The T World, The iworld and the R World

A fascinating discussion by Professor Dale Kuehne on "where the world is heading". Very abstract and theoretical in it's descriptions of the world, and no doubt some will object at his generalisations. But there's something valuable if you're willing to look underneath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogUTfxCu-uU

A Reflection on Suffering

At the moment I'm hosting a series at our church called Towards Belief. Last Tuesday we commenced the series by watching the episode on suffering. 

A member of the discussion group I'm facilitating shared a thought with the group. His thought ran along these lines: 

We are all joined together by 6 degrees of separation. Therefore, there are a multitude of connections I have with other people that I don't even know, through the various degrees of separation. People can often be influenced or even transformed by things that they see and hear. Given this, how could I confidently say that there's no point to my suffering? We can't say things are definitively pointless when we don't know what influence it may have. 

I found this to be profound. 

To be sure, this is more a response to the intellectual questions around suffering than it is a comfort to those who are questioning or experiencing suffering first hand. If someone is experiencing pain, in most cases it'd be highly inappropriate and insensitive to say to them "Well you never know who might hear about your story or who might be influenced in some small way by what you're going through!". 

But nonetheless, this is a valuable comment in terms of thinking about this. I recently read a book called Connected, where the authors detailed how our behaviours influence those around us and how we are influenced by others in ways that we don't even realise. This influence can be quite strong to the third degree. In other words, we influence friends of friends of friends in a variety of ways. Thousands of people we don't even know. Now of course, the authors were studying things like the transmission of stds, political attitudes and things like that. It might be a lot harder, if not impossible, to scientifically study the effect that our personal pain might have on others compared to studying other more concrete things. Nonetheless, I think the fact that we do impact people through various degrees of separation does lend support to this idea that we simply can't know what impact we have on others. 

The Burden of Proof: Everyday Usage

The Burden of Proof is a concept which has caused much controversy! It has many meanings. Here are some brief thoughts on it's everyday usage.

Everyday Usage

For most of us, I'd guess that when we hear "Burden of Proof", we'd think of our legal system and the concepts that apply in criminal law. As I understand it, in that area there's two main guiding principles. Firstly, one is "Innocent until proven guilty" and secondly, they must be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Considerations 

This raises all kinds of issues. Here are two: Firstly, the presumption of innocence (the first principle) means that the evidence for guilt must be shown and tested. Without being able to prove guilt, the defendant remains innocent. Being charged doesn't mean that the person being charged is guilty unless they can prove their innocence. No! It means the prosecutors must find enough evidence and then show they are guilty. Secondly, not only must evidence be found but that evidence must get to a certain level. It's effectively about proof, not probability. Some amount of evidence could perhaps show probability, but that wouldn't be enough. Sometimes it might seem very probable that the defendant is guilty, based on the evidence we do have, but unless the evidence is strong enough to put any possible reasonable doubts to bed they must remain innocent under the law.

A Current Example

A recent example (albeit, not in criminal law) might be the Essendon Bombers supplements case. This is an ongoing investigation and no players have yet been issued with any infraction notices. It has been speculated in both major Melbourne newspapers that part of the reason why players have not been charged is because Essendon's record keeping and governance was so poor. This line of thought is suggesting that ASADA just couldn't prove which players took what because of a lack of paperwork and lack of knowledge from the players about what they were taking. Nonetheless, it is possible that ASADA investigators consider it probable that Essendon players took illegal substances but that they simply don't have enough evidence.

The Big Picture Application/Analysis

As a side note and a thought experiment, consider this: If that were the case and it seems probable that the players were guilty but that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict any individual Essendon player, would it be reasonable for them (or us, if we had the evidence too) to believe that the Essendon players took illegal substances (putting aside the issue that them personally believing it has nothing to do with whether they charge them)? In other words, looking at the big picture: If we have some evidence but we are lacking other evidence, it is reasonable to hold a belief based on an interpretation of probability about where the current evidence points? If so, how much evidence do you need? Does it depend on what kind of situation or example you're considering? These are interesting things to consider.

Naturalism, Questioned.

1. If Naturalism is true, then every event that ever occurs in the universe is a product of, and can in theory be explained by reference to, natural laws and natural forces.

