Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Quote of the day

As a break from the regular content of this blog:

"Wise people learn from their mistakes. Brilliant people learn from the mistakes of others".

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Why is there something rather than nothing (Part 1)

Why is there something rather than nothing?

or

Why does anything at all exist?

These two questions are basically asking the same thing, and I see them as the ultimate philosophical questions. It's a question I ponder from time to time, and one which is equally incomprehensible as it is unanswerable.

I've added "Part 1" in brackets because I'm anticipating that I'll be discussing this question more than once on this blog. Some of the questions which are somewhat subsets of this question are:

- What is nothing?
- Is nothing possible?
- Does it make sense to speak of nothing?
- Is science capable of answering this question?
- Does this question even necessarily have an answer?

Saturday, October 31, 2009

Against Inaccurate Accusations: Don't impose your values on others

In this post I'll be examining the claim that one set of values should not be imposed on another person. A good example of such a context where this accusation is made would be where someone is arguing for a particular law or policy to be instituted.

To dissect this accusation, let's start by examining it further. The claim is basically that one person's values should not be imposed on another person's, because that person has the right to their own values. However, my response is simple: It's ok to impose your values on others because everyone imposes values on others, and it'd be impossible to live life without imposing some of your values on others.

Allow me to give a couple of examples to support my statement. Firstly, consider governments and law. In Australia, various laws exist because they've been passed as bills in parliament, or because they've been established by case law, or what have you. The end result of those various processes is that some things are illegal and some things are legal. The government (through the court system) enforces many propositions and values: murder is wrong and deserves to be heavily penalised, rape is wrong and also deserves serious penalty, marijuana use is not allowable. And so on. The point is: The government is imposing their values on everyone, regardless of whether those individuals agree or not.

Now let's take this to a personal level. Lets imagine you live in a sharehouse, with a few housemates. You wake in the middle of the night, hearing a clanging sound. One of your housemates wakes up too. You go downstairs and discover a robbery is taking place- they've got a bag full of something sounding like jewellery, and are looking through your dvd collection, adding to their bag of goodies. Now imagine you and your housemate physically apprehend the robber and in doing so, hurt him so much that he requires stitches. In the final anaylsis, what have you done? You didn't like the fact that someone was stealing your valuables and intruding on your private property- so you took action. You believe that your home is your private place and that no one else should come in unless you invite them, and that your possessions are your property and no one elses. You have imposed your values on another person.

So, this accusation is clearly wrongheaded and inaccurate. The fact is, the government and it's citizens impose their values on others, and life as we know it actually depends on some values being imposed on others. The question isn't is it ok to impose values on others but rather which values should be imposed on others? This distinction is important because it levels the playing field in any discussion. Once the person making this accusation is forced to admit the error in their thinking, it allows the focus to remain on the issue at hand (the value in question). If this accusation goes unchecked, it gives the accuser some unwarranted high ground because it makes the receiver out to be arrogant and intolerant because they're imposing values on others. As I've outlined here, this is clearly absurd because the society we live in relies on the imposition of certain values on everyone, and we all must impose some values on others in order to function.

CS Lewis- Cosmic Milk Jugs and Comparative Religion

This morning I've found a couple of CS Lewis quotes which are worth posting. I'd seen both of them before, but they both make you stop and do some serious thinking so I'll post them here.

Firstly, from Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea , he quotes CS Lewis on comparative religions. I won't paste the whole thing here, but I recommend you check it out. Basically Lewis argues that Christianity and Hinduism are the only two religions worth considering, more or less on the basis that they are the only ones which are all encompassing. I'm not sure what I think of the quote, but I always find it interesting hearing about how different people compare religions. The famous Mortimer J Adler, who converted to Catholicism after being somewhat of an agnostic for most of his life, argued for monotheism- he narrowed the field of play down to the three Abrahamic religions, putting them ahead of the Eastern ones. Unlike Lewis, he wrote Hinduism off alongside Buddhism. Sociologist Rodney Stark wrote a book called Discovering God where he argued for Christianity on the basis that it's the most complex revelation. I haven't read any of those books- Adler or Stark- but I've heard about their approaches and find it all very fascinating.

The Lewis quote came from a book titled God in the Dock, so I found that book and started skimming through on Google Books. It's a collection of essays and letters written by Lewis, mostly very short ones of a few pages each. Looks like it'll have to go on my ever increasing list of books to read. As I was scrolling through it and skimming the various essays I came across this quote, which I've seen quoted a multitude of times on various blogs (perhaps that's because a couple of the blogs I visit are written by CS Lewis affectionado's, and scholars of the Argument from Reason. Or perhaps it's just because Lewis seems to get quoted anywhere and everywhere. Nonetheless I digress....). Here it is:


If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents -- the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts -- i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy -- are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset
.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Current Books and Blogs

Books I'm currently reading or am part way through and haven't pick up for a while:

How to Argue like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator by Carter and Colman

How to Read a Book: The classic guide to intelligent reading by Mortimer J Adler and Charles Van Doren

Paul, Missionary of Jesus by Paul Barnett

Books currently on order from Amazon, due to arrive in the next week:

Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig

Naturalism (Interventions) by Goetz and Taliafarro

Following Jesus Today: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship by N.T Wright

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Craig and Moreland

The Scandal of The Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll

Various News and Links- Vox Day, Reppert

I'll round out my first day of this blog by drawing attention to some good recent posts and information on some of the blogs I frequent:

Vox Day answers a readers questions by discussion probablity, the psychology of everyday people and evidence for the supernatural.

