the crusades. Hmmmm. Okay, let’s try this one: Was your God as clear about this as he was that we should love our neighbors? Oh, that’s not a good analogy because, well, you know, the question was “who is my neighbor?” right? But once you get my point you’ll have no good answers to this problem and you know it, so instead you side-step it as you did here. That’s what it takes to believe, Matt, side stepping problems because you cannot reasonably explain them.

Notice two things: Firstly, virtually everything in the above quote is in fact a case of “side stepping.” It makes literally no attempt to engage the facts that the Christian reply raises, instead it leaps away to other “bogeymen” type argument full of rhetorical flourish. But secondly, Loftus repeats the claim that the facts that Christians bring up here (namely, the fact that biblical servitude was very different from the case of southern slavery that Loftus describes, and that God actually condemns those practices explicitly and on more than one occasion) are side steps, and that to even mention them at all is just an attempt to get away from the challenge altogether because the Christian has “no answers.”

That’s right. To actually reply by saying that the skeptic has the facts wrong is just not the thing to do, because it distracts from the fun of, well, skepticism! What a bunch of party poopers those Christians are.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

I figured this sort of empty threat would be made, which is why I posted my earlier blog entry on David Bain, Reasonable Doubt and Defamation.

As is no secret, not everyone agrees with jury verdicts. The David Bain trial is no exception, and some people still believe that David Bain murdered his Family. Some of them have even started a Facebook group  called “David Bain is Guilty” for people who think that this is true.

Apparently some media law experts think that this makes those people vulnerable to a defamation suit. Their reasons for saying so, however, are not at all compelling. According to media law lecturer Ursula Cheer, even a small note on a person’s facebook account indicating that they were part of this group could be an act of defamation. Wellington media law lecturer Steven price had this to say:

“The main defence would be, is it true? And if David Bain wanted to test that in court he could sue for defamation.”

The person making the claim would then have to prove on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Bain did it, Mr Price said.

“And that’s very different from a standard of reasonable doubt.”

Yes, it is a different standard from reasonable doubt – and that works in favour of the person making the accusation. It means that a person making the accusation doesn’t have to prove David’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It means that they would only have to show that it was more probable than not, which is a lighter burden of proof. Saying “and that’s a very different standard from a standard of reasonable doubt” as though that should be a daunting thing for the accuser is just strange. But secondly, that’s not the main defence at all. As I noted in my earlier blog on the subject, the accuser does not have to show that it’s true at all. All he needs to show is that it’s a belief that he reasonably holds, which is a much smaller burden of proof again.

These threatening sounding warnings carry no real weight. If you really do think that David did it, then as long as you hold your belief reasonably, you are allowed to say so in whatever forum you like.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

And now for something completely different. This may be my favourite ever TV advertisement:

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

As readers will probably know, George Tiller was shot dead recently. He was an abortionist who carried out late term abortions, and he was killed at church.

The response from the anti-abortion community was more or less as I expected it to be, and it is a perspective I share: Morally, George Tiller deserved to be punished for his horrific acts, killing a very large number of babies. However, this does not justify vigilante violence, what the shooter did was wrong and he deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. Edward Feser furnishes what I take to be a typical example of this perspective. He says that while abortion is a terrible thing to do, “vigilantism is a grave offense against the moral and social order,” that “no private citizen has the right to take justice into his own hands,” and that “Tiller’s murderer ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

I’m not going to seriously entertain the possibility that Feser was ambiguous. He was not. He was extremely clear. Pro-choicer Brian Leiter wasn’t mistaken. He is an out-an-out liar trying to deceive people about the facts and use his lies to gain sympathy for abortion. As Feser notes, here’s what Leiter had to say HERE:

What’s wrong with the world? People like Ed Feser (Pasadena City College), apologist for discrimination, now apologist for murder.

“Apologist for murder.” Yes, that’s a link to Ed’s article where he specifically states that vigilante violence is wrong and the shooter deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Lying Leiter is claiming that Dr Feser is an “apologist,” that is a defender, of what the shooter did.

I guess this is one of those situations where the cause is so precious that truth is a distraction.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

David Bain was found not guilty of murder, but given the rather divisive nature of the high profile case, there are still people who believe that he committed the murders of his family in 1994. This raises in my mind an interesting question about what people are allowed to say about their beliefs in public. In particular, it raises the question of what does and does not count as defamation or libel.