2. Universally across human cultures, in all places and times, people have reported the existence of events that seem to contravene the natural order and have reported experiences that seem to connect them with something beyond the bare, natural state of affairs.

3. If any of these events did contravene the natural order or if any of those experiences did connect someone with anything beyond the bare, natural state of affairs then naturalism is false.

4. It is likely that at least one of these events did contravene natural laws and/or that at least one of the experiences did connect them with something beyond the bare, natural state of affairs.

5. Therefore, it is likely that naturalism is false.

The key premise here is clearly number 4. The whole question is really about whether or not premise 4 is true. The other premises really just exist to explain the situation and provide a sequential framework for making this argument to question naturalism. The basic, undeveloped, intuitive idea on which the step by step argument is based, is this: It seems more likely that some miracles actually happened than it is to say that all of them didn't. 

The appendix to this argument would be to list some of the examples of events that have been considered to be miracles and religious experiences.  Craig Keener's book Miracles is one very comprehensive example of this.

Should Christians Engage in Natural Theology?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm2H5dQ84Oc


C Stephen Evans

Hayward Lectures 2012, Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Nova Scotia.

Lecture 1:

Should Christians engage in Natural Theology?

 And if so, how do we go about it?

God has always called some to defend him: Ancient World. Atheists (rejection of local Gods), superstitious- Miracles, subverters due to social stances. Justin Martyr.

1 Peter 3:15- Give reason- faith is reasonable.

New Atheists: Four Horsemen- Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris.

• -          Distinguishing Factor: Religion is not just wrong but it is dangerous.
• -          None of them have much experience, knowledge or awareness of philosophy of religion.
• -          Some atheists are embarrassed by them.

Dawkins has a novel argument: Designer must be more complex.

• -          But: Divine simplicity.
• -          There is no real reason to believe this premise.

Brash confidence:

• -          They want to write best sellers.
• -          Religion is not just wrong but Ethically and socially harmful.
• -          Questioning the idea of religious tolerance.
• -          Reversal of previous thoughts. Previously, people thought LACK of religious belief was so bad that we should be wary of it. Could be harmful. Now, have we gone full circle?
• -          Baptists stood up for religious freedom in this environment.

So, how should we respond?

• -          Theologians and Biblical Scholars should point out the flows in how they read the Bible in wooden ways.
• -          Plantinga, John Polkinghorne, Collins etc (Recommended) have shown the science and religion are compatible.
• -          Christian doctrine of sin shows that ethical failures of Christians shouldn’t be surprising.
• -          But New Atheist analysis of ethical actions of Christians is one sided. They exaggerate wrongs but don’t give credit where it is due.
• -          Justice, rights and wrongs: Wolsterstorff. Doctrine of human rights stems from Biblical faith and nowadays there is no adequetae replacement for Biblical vision.
• -          Jeffrey Burton Russell: Clearing the air, exposing the myths about Christianity.
• -          Stark: The Victory of Reason. May go too far in answering. Starks analysis may be unbalanced towards the other side! But, makes a convincing historical case- science etc stem from faith, not from some secular ideas. 
• -          Good to point out their weaknesses in social analysis/ethics etc. However, at a basic intellectual level we must show why a reasonable person can believe in Christianity. Failure to clearly articulate this simply plays into the New Atheists’s hands. 
• -          First sin of religious believers in their eyes is not to follow reason.
• -          A central idea of Christianity (and some other faiths) is: God exists.
• -          Response from Christians has been Natural Theology. Eg: Mere Christianity.
• -          Philosophers have done Natural Theology. However, it is not prominent in theology. Some view it with suspicion.
• -          This has given NA’s some ground. They see religious belief as Zero grounds, all faith which means no evidence. Eg: Dawkins at Cambridge.
• -          “Defined themselves into epistemological safe ground”. No public voice makes it appear that no serious case can be made. “What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof” (Hitchens).
• -          NA’s are evidentialist in their epistemology.

How to respond?

