Print This Post

Our Goldilocks Universe

8. March 2010 by Sound Rezn.


Our Goldilocks Universe

Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

The universe is incredibly massive. Nevertheless, its mass must be spectacularly fine-tuned for life to be possible. Exactly how massive the universe is remained unknown until astronomers focused the Hubble Space Telescope on a patch of sky no bigger than a tenth the Moon’s (angular) diameter, and held it there for some 278 hours. This Ultra Deep Field study successfully imaged all the galaxies (at least those bigger than dwarfs) existing in that region.

The field contains roughly 10,000 galaxies. By simple extrapolation, astronomers determined that the entire observable universe contains at least 200 billion galaxies. These galaxies contain an estimated average of 200 billion stars each. The total number of stars in these galaxies, then, is 40 billion trillion. The unobserved dwarf galaxies would contribute an estimated additional 10 billion trillion. Thus, the total number of stars in the observable universe adds up to about 50 billion trillion.

 

Fifty billion trillion stars—that’s an unimaginably enormous universe. And yet the universe is more massive by far! The stars, both those that are still shining and those that have burned out, account for just one percent of the universe’s total mass. The rest of the mass is a combination of ordinary and exotic dark matter (matter that neither emits nor reflects radiation).

One reason the universe must be so massive is that life requires it. The density of protons and neutrons determines how much of the universe’s hydrogen fuses into heavier elements. With a slightly lower density (producing fewer than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be less productive and at no time in cosmic history would elements heavier than helium be produced. Or, if the density were slightly higher (producing more than about 50 billion trillion observable stars), nuclear fusion would be so productive that only heavier-than-iron elements would exist. Either way, life-essential elements such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorous would be too scarce or even nonexistent.

Such amazing fine-tuning brings to mind Baby Bear’s “just right” everything in the Goldilocks fairy tale—and to a degree of precision not even the best human customization could approach. In other words, this amazing fine-tuning argues compellingly for the involvement of a supernatural, super-intelligent Creator, the God of the Bible.

Posted in Science | Print | 2 Comments »

Print This Post

Answers for Abortion Arguments

2. March 2010 by Sound Rezn.


Kortney Blythe

Abortion.

For some, the mere mention of the word elicits uneasiness. Most Christians would label themselves “pro-life,” but do they really know what it means and how to defend that position?

Christians should not be intimidated by so-called (and misnamed) “pro-choice” advocates. Science, philosophy and religion are on the side of those opposed to abortion.

Science.

The law of biogenesis states that species reproduce after their own kind. This means that a pregnant human woman can only be pregnant with another human being. In addition, one could take a DNA sample from the child in the womb and determine that living inside the mother is a separate, individual and unique human being with a specific eye color, hair color and gender.

From the beginning of biological development, a separate, unique individual human being is present and growing. This distinctive human being has never existed before and will never exist again. This human being living inside his mother’s womb is not developing into a human. He is not a “potential human,” but a small human with the potential to be a larger human, granted that he is not killed.

Philosophy.

Have you ever met a human being who is not a person? Sounds absurd, but that is what many ethicists claim makes abortion morally acceptable. This is a scary assertion. Historically, if one person, group or government has possessed the power to arbitrarily choose which characteristics of human beings give them inherent value, then genocides, holocausts and gross discriminations result.

Without even bringing religion into the picture, one can provide abortion advocates with a strong case against abortion. Pro-abortion arguments are mostly based on emotions, dehumanizing rhetoric and fabricated scare tactics.

Abortion is a violent human rights violation. When discussing abortion, always steer the conversation back to the crux of the issue, the bottom line – is the unborn a human being? If yes, there’s a Holocaust occurring that you must speak out against.

Visit www.rockforlife.org for more information on what you can do and to educate yourself on how to fight the pervasive culture of death. Also, feel free to e-mail me at Kortney@rockforlife.org with any questions or comments you may have.

Posted in Ethics | Print | No Comments »

Print This Post

The Age of the Earth and Orthodoxy

25. February 2010 by Sound Rezn.

All  Christians are, by definition, creationists. That is, they believe that God is the creator of the universe. (Creationists are usually  labeled as such due to their rejection of evolution, but even evolutionists can technically be creationists if they believe in theistic evolution.)

Some, however, believe that Creationism is not enough to guarantee orthodoxy. Beyond the affirmation of God’s special creation, another issue is raised regarding how long it took. The precise amount of time one refers to when affirming creation, they believe, must be taken into account as well. [Young Earth creationist Kent Hovind, for example, states that holding to old earth creation is tantamount to cultic heresy (Link).] This has not kept several individual denominations make explicit their belief in the age of the Earth (Link).