I liked this bit- Very astute and accurate perspective:

As for your observation that your fellow secular materialists have become increasingly vainglorious and narrow-minded, I believe it is because they have been misled into a false sense of security by a combination of Christian intellectual sloth and the increasing compartmentalization of Western society. Intelligent, self-satisfied atheists with post-graduate degrees think those who believe in the supernatural are all poorly educated dimwits out to oppress others for the same reason that wealthy, suburban Christians with beautiful families think those who don't believe in God are all miserable gay alcoholics out to commit suicide. Their paths very seldom cross, their assumptions are often confirmed by the extreme examples that come to their attention, and on the rare occasion that the intelligent, highly-educated Christian or the happy, well-adjusted atheist finds himself in the territory of "the other", he's usually going to be inclined to keep his mouth shut about his beliefs in order to avoid unnecessarily rocking the boat. This dynamic can be seen at work even on this blog, as with a few exceptions, the people known with certainty to be atheists tend to be the less intelligent, socially autistic variety, just as on campus the only identifiable Christians tend to be either the genuine saints or annoying evangelizing whackos.

Victor Reppert discusses a major problem for naturalism

I think he understates his case when he asks "isn't this whole thing more probable given theism than it is given ordinary naturalism.". Yes, a lot more probable.

Meanwhile on the forum at Reasonable Faith, posters are discussing a recent talk by Lawrence Krauss given at an Atheist event where he describes the physics of the universe coming from nothing. Upon further inspection, he's talking about Quantum Vacuum Fields and Tunnelling. Now I don't claim to know much at all about basic science much less high level cosmology, but it seems to me that whenever scientists talk about the origins of the universe, they often make a sleight of hand by talking about "nothing". To me, nothing means nothing. No energy, no quantum fields, no vacuum tunnels, no laws operating to activate these things, NOTHING. It seems to me that for our world's top scientists, nothing means.....something very complex.

In the Australian media- New Atheism

On Monday, Dr Dvir Abramovich published an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, amongst other places (Fairfax associated papers) where he argued against the New Atheism. His article has copped a raft of criticism, including an article in The Age yesterday by James Richmond. On another blog, I summarised the article as follows:

The general thrust (edit note: of the article) being that New Atheists are a bunch of hypocrites.That, I believe, would probably be the best way to summarise his point. Although, the article aimed to cover a lot of bases and so I'll happily concede that many rational people could have a different take on it.

By hypocrites, I mean the following: Dawkins chides fundamentalists, while at the same time showing himself to be a vitriolic fundamentalist, albeit of a different stripe. Dawkins also berates Evangelical Christians for ignoring the evidence surrounding evolution, but then he shows that he's completely ignorant of history, and hasn't a clue about theology or philosophy. In fact, ignorant is probably a relatively complementary term to describe his historical exploits, when you consider how his shockingly errant blunders have been shown in some detail. And on philosophy, his philosophical prowess has not only been questioned by Christians like Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, but it's also been discussed in VERY negative terms by atheists like Julian Baggini, Michael Ruse, Thomas Nagel and many more.

In a roundabout way, Abramovich aimed to show that the fundy new atheists are short sighted and can't see any point of view outside their own limited worldview. And I agree.

Here's a link to Abramovich's controversial piece.

I jotted down my thoughts in response and was dismayed to discover that there's a 300 word limit on comments! However, I posted the majority of it in smaller chunks. Here's my original thoughts:

This thoughtful article was a pleasure to read. I have a feeling I would have an interesting conversation with the author if we ever sat down for a coffee. Although I’m sure we’d still find a lot of disagreement, it’s clear he has a bright intellect and a questioning mind. Which is more than I can say for many of his readers, if the comments above me are any indication. It always amazes me how a scroll through blog comments on any religion related issue will always reveal so many militant secularists, who, despite proclaiming their own worldview on the basis of rationality, interestingly end up revealing the bitter irony that they are capable of such gross irrationality. Likewise, the regularity with which people show a knack for revealing ignorance beyond measure, straight after revealing their allegiance for the worldview that claims to be informed, really is quite sad.

I must disclose my partiality to the views put forward in this article. I find the worldview put forward by Hitchens and Dawkins to be a kind of non starter. It seems to lack the capability of answering some of the most basic questions of life. For me personally, explanatory power is something unavoidable. And naturalistic atheism (NA) provides none. I’ve never heard a coherent NA response to why I would consider them more valuable than a mouse, or a grain of sand. This is a serious question btw. I’m not making this up. To the NA readers out there, please, explain to me why I should consider YOU to be intrinsically or inherently valuable. Under NA, you are simply a bunch of atoms and molecules, and are therefore just as objectively valuable as the leaves on the trees in your back yard. So’s your spouse or significant other. Many have written this off as mere intuition, which is fine, but it seems a rather strong intuition to me. That is, I’d have to deny some of my VERY strong intuitions to even consider entertaining the NA worldview. Something about the human experiences of love and compassion and beauty suggest to me that, although humans may be physically made up of atoms and molecules, there is in fact more to us. And similarly whilst the universe is made up of atoms and molecules, there’s more to it than that.