If a person were to accuse me of being a murderer and as a result I suffered some sort of loss, I could sue that person or those persons for defamation (or libel if it was published). But what do we say in the aftermath of a somewhat controversial court case when someone says “I still think he did it.” It’s obvious that what this amounts to is the claim that “David Bain is a murderer.” Could this be defamation?

One completely adequate defence to the charge of defamation is the defence of truth. If what you’re saying is true, then it’s just too bad for the person who suffers loss. The facts are what they are. But the court has determined in the case of David Bain that the truth of the murder charge cannot be upheld. So that defence wouldn’t work if you were sued for defamation. [EDIT: See the comments. This is not quite true in a civil case like defamation, as the standard of proof is different from a criminal trial.] However a second and much more widely used defence against a claim of defamation is the defence of a reasonably held belief. Even if you might be quite mistaken, you are permitted to express an opinion even if it does cause loss to another person provided the opinion is a reasonably held opinion. That is, as long as you have genuine reasons for holding it (“genuine” here is meant to rule out silly things like racial bigotry, foolishly believing gossip, drug induced mental states and so forth),  you have a defence and you haven’t defamed anyone.

Here’s where things get interesting. Given the court’s not guilty verdict, could you reasonably hold the opinion that David Bain committed the crime of murder (or even a lesser crime like manslaughter)? As always let me be clear – I do not hold that opinion. The question is clearly not unique to the David Bain trial. The question applies equally to any person found not guilty of murder (e.g. O J Simpson). I don’t know if you can in fact reasonably hold that belief, but I am absolutely certain of this: The fact that a jury found him not guilty does not mean that you can’t reasonably believe that he is guilty. Remember that a “not guilty” verdict means that the prosecution has failed to show beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the act. In other words, the verdict means that a person who doubts that David Bain committed these murders is not being unreasonable. But this clearly does not mean that a person who believes that he did commit the murders is being unreasonable.

Let’s call the claim that the accused committed the crime “C.” There is nothing at all strange about the observation that it might be reasonable for someone to believe C and also reasonable for a person to believe ~C (the denial of C). Obviously C and ~C cannot both be true, but I’m not talking about which claim is factually correct.

In fact, to say that it would count as defamation to say that David Bain committed the crime has some scary consequences. It would mean, for example, that if you’re being interviewed in the media and someone says to you “so, do you think the jury got it right?” you are legally obligated not to say no, or you have committed an offence. It literally closes to door to even debating the reliability of juries.

This is not to say, of course, that you’re free to call David Bain a murderer. Not at all! Just as the jury’s verdict does not make it unreasonable to hold the belief that he committed the crime, the fact that the verdict only indicates the presence of reasonable doubt does not mean that your belief in Bain’s guilt is a reasonably held belief. If you’re caught accusing him, be prepared to show that your belief is in fact reasonable.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Today, at the conclusion of what was probably New Zealand’s most closely followed murder (re)trial ever, David Bain was found not guilty of killing his parents and three siblings in Dunedin in 1994.

I don’t quite know what I think about whether or not David did it. “What?” you might say. “But the court found that he didn’t do it!” No, actually it did not. I want to stress before writing this that I’m not saying he did it. Maybe – and hopefully – he didn’t. But this high profile case does present the opportunity to correct a mistaken, although widely held, view of exactly what a “not guilty” verdict really is. There’s a common belief afoot that when a court declares a person “not guilty,” they are making the claim about history like this:  “It’s a fact that this person did not do what he is accused of.” Some media outlets perpetuate this belief. For example in the news article linked above, we read, “Bain spent 13 years in jail for a crime the jury took five hours and 50 minutes to decide he didn’t do.”

Although common, this view of a not guilty verdict is mistaken. Yes, a person is regarded (presumed) by law as innocent until proven guilty, so the law will treat people who are found not guilty as innocent people – as it certainly should. They will still be presumed innocent by the law. But there is a difference between legally declaring a person not guilty and stating that it has been proven that they did not do what they are accused of.

In the Scottish court, a third verdict is available – “not proven.” In our court, only two are available: Guilty or not guilty. Guilty means that the evidence establishes that the person has committed the offence in question. Our broader “not guilty” verdict actually encompasses both the Scottish “not guilty” as well as the Scottish “not proven.” “Not proven” itself also encompasses both of these, since when a person is deemed “not guilty” the case against them is deemed “not proven.” The upshot of all this is that when our courts find a person “not guilty,” they are actually commenting on the case for their guilt, not on the facts of history.