Numerous issues contribute to, and come from, the debate between all these views. Evolution is often blamed for the old earth position, and young earth is seen as the answer. John Morris wrote: “The real key, however, for resolving the creation/evolution controversy is in a study of the age of the earth. Evolution demands long periods of time, but if the earth is much younger, as the Bible teaches, then evolution is even more foolish.” Others, would argue that evolution has enough problems - even with a multi-billion year old universe there is still not enough time or material for evolution to take place (Link1 Link2). Another issue concerns the intermediate time after the creation days. While calculations based on genealogies may be interesting there are several problems with trying to attain accuracy with this method (Link).

Those who believe in scriptural infallibility must  admit that Scripture seems to disagree with what most scientists think. But harmonizing the accounts leads to several possibilities. The reality is that there exists a wide spectrum of positions which finds actual proponents in evangelicalism:

  • ‘Young Earth’ which holds to “literal 24-hour creation days” and a creation date as early as 4,000 BC.
  • ‘Old Earth’ sees the days of Genesis as long ages and a creation date well over 4,000,000,000 years ago.
  • ‘Gap Theory’ states that a lengthy time gap is found between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 after which follows a re-creation.
  • ‘Theistic Evolution’  accepts both the old age of the earth and the evolutionary origin of man.

Regardless of the relative strengths of these theories, the question that arises here is what counts for orthodoxy. In Christianity, orthodoxy is determined by adherence to scriptural teachings as stated in the Church’s creeds (e.g., Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedonian). The Nicene Creed, which is generally considered as the standard for Christian orthodoxy opens with, “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.” Therefore, orthodoxy requires belief in the special creation of the universe by God. Timing, here, is not at issue. Nor is it the issue in any of the other orthodox creeds.

It might be argued that the early Church Fathers had an implicit understanding that needs to be overlaid onto the creeds, but this would be difficult to argue. First, as Greg Neyman writes, “Old-earth creationists have pointed to Justin Martyr, Origin, Augustine, and others from the first four centuries after Christ, as believing in an old earth. At the same time, young-earth creationists have defended these past Christians as believing in a young-earth”(Link). Any argument that can produce two opposing conclusions is not very useful. Second, what individuals were thinking while writing their beliefs is difficult to know unless specified in writing. The creeds were set forth to define the faith, and if there was anything additional necessary to affirm orthodoxy those things could have been included.

In the end, the Bible does not clearly state exactly the age of either the earth or the universe.  Further, according to creedal standards, neither is an appropriate test for orthodoxy. This does not mean that the issue is unimportant, but we should all be careful when leveling charges of heresy against those who disagree over non-essential dogmas.

For further reading:

Posted in Science | Print | No Comments »

Print This Post

Afraid of the Multiverse?

23. February 2010 by Sound Rezn.


by Dr. Jeff Zweerink

You’ve probably heard of the universe - that rather large collection of, well, everything we see. A multiverse, on the other hand, is a hypothetical collection of distinct universes. At the first level, a multiverse might consist only of the material that we cannot see beyond the visible limits of our own universe. This idea is fairly noncontroversial. But at a second level, a mulitverse might be an entirely separate universe - one that might even have its own distinct physical laws and that is forever unreachable by us.  There might even be mulitverses beyond that. How would the existence of a multiverse impact Christian beliefs and apologetics?

Last week Sound Rezn spoke with Dr. Jeff Zweerink, a research scholar at Reasons To Believe, who speaks at churches, youth groups, universities, and professional groups around the country, encouraging people to consider the truth of Scripture and how it connects with the evidence of science. Jeff is author of Who’s Afraid of the Multiverse? and coauthor of more than 30 journal articles, as well as numerous conference proceedings. He still serves part-time on the physics and astronomy research faculty at UCLA. He directs RTB’s online learning programs, Reasons Institute and Reasons Academy, and also contributes to the ministry’s podcasts and daily blog, Today’s New Reason to Believe.

Here is how Jeff answers the above questions:

In order for a strictly naturalistic multiverse model to provide an adequate explanation for this universe and our existence, it must meet a number of requirements.

First, the multiverse model must be self-contained. Christianity argues that the universe has a beginning (and thus a cause, or Beginner) and that the universe exhibits design such that human life has a suitable habitat. A naturalistic model cannot exhibit a beginning or true design because that requires an external agent—a Beginner or a Designer. Thus, any multiverse model must explain the apparent design acknowledged by the scientific community without having any aspect of the model reflect fine-tuning.