• -          Attack their epistemology. Eg: Reformed epistemology. Sensus divinitas NOT belief by evidence. That kind of belief in God can be ”Properly basic”. It is a foundational belief. No argument or evidence? That’s ok.
• -          I am sympathetic towards it .Plantinga/Wolsterstorff. It’s simple contentions are correct. But, it shouldn’t be our whole response. To argue that religious belief can be grounded without arguments or evidence is not the same as arguing that there are no good arguments or evidence.
• -          There is both propositional and non propositional evidence.
• -          Views of RE’s can be re stated.
• -          However in simple terms it looks like confirmation of NA claims. Ie: There is no evidence (if we say “religious belief can be grounded without).
• -          2 stage apologetics- One: Reasons why faith in God can be rational THEN two- reasons why revelation rational.
• -          Why NT not prominent amongst protestant theologians?
• -          Perhaps enlightenment views have debilitated NT.
• -          Other reasons: Widespread suspicion that it undermines centrality of revalation.
• -          But NT is revelation too. But, “Special” revelation from General revelation. Karl Barth. I am sympathetic to some of his reasons against NT.
• -          “Transcendence” and above us. We will end up creating God in our own image.
• -          Paul Moser has criticised. NT leads to thin theism. Abstract metaphysical claims. IF there’s a God, he isn’t interested in us knowing propositions, rather he is personal and wants us to know him. Spectator Evidence doesn’t cut the mustard of personal transformation.
• -          (TDE Note: Craig response to evil borrows heavily from this).
• -          We submit to God’s terms not vice versa.

Anti Naturalism

• -          We can accet all of these claims and STILL see value in NT response to New Atheism.
• -          Value can be in “Anti naturalism”.
• -          Imagine not religious believer, what shou;d they think? Is the most reasonable view of our universe, naturalism? “Nature is all there is”? Should reasonabke non believers be atheists? No. There are problems with naturalism. There are difficulties. We reconceive NT as a defense of anti naturalism. Point to aspects of our natural world that point beyond nature. Natural Signs. Points towards a profound mystery. NT articulates questions that a reasonable person ought to ask. Even if N theologians cant adequetyl answer them, NT will point us in the direction of being open to the kinds of Answers that Barth and Moser would like.
• -          I deny that naturalism is the most reasonable view of reality that one can take, even if they aren’t a believer.
• -          Epistemic situation of someone who is confronting the reasonableness of naturalism vs rivals.
• -          Where does burden of proof lie? What kind of evidence would we expect there to be if God exists and wants a relationship with us?

Burden of Proof

• -          Flew’s the presumption of atheism.
• -          They think of God as if he were one more thing in the universe. Eg “We all agree the universe contains dogs, cats, quarks, black holes”. Theist goes beyond this basic common ground. Like believing in the Loch Ness monster.
• -          If this were the case YES believer would have a burden.
• -          It’s about does the universe have a certain character or not? Is there a sustaining power behind it all?
• -          Is there a purpose? Or does everything exist on it’s own? Is the universe one big brute fact among many brute facts??
• -          Theist and naturalist don’t just disagree about God, they disagree about everything.
• -          Atheist mistake: Confuse commitment to naturalism (metaphysical) with commitment to science. But, theists and atheists don’t disagree about scientific facts and data!
• -          Question of naturalism: Is nature all there is?
• -          Science investigates the natural world, but it is not fit to investigate whether there is more than the natural world.
• -          Theist holds that scientific laws hold because of God’s creative activity. Atheist has no explanation. But, ultimately the question of whether there is more is a philosophical question. Like most philosophical question,s this can’t be strictly proven either way. If by prove we mean an argument that no reasonable person could doubt.
• -          God’s existence cnnot be proven. But neither can naturalism. Proof in this sense is an ideal.
• -          What is reasonable is asking which rival worldview makes the most sense?

Evidence

• -          What kind of evidence should we expect to find, if God did exist.
• -          If God is a hypothesis, we should ask what consequences would follow if that hypothesis was true.
• -          Some kind of knowledge would be available and widely available. It would be bizarre if you had to have a phd in philosophy or understand quantum physics to have a knowledge of God. We’d expect it to be fairly pervasive and easy to find.
• -          Christianty theology assumes a certain kind of r’ship: Freely, motivated by God’s goodness not coercion or fear. If God’s existence was too obvious, that would not make sense of this. It would have to be dismissable. Ambigious. Able to be explained away. Easily resistible.
• -          Pascal Pensees quote. Signs seen by those who seek but not by those who deny.
• -          WAP and ERP. Two Pascallian constraints on evidence for God’s existence.