If this seems a little odd to you, think of it in logical notation. In such notation the symbol ~ means “not” or “it’s not the case that.” Let G = Guilty, which means “the prosecution has established that this person committed the crime.” “Not guilty” is ~G, which means “it’s not the case that the prosecution has established that this person committed the crime.” Many members of the public aren’t aware of this, and they wrongly assume that ~G means “it is the case that the defense has established that this person did not commit the crime.” But this is not contained in either ~ or G.

Legal experts concerned about the public perception of high profile cases have been expressing this concern for some time. In 1994 Lord Donaldson advocated that Britain adopt the “not proven” verdict instead of “not guilty,” precisely because “not guilty” gives the misleading impression that the court has found a person to be innocent. “[t]he verdict of ‘not guilty’,” said Donaldson, “says nothing about innocence. It simply says that the jury was not wholly sure that the accused committed the crime.” Bear in mind after all, in order to find a person not guilty, all the defense has to do is introduce reasonable doubt. In case there was any room for doubt as to his meaning, Donaldson says again: “The only real issue for the jury is whether they are sure the accused is guilty. Whether he is innocent or not is irrelevant for their purpose, and it is a pity that this is generally not understood.” [The Mail on Sunday, 4th Sept 1994, my birthday, incidentally]

It has been established that it has not been established that David Bain committed these murders. Is he innocent? I hope so, and I certainly have no basis for treating him as guilty.

Glenn Peoples

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

The desktop PC at which I now sit is the current incarnation of a computer that’s nearly 6 years old. I’ve swapped and added a few different parts over the years, but it’s basically the same Athlon XP socket A based system that I’ve had since then. It makes a lot of noise, and a hard drive is on the way out and the merit in maintaining the computer continues to diminish.

I just thought I’d let you people know what I put up with for your sake. Now I’ll go back to dreaming of that new mac I might one day own. Oh, thou shalt not covet. OK. I’ll go back to rejoicing with others over the fact that they have new macs of their own.

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

As I’m in the middle of a podcast series on the nature of the mind or soul and its relation to the body or brain (or both), my interests in general have been hovering around the issue, so here’s a blog post to add to the mix.

Alvin Plantinga is one of my favourite philosophers, but when he gets it wrong, he gets it surprisingly wrong. Probably the clearest example of this is his effort to resurrect that Titanic among theistic arguments, the Ontological Argument (Titanic only in the sense of its unenviable fate, not its size). He really shouldn’t have attempted that one. But in general I think his work is the kind of thing that many aspiring Christian scholars (myself included) aspire to produce. One particular skill that he has is to paint helpful (and sometimes highly amusing) illustrations of the point that he is getting at. But every now and then I find myself thinking “what?” I’ve concluded that like many great scholars, Plantinga is brilliant in general, but he has the odd soft spot in the head, noticeable by their contrast with the rest of his head. The ontological argument is one soft spot. Another is an argument that he uses for Cartesian dualism.

Read the rest of the entry »

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

A friend of mine pointed me to this entry over at Michael Spencer’s blog, The Internet Monk. It’s a decent post actually, and I recommend giving it a read. The point that my friend was intrigued by was the exhortation that as we read and interpret the Gospels, “Don’t harmonize the Gospels.”

Don’t harmonize them? Why not? Michael’s reason is fine. He says:

Don’t harmonize the Gospels. That’s like taking four paintings and combining them into one. You come up with something no one painted and no one intended to paint. Let each Gospel author be an artist in his own right. However, a Gospel synopsis, such as those available from UBS, are very useful and important in comparing Gospel texts to one another WITHOUT harmonizing them.

It has long been thought, and rightly so, that each of the four Gospel writers portrayed Jesus differently, and intentionally so. They emphasised a different side of his character, or a different focus of his mission, or a specific angle on his status (e.g. Luke has a clear emphasis on concern for the poor and eschatological reversal of fortunes, and John went out of his way to emphasis the divinity of Christ).

Simply as a matter of respecting what the writers were trying to convey, you should refrain from trying to map one Gospel onto another, blending them to get one picture rather than multiple pictures. But there’s another reason too. This is a subject I’ve been considering broaching for some time, and this question has given me a good platform to do so. Here goes:

The other reason that you shouldn’t harmonize the Gospels is that to do so presupposes a very strong doctrine of inerrancy, and that doctrine is false.

There. I said it. I’m not an inerrantist.
Read the rest of the entry »

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...