Second, any successful multiverse model must account for all observations and data. In other words, any proposed multiverse model must naturally produce a region that looks like this observable universe. Additionally, any multiverse model must also make predictions about what scientists will detect in our observable universe. Otherwise, no scientific tests can verify or falsify the model because, by definition, the proposed multiverse forever lies beyond the reach of observations.

Third, the models must provide a mechanism that produces a sufficient variety of universes. A popular argument says that a monkey typing away for an enormously long time will eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare. However, the argument is only true if the keyboard contains all the letters of the alphabet as well as any necessary punctuation. With a keyboard of vowels only, the monkey will never produce any readable work regardless of how long it types. Similarly, unless a multiverse model produces a sufficient variety of universes, it cannot explain the fine-tuning observed in the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, and the characteristics of Earth, Sun, Moon, planets, and galaxy.

Fourth, our universe must be one possible outcome in the multiverse model. Otherwise the model is like a keyboard with no “e.”

Fifth, and most importantly, life must be completely physical. Although this requirement flows from the first, it bears separate mention to highlight its importance. All multiverse models I have encountered so far implicitly make the assumption that life is completely physical. However, if human life has a nonphysical component, such as the image of God, then no amount of twiddling the laws of physics and rearranging the stuff of the universe will produce a human being without divine intervention.

In evaluating multiverse models, one must keep these requirements in mind. I think it reasonable for the naturalist to assume that inflationary cosmology could produce a large number of universes that operate under different laws of physics and that this universe is one of those universes. Although both of these assumptions need further verification, multiverse advocates have put forth models currently consistent with requirements three and four.

In contrast, I have shown how robust arguments demonstrate that the multiverse must still have a beginning. Thus a strictly naturalistic multiverse fails the first requirement.

Similarly, the idea of Boltzmann brains means that our universe appears odd in the multiverse. Remember, sentient life abounds in a naturalistic multiverse model. Either the existence of Boltzmann brains means that we are atypical observers or the multiverse-generating mechanism must be fine-tuned in order to not produce Boltzmann brains. Either way, our existence appears fine-tuned. Once again, the naturalistic multiverse fails the first requirement.

I am almost 100% confident that a Level I multiverse exists. However, I would argue that the term “multiverse” in this context is somewhat of a misnomer. After all, the essential point of a Level I multiverse is simply that space does not end at the farthest reaches astronomers can observe. From a scientific perspective, a Level I multiverse fails requirement three. I am more ambivalent about the existence of a Level II multiverse. Mainstream scientific views on inflation provide some evidence for a Level II multiverse, although much more speculatively than Level I.

In the end, I don’t personally see any significant biblical problems with God creating a multiverse that accounts for some of the design aspects of our universe. On the other hand, even if the multiverse exists, it still poses significant problems for a strictly naturalistic view.

Questions for Dr. Zweerink may be sent to: multiverse@reasons.org.

Posted in Science, Apologetics | Print | 2 Comments »

Print This Post

Imputation

18. February 2010 by Sound Rezn.

“Seminary word” of the day: Imputation

To “impute” is “ascribe to” something. It is from Latin imputare: in (which means, well, “in”) and put (which means “to settle an account”). In theology, imputation usually refers to the doctrine of Justification. Charles Hodge writes, “The righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer for his justification. . . . To impute is to ascribe to, to reckon to, to lay to one’s charge.”

Protestants believe that this includes the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (a kind of credit placed in the believer’s “account”). Imputed righteousness is the declaration of a believer’s righteousness.   This righteousness is not the believer’s own, however. Roman Catholic theology emphasizes that God justifies in accord with an infused righteousness merited by Christ. Hodge responds that, “It seems unnecessary to remark that this does not, and cannot mean that the righteousness of Christ is infused into the believer, or in any way so imparted to him as to change, or constitute his moral character. Imputation never changes the inward, subjective state of the person to whom the imputation is made.”

Why is such imputation necessary? Because sin, it seems, is also imputed. Charles Ryrie writes that, “The debate centers around the meaning of Romans 5:12 and especially the last words in that verse—“all sinned.” Do they mean that all are sinners (which is essentially saying that all have a sin nature) or do they mean that in some way all mankind sinned when Adam sinned? If the latter, then this is imputed sin.”

Imputed sin, however it is understood, along with man’s personal sin is why, without imputed righteousness, no one would enter heaven.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2 Cor. 5:21)

Posted in "Seminary Word" Alert | Print | No Comments »

Print This Post

Haiti’s Disaster & Hollywood’s Avatar?