The same applies when you consider the issue of morality. Under the NA worldview, there’s absolutely no objective reason to avoid evil. Imagine you had the chance to do something seriously evil, like rape someone for example, and this act would provide you with something very good (for example, a hot sexual encounter with a very attractive female). Now imagine you were 99% sure you’d never get caught out for doing this act (whatever it may be). NA provides absolutely no reason not to do it! NA basically reduces morals to the realm of the subjective- When you really break it down, choosing whether act X is wrong or right is really like choosing whether you want broccoli or carrots for your dinner. Again, feel free to write off this intuitive philosophical rubbish, but I can’t help thinking that there IS something inherently wrong with, for example, murdering or eating children.

There’s numerous other reasons to avoid taking up the worldview posited by Hitchens and Dawkins, but I’ve outlined some of of the strongest- ie: The denial of my basic intuitions.

I always find plenty of other food for fascinating thought when considering issues like this. NA’s generally love talking up the wonders of science, yet their worldview provides no reason for actually trusting science in the first place. The capabilities of the scientific method and the existence of an intelligible, mathematical universe are simply taken on faith- despite the arguable vast improbability of both! And yet, without fail, Dawkins will carry on about faith AD NAUSEUM as if it’s a concept which belongs only in the religious domain. What utter double standards, and what complete rubbish. No, in the end I’m inclined to agree with Richard Swinburne, who said: “I do not deny that science explains, but I postulate God to explain why science explains”. Yes, it seems that the very being NA’s despise so much is, in fact, the best known explanation for the thing NA’s love so much.

I was just about to post my comment when I found this gem from Alex of Melbourne @ 3:45pm, and so I’ll just quote this as an example of the ignorance of those who claim to hold the informed worldview of atheism:

“I'll happily point out that most of the philanthropy in the world is motivated by atheists, despite making up a small proportion of the population.”

That barely deserves a response other than ridicule, does it? Truthfully it doesn’t, but I’ll reply anyway. CS Lewis once said that good philosophy is needed because bad philosophy needs to be answered, and something analogous must surely be applicable here.

Shame on you, Alex from Melbourne. I pity you for your ignorance, and/or for the gullibility with which you’ve allowed yourself to be so easily misled. Go do some research. Your statement could literally not be further from the truth. Study after study after study has shown that religious believers are FAR more philanthropic with both time AND money than atheists, even when religious related giving is taken out of the equation. Not only that, but the vast majority of charitable organizations in the world were either A. Started by religious people and remain religiously affiliated somehow or B. Were started by religious people but have since become officially secular in the name of political correctness. I add that last category as there are some major international organisations who are in that boat.

[I had to add that last bit, simply because I was flabbergasted that someone would be ignorant enough to actually say that. Where did he get it from? Do people just make this stuff up?]

The Saga Continues

As I said, the saga continued with James Richmond writing an article titled "Atheists are good humans too" for The Age in Melbourne. Click here. Again I penned a response. But time constraints (and a knowledge of the fairfax 300 word limit!) meant that I confined myself to 300 words:

As a Christian, I happily concede that James’s article is well written and generally coherent, and that he has effectively countered many of Dr. Abramovich's points. However, there’s a couple of issues that need to be taken up.

Regarding morality, Jimbob is correct in pointing out the bigger issue underpinning James's discussion. If you are an atheist naturalist (AN), there's actually no such thing as objective evil. When you think through the AN worldview and it's logical consequences, you'll quickly realise that choosing between moral act X and moral act Y is as subjective as choosing between ice cream and yoghurt. It's ultimately of no consequence, other than whatever ramifications you may face for choosing whichever course of action suits you. To me, this undermines the credibility of the AN worldview because it undermines my deepest intuitions.

Secondly, James goes to pains to argue that the brain is purely the product of natural selection. There's a problem though. Natural selection, under AN, is part of a causally closed system of atoms and molecules. Yet, the scientific enterprise itself actually requires the existence of rational inference, and previously uncaused causation between mental events. In other words the mere existence of science undermines the idea that everything is physically causally closed. It seems to me that firstly, John Lennox was right when he suggested that all attempts to derive rationality from irrationality (or non-rationality) are ultimately doomed to fail and that secondly, CS Lewis (in Miracles) was correct in arguing that the AN worldview refutes itself. It cuts off the branches it claims to be sitting on.

The atheist naturalist worldview promoted by James in this article is both highly counter intuitive and logically self refuting. Hence, it should be rejected.

Welcome

Welcome to a World of Interesting Ideas.

This blog will serve multiple purposes, including the following:

- Links to news articles

- My own thoughts on various topics- Short length and longer essay type pieces

- Book Reviews

My areas of interest include: Apologetics, Theology, Religious News, All types of Philosophy- Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Religion, Metaphysics.