To do NT, we must have three things right:

• 1.       Anti naturalism, rather than positive, complete knowledge of God. It’s goal is to tell us that there’s something beyond the natural world.
• 2.       Burden or proof must be right. No presumption of atheism. All rival worldviews are accountable to reason.
• 3.       Right view of the kind of evidence that it is reasonable to seek.
•  

Questions

Constantly changing evidence. Don’t wanna hitch our wagon to the latest scientific evidence. Eg: If we had to wait until modern physics was finalised to know whether there was a God. Eg: Fine Tuning argument which is based on relatively recent science. There may be value a nd something in these arguments but ultimately We would expect universal aspects of human experience. WAP principle. BUT Can still be “defeater” against WAP. So defeaters must be considered. Defeaters of signs must be considered. My view is that the signs are neither supported by nor threatened by scientific evidence.

NA a fad? Probably not. It has a cultural influence and impact. It’s stretched far. Atheists joining together.

Affecting families? Yes. Need to show not just intellectual but understand the attraction of their writing etc. Stuents with fundamentalist readings or no knowledge or bible can be easy pickings.

Calvinism- no need for apologetics? Do the Pascallian constraints lend themselves to this kind of thinking?

Evidence doesn’t have to be propositional. Signs can have an immediate impact. Sign becomes focus of reflection and we articulate them. That’s where the arguments come from. Don’t impact everybody but always retain appeal.

Common Sense Realism George Marsden. Are you opening yourself up to the dangers that this kind of thinking opened itself up to.

Quotable

Rarely are truer words spoken than these:

The most signal failure of the atheist project is not that it insists on analysing religion in narrowly scientific terms, or that it cherry picks history in support of its case. It is that with its evasions and its incuriosity, its sloppy arguments and its unwillingness to question its own assumptions, it debases the currency of rational inquiry that it so claims to champion.

In doing so, its exponents shoot themselves in the foot while backing the wrong horse. This might make for a diverting YouTube video, but as a basis for public debate it is as empty as the heavens above.

From Here "The Failure of the atheist project" by Angus Macdonald

Those who advocate the extension of marriage to same sex couples have been very strong on the value of equality but almost silent on the nature of marriage they want equal access to. Whereas those who defend marriage as it is currently defined seem unable to say exactly what its value and worth is and why the institution would suffer from extension to same sex couples. A meaningful discussion about the value and purpose of the institution of marriage itself has not taken place.

From Marriage Equality or The Destruction of Difference? by Scruton and Blond


These kinds of issues will inevitably remain vexed. Public opinion decides what is offensive, and public opinion is always changing. Some of today's acceptable comments are tomorrow's taboos and vice versa. So as standards change there will always be those who are out of step with the rest.


- Me, on people taking offense at the comments of others. 

Science and Ethics

A few weeks ago John Dickson finally made it onto ABC's Q and A program. This was a long time coming because, being a big fan of Dickson, I'd noticed people suggesting he should go on for quite a while. Notably, after Cardinal Pell's appearance with Richard Dawkins.

I highly recommend watching the episode- it covered topics such as what Christianity says about science, what science says about ethics, the teaching of creationism in schools and more. It's good to see Dickson showing the Australian public a reflective, thought out, reasonable Christian position on many issues, in contrast to the brilliant mind of a brilliant scientist appearing unintelligent and poisoned by his scientistic philosophical bias.

Anyway, I have a minor claim to fame from last week's episode- a tweet of mine appeared on the show! See the above video at 8:22.

My tweet was:

Science helped create the atomic bomb. Ethics?

To elaborate, my tweet was prompted by Krauss's response to the first question of the night, where the audience member asked where our values will come from if we place our future hope in science instead of religion, given that science has no ethical boundaries. Krauss's response was incredibly disingenuous. He claimed that truth telling and full disclosure is central to science, and therefore science promotes ethics.  

If Osama Bin Laden orchestrates a terrorist attack and then admits his involvement, is he then being ethical because he's telling the truth? No. Ethics is much bigger than that. Science tells us what is (eg: "This is a cell") but it cannot tell us what we ought to do ("We ought to save lives by cloning this cell"). The motivations for deciding what we should or should not do with information must come from somewhere external to the impersonal scientific method. In other words, even if science can consistently manage to progressively find the truth about the universe, this doesn't mean it can then tell us what to do with that truth. It tells us nothing about that.