9. February 2010 by Sound Rezn.

Haiti’s Disaster and Hollywood’s Avatar?
Vishal Mangalwadi
www.RevelationMovement.com

Editors Note:Will America remain a blessing to the world or become a terror as portrayed by James Cameron megahit movie Avatar? Haiti’s disaster and Cameron’s movie provoke serious philosophical and cultural questions. Hollywood heroes used to save the world from villains, terrestrial and extra-terrestrial, now Cameron fears that an incarnation (i.e. Avatar) may soon be necessary to save the world from America. Millions of Americans murder their inconvenient pre-born babies because they have already succumbed to diabolically deceptive worldviews. The godless worldviews that shape their mindset are increasing their grip over American politics and military: could this good and great nation become a terror to the world? President Obama’s efforts have failed to stimulate the economy and a number of economic historians are arguing that it was not political effort but World War II that pulled America out of the Great Depression. Avatar paints a scenario of unfettered economic convenience controlling American army.

The following article by Indian philosopher, Vishal Mangalwadi is part VIII of the series, “Why Are We Backward?” published by FORWARD Press, a bilingual, monthly magazine for India’s “Backward” Castes available from Aspire.Prakashan@gmail.com. Dr. Mangalwadi is the author of Truth & Transformation: A Manifesto for Ailing Nations – highly recommended by public intellectuals such as Dallas Willard, Chuck Colson and Marvin Olasky.

***

The 9 million people of Haiti, largely of African descent, inhabit about 10,000 square miles of the paradise-like Caribbean island of Hispaniola. They constitute the only nation to gain its independence through a successful slave rebellion in 1804. Sadly, Haiti remains the poorest country in the Americas.

Its independence was inspired in part by the secular idealism of the French Revolution and biblical Christianity but launched in a voodoo ceremony on August 14, 1791, that, according to oral tradition, included sacrificing a pig, drinking its blood and making a pact with the demonic supernatural.

In 200 years, none of its 32 coups, multiple dictatorships and democratic elections succeeded in building political freedoms. Lawlessness, insecurity, instability, and dependency permeate Haitian society, preventing their independence from attaining either the economic potential witnessed during the colonial period or that of the Caribbean tourism we see today. This is what led French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Tele-evangelist Pat Robertson to describe Haiti as a land that appears to be under curse. On January 12, 2010, Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince, was devastated by an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude: as many as 200,000 people may have been killed, and now, more than a week later, 20,000 people are reported to be dying every day due to lack of food, water and medical aid.

The Disaster: Natural or Cultural?

On October 17, 1989, an earthquake of 7.0 magnitudes also struck the San Francisco Bay Area in the United States of America: only 63 people died. At that time the Bay Area had over 5 million residents; Port-au-Prince has less than a million.

Why this difference? The Bay Area was built on a culture of law, justice, freedom, and consequential trusting social order making prosperity possible. Contrastingly, in spite of many wonderful exceptions, Haitian society was built on a culture of immoral corruption, oppression, social mistrust and resultant poverty. Builders routinely disregard the rules for constructing safe buildings because political, bureaucratic and law enforcement institutions move on the wheels of bribery and fraud. Plainly, while Haiti’s earthquake was natural, its disaster is cultural. Thus, even though individuals need immediate relief, the only way to successfully rebuild Haiti is to transform its culture.

Can the Avatar Save Haiti from its Corruption?

Your browser may not support display of this image. In order to overcome its culture of corruption and poverty, Haiti needs many heroes like that of Jake, in James Cameron’s megahit movie Avatar. Jake was an outsider but, like Jesus Christ, he incarnated among a people in great need and became one of them. He chose to sacrifice his own life in order to save a vulnerable people that he dearly loved.

The Avatar’s hero is ideal but its scriptwriter is naïve. The people of Haiti practice Voodoo spiritism because they understand and know reality better than Hollywood’s romantic idealists.

The Haitians realize that they do not know the supreme creative spirit, they call Bondey. Since they cannot know or reach Bondey, many of them assume (just as the Western Deists do) that the Creator is also incapable of reaching them, revealing Himself to them, loving them enough to discipline them or to incarnate in their midst to save them. French Roman Catholicism tried to convert their slaves in the 17th century; therefore, some embellished Catholic trappings adorn Haitian Voodooism. Although biblical Christianity is growing in Haiti, most Haitians believe that the Creator does not care enough to interfere with human affairs. Therefore, Voodoo does not seek, fear or serve the unknown, absentee Creator.

Nevertheless, most Haitians do not think that only the material world is real. They know that spirits exist because some get possessed and their religious leaders receive communications and certain supernatural powers from spirits, called Lwa or loa. Therefore a majority of Haitians fear and served these spirits.

Like many Indians as well as the Na’vi people in Avatar, the Haitians believe that these spirits govern nature. Disasters, such as the present earthquake, have taught Haitians that the spirits which govern nature or possess individuals are not always good and benevolent. They may contribute to life, but they also bring disease, disasters and death.  As the movie itself puts it, the Mother Earth Force doesn’t take sides between good and evil. It is amoral. It merely restores balance. For example, if you turn a forest into desert, you will have to live in the scarcity of a desert. Indian Tantriks (occult priests) know well that no god or goddess sacrifices his/her life to save others. Quite the opposite: they may demand the blood of your neighbor’s child before they grant your petitions. Therefore, just as many of our “holy” Tantriks and ascetics become demoniacs, many Haitians have also become like the gods and goddesses they worship – capricious, greedy and unpredictable.

Haiti is different than the Bay Area because Haitian society is built on an outlook that the universe is not a cosmos ruled by the Word of One benevolent and just Creator, but a multiverse or chaos, governed by many unpredictable deities. This worldview does not encourage a systematic study of nature (science) or an attempt to govern and manage nature (technology). Since the multiverse has no Law-Giver who will hold us accountable, there is no need to be a law abiding citizen – especially if you can bribe human rulers just as your priests bribe the gods.

Could Cameron’s Portrayal of America be Prophetic?

Cameron’s Avatar portrays secular America as a brutal super-power, ever-ready to sacrifice simple, nature-worshipping people at the altar of amoral economic greed. America has had ugly moments in its history. Haiti, however, is witnessing a very different America – a nation that is quick to sacrifice billions of dollars in aid; a nation filled with churches and relief agencies now sending thousands of volunteers to serve the helpless; an army that will spend its resources to rescue the trapped and save aid workers from mobs of greedy, spirit-worshipping Haitians who will loot food from the mouths of lonely elderly and vulnerable orphans.

Unfortunately, James Cameron’s Avatar could turn out to be a prophetic portrayal of 21st century America. Following the European Enlightenment, American intellectuals also learned what Indians and Haitians have always known: The human mind, by itself (i.e., without divine revelation) cannot know the Creator, His moral law or His saving grace. (However, does our inability to reach Him, prevent Him from incarnating to save us as Jake saved the Na’vi?) The Enlightenment’s intellectual arrogance is choking Europe and America’s ability to seek God’s grace and revelation. Although professing themselves to be intellectuals, they are continuing to march towards a Haitian-like destiny: America’s godless, secular intelligentsia has succeeded in eliminating the spirit and guidance of our Creator from the educational process. As a result, public universities have become factories churning out amoral and progressively immoral leaders.

The brightest of these university graduates now control a significant section of corporate America. Their amoral, greed-driven financial management caused the economic crisis that began at the end of 2008. Honest working tax-payers were forced to bail out Wall Street, but the crisis continues to haunt hundreds of millions in America and around the world.

Amoral “intellectual” elitism is now crippling American politics. At the moment of writing, President Obama’s #1 domestic priority – Healthcare Reform – lies derailed, in shambles. “Reforming” healthcare sounds like a good thing. But if the ruling party is really doing something good, why does it have to bribe its own Senators and trade unions with hundreds of millions of dollars to pass a “Reform” bill?

Once American politics succumbs to spirit-and-morality-rejecting secular materialism, America’s military will be in the hands of amoral, greed-driven capitalists. The idea that a military should be used only for a “Just War” is a peculiarly Christian concept developed from the teachings of the Bible, St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, systematized by Stanislaw of Skarbimierz (1360–1431) in his sermons “About Just War” (De bellis justis). The Just War Theory assumes that governments and armies must live under the moral authority of a just God. The idea of Just War has never been a part of a Pagan, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist or Communist worldview. Already, millions of Americans have no moral problem with killing their own pre-born babies, when they are an inconvenience. They’ll be left with no moral reason not to eliminate the Na’vi when it suits their agenda. At that point, America will become even worse than a Saddam Hussein who marched his tanks into Kuwait to loot its oil wealth. When that happens, America will be what Avatar portrays – incomparably more dreadful than Hitler’s Germany.

Most Americans do assume that America can exchange the truth of God for a lie without becoming like Stalin’s Russia of Nazi Germany. But the assumption that North America has some kind of inherent immunity to the consequences of intellectual and moral sin is a racist presumption. Cameron may be prophetic in his portrayal of America. Yet, America can still be saved from its encroaching corruption and destruction. It can repent and return to the biblical spirituality that founded and still undergirds (albeit frailly) the Bay Area’s culture of just, compassionate and law-abiding capitalism powered by scientific research and technology.

Tens of thousands of Indians that now lead the technological and financial sectors of the Bay Area demonstrate that India (or Haiti) does not need to remain “backward.”

Cameron’s Avatar is fiction, but the marvelous truth about Haiti, India, America and Europe’s future is that God has in fact incarnated in human history. The historic Avatar actually sacrificed his life to save us from our sin. Therefore, we do not need to live as slaves of sin that is the real cause of Haiti’s cultural disaster. We can move forward. But we must hold on to what James Cameron does not yet know: the spirits of trees, rivers, astrology and mythology cannot save us. We know that we are not Noble Savages of Hollywood’s romantic idealism: we Indians are as corrupt as the Haitians, and the Americans are catching up with our corruption.

The Na’vi’s accepted their savior after significant resistance. We need humility to confess our need of the Incarnated Divine Love who would sacrifice himself to save us from our sin, including the sin of worshipping false gods, whether of trees and demonic deities, or of greed for power and material progress at the cost of the welfare of humanity and nature.

Since Haiti’s disaster is cultural, the most effective way to help transform it while meeting immediate needs is to channel developmental aid (in contrast to the relief aid) through Bible-believing local churches that seek to cultivate biblical spirituality. It is true that many biblical churches have not yet assumed the responsibility to transform their wider culture. They don’t yet understand why the true Avatar (Incarnation) challenged corruption in the heart of his own culture when he drove out those who were turning the central culture shaping institution, the Temple, into a den of robbers. Nevertheless, there are good churches in Haiti and one can connect with some of the effective and trustworthy churches through organizations such as www.HarvestFoundation.org. One of Harvest’s contacts wrote the following to me:

“Five days after the earthquake, I traveled to Dominican Republic to accompany a team of Dominican church leaders on a relief mission to a neighborhood on the far outskirts of Port-au-Prince.  We drove our trucks into the courtyard of a small neighborhood hospital that had been built by Haitian Christians in Miami.  As we began unloading the food, water and medicine, a crowd of people began gathering around.  I engaged one man in conversation – I don’t even remember his name.  This man looked to be in his fifties.  He saw the crowd gathering in his neighborhood and came to see what was going on.  This is what he told me about himself:  (1) He is an industrial engineer who works at the Port-au-Prince steel refinery.  (2)  He did all of his education in Haiti and has never lived outside of his country.  (3)  He loves his country and his people.

After our conversation, I went to work trying to help organize the injured who had come for help.  A group of young men had entered the premises, and several of them were asking us to give them jobs.  Pretty soon, a crowd of these young men began approaching the truck with supplies.  An argument broke out among them, and it looked as though a fight was about to erupt.  Frankly, I was pretty apprehensive, bordering on afraid.  At that moment, this industrial engineer stood in the middle of the courtyard and loudly called for everyone to gather around him.  He kept insisting, and soon everyone, including the angry young men, gathered around.  He spoke in kreyol, but there was enough French thrown in that I could follow his conversation.  Basically, he called them out, saying, “This is not how we Haitians respond to hardship.  We have our Haitian ways of reacting.  We look out for one another; we get in groups of three or four and solve our problems together.”  Incredibly, that calmed the crowd.  The rowdy young men leaked out of the compound one by one.  I didn’t get a chance to talk with this man afterwards, except to shake his hand and tell him, “Monsieur, vous etes un homme de paix!”  (sir, you are a man of peace).

That incident gave me great hope.  Leaders will emerge from among the people.  As far as I know, this man had no official role in that community.  He didn’t proclaim himself to be an authority.  But, he spoke with authority, and the crowd listened and followed his lead.  If the Lord gives me the opportunity, I want to spend my time and energy in Haiti recognizing and encouraging such leaders, particularly in the church.”  

* * *

  • Vishal Mangalwadi described by Christianity Today as “India’s foremost Christian intellectual” is the author of 14 books.
  • His bio is available on www.VishalMangalwadi.com
  • His 11-part lecture series Must the Sun Set on the West? An Indian Explores the Soul of Western Civilization is available from www.SoughtAfterMedia.com
  •  Vishal can be reached at Vishal@VishalMangalwadi.com
  • His latest book is Truth and Transformation:

A Manifesto for Ailing Nations.

“There is urgency about Vishal’s excellent argument. He is right on with respect to the moral and spiritual dynamics of Western Civilization. As an outsider, he is in a strong position to address Western minds because of his knowledge of history and facts, and because of the level of concreteness with which he lays out his case. His logic is impeccable and forceful. Of course our sophisticates will be dismissive of him, but multitudes of ‘ordinary people will see the point and perhaps will do something about it.”

Prof. Dallas Willard

Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California

Posted in Culture, Christianity | Print | No Comments »

Print This Post

A Brief Response to Shermer on Skepticism

5. February 2010 by Doug.

On Feb. 2, 2010 Dr. Michael Shermer was interviewed on the Sound Rezn radio show. Dr. Shermer, once a Christian, now calls himself “Mr. Skeptic,” and writes for atheistic and scientific journals and blogs.

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the Skeptics Distinguished Science Lecture Series at Caltech, and Adjunct Professor of Economics at Claremont Graduate University. His books include:

Dr. Shermer spent his High School and early college years  as a born-again Christian.  He states clearly that he believed in Jesus as his savior, accepted Christ into his heart, but no longer does. After giving Christianity an “honest try” and “reason his way through things,” Shermer became a skeptic. He received his B.A. from Pepperdine University after switching from a Theology to a Psychology major (eventually finishing an M.A. in experimental psychology from CSU Fullerton, and his Ph.D. in the history of science from Claremont Graduate University).

Shermer was part of what he calls the “unchurched generation” which segued into the Jesus Movement of the 60’s and 70’s.  With regard to Jesus they were anti-religion but pro-relationship, and formed the beginning of the evangelical(ism) movement. He led Bible study sessions and eventually enrolled in college in order to learn theology.

Today he is an unbeliever, calling himself an agnostic who does not believe in God. How did this happen? In grad school Shermer was surrounded by a wide variety of people, not just the Christians. He had doubts, studied comparative religions, psychology of beliefs, etc. and came to believe that religious beliefs are formed the same way that many other beliefs do (influence of culture, society, family, etc.). His doubts about Christianity grew.  When his girlfriend was paralyzed in a car accident, and God did not respond to his prayers for her healing, he lost his faith.

With regard to apologetics, Shermer believes that there are good arguments for both sides. But ultimately these arguments don’t cause conversions. Shermer believes that people commit to beliefs on a mostly emotional basis. The real reasons we commit to a belief system are different than what reasons we come up with to defend them later. Desire plus familial and cultural influence still lead the way to belief, and these are flawed means for discovering truth.  With regard to intuitive reasons for belief, like creation, that can (and have) become more sophisticated arguments such as the kalam and thmoistic arguments, Shermer believes these can be explained as evolutionary survival mechanisms. Human discovery of patterns in the world, and the imposition of causal agency upon them, is an evolutionary trait that we have inherited from our ancestors. Causal explanations for natural phenomena lead to the positing of ghosts or gods. It’s just what we do. For Shermer this is a separate issue from the truth, but it does explain how religion happens.

Shermer, therefore, does not understand why belief is so important to God.  What should matter is what one does (”works instead of faith”). Shermer said that he can’t make himself believe just because it would feel good or answer questions. If he is wrong, Shermer believes God will understand. God knows why Shermer is an unbeliever, and he can’t believe God would punish him for that.

Response

In many ways I think Shermer is correct. Most people do choose their beliefs based on desire. But this is not something denied by most Christians. The will and the intellect, the two component powers of the soul, are involved in all personal action - including belief. The intellect presents the will with knowledge of choices and the will chooses what it sees as the best choice. But the will can also direct the intellect to reconsider between limited goods, and desire has a role here. Unlike Shermer, I do not see this as a problem - in fact I think it guarantees fairness in judgment.

If people were judged for the content of their intellect, then salvation would be denied to some out of mere ignorance. This seems to be unjust. However, if faith is an act of the will in conformity with desire, then God simply gives people what they want (”their will be done,” as C. S. Lewis, a writer Shermer greatly appreciates, argued). Thus, faith truly does matter to God because it is the choice people make when they desire God. Natural law and social codes guarantee that many people will often behave in morally good ways, but attaining to the presence of God is not simply a reward for being a good person. Rather, it is the object of a believer’s hope (Heb. 11), and that desire’s ultimate fulfillment.

This is only one side of the coin, however. For God, as the ultimate Good, deserves desire and service. To deny God is to choose the finite over the infinite, and to deny the love, trust, and service that is owed to the Good creator. To do so places one in an adversarial relationship with The Good God, and this deserves not only the everlasting withholding of His goodness, but warrants the accompanying punishment that withdrawal of goodness produces (Mt. 7:21-23).

Michael Shermer will participate in a debate with Richard Howe at Church for All Nations on April 30th in Colorado Springs, CO.

Posted in Atheism, Apologetics | Print | No Comments »

Print This Post

The Bible On Homosexual Behavior

28. January 2010 by Sound Rezn.

Biblical passages that speak against homosexual behavior

Genesis 19
This is a lengthy passage relating to the destruction of Sodom.

Leviticus 18:22, 24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things

Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deuteronomy 23:17-18
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

1 Kings 14:22, 24
And Judah did evil in the sight of the LORD, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins which they had committed, above all that their fathers had done. And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.

1 Kings 15:11-12
And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father.
And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

1 Kings 22:42-46
Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem. . . .
And he walked in all the ways of Asa his father; he turned not aside from it, doing that which was right in the eyes of the LORD: . . .
And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land.

2 Kings 23:3, 7
And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove.

Romans 1:26-27
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their woman did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.

Biblical References in the Old Testament

Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7

Homosexual References in the New Testament

Romans 1: 26-29
1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 7

Biblical Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage

1. God lists “homosexual offenders” among “the wicked” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

2. God lists “homosexual offenders” among those who He determines will “not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9).

3. Historically, homosexuality has incurred God’s destructive wrath upon an entire city (Gen. 19:4-5, 11-13).

4. God’s word defines the men of Sodom as “sinning greatly” because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).

5. God calls Sodom’s sin “sexual perversion” (Jude 1:7). Societies that remain in perversion (Sodom, Rome…) are on the road to destruction.

6. God’s word identifies husband-wife relations as “natural relations” and homosexual relations as “unnatural ones” (Romans 1:26-27) and “perversion” (vs. 27).

7. God’s word also rebukes those who “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:32).

8. Jesus declared that God had made them “male and female … a man … [and] his wife” (Matthew 19:4-5).

Posted in Ethics | Print | 2 Comments »

Print This Post

BioEthics Q&A 2

26. January 2010 by Sound Rezn.

We’re getting comments and questions from our show on Bioethics last week (remember - to send in Q&A to the show use questions@soundrezn.com). Here is one of them , answered by an SES alumnus Dr. Scott Henderson:

QUESTION: In a room there is a 4 month old human baby girl. Also in the room is container of 30 human frozen embryos.  You are there in the room also. The room,and its contents, will briefly be totally destroyed. You can escape taking either the baby girl, or take with you the 30 embryos and leave the baby girl to be destroyed with the room.  Which do you leave with, and why? Is crushing an acorn the same as cutting down a full grown tree with a chain saw? Define the term “person.” Is an embryo a person? Thanks and Good Luck.

REPLY: The questioner begins with a dilemma posed in the form of an unlikely scenario. Before we attempt an answer, there are several other important questions that must be addressed. First, how should we define a person? For clarity’s sake, I will prefer to pose the question in this form: “what is a human person?” There are two general answers among bioethicists to that question. Some define a human person in functionalist terms. Until and unless a human organism functions in a certain way, that is, until the organism has certain person-making capacities, we are in no way justified in granting moral standing to the organism in question. What those capacities are differ depending on who one asks. For most functionalists, persons are human beings who have the capacity for consciousness (or some key mental capacity), a necessary condition of which is an intact cerebral cortex. This view depends on a body-self (or body-person) dualism that supposes that the person comes to be (and may cease to be) at one time and the human organism associated with that person at another. Depending on which form of functionalism one embraces, functionalists generally disqualify human embryos, fetuses, newborns (in some cases), as well as adult humans in certain diminished neurological states (PVS, brain death, and some cases of dementia and amnesia) as persons. But designating these humans as non-persons has numerous counter-intuitive problems. (Two excellent critiques are: Lee, Patrick, and Robert P. George. Body-Self Dualism in Contemporary Ethics and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Francis Beckwith. Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge, 2007.)

The traditional substance view defines a human person in terms of its substantial identity (or nature). A thing is what it is according to its nature. According to the substance view, a human person throughout its development and decline does not undergo any substantial changes that alter its identity until it dies. Indeed, it remains numerically identical to itself as long as it exists even when it is unable to exhibit all the functions normally associated with healthy adult human persons. Hence, mere membership in the species homo sapiens is sufficient reason to attribute intrinsic value and rights to any human individual in recognition that it is “one of us.” There are several important factors to note about human embryos that render them human persons. First, an embryo is from the start distinct from any cell of the father and mother. This is due to its internal, directed, and distinct growth toward maturation. Second, the embryo is human with a genetic make-up characteristic of humans. Third, the embryo, though immature, is acomplete or whole organism that will, barring disease, violence, or variation in environment, direct itself toward full expression of its nature or essence. All of these features are present in the embryo and none of the changes it undergoes during its development generates a new direction of growth. In short, the thing that you and I are now is identical to the organism that came to be at conception. Therefore, we as persons are human organisms of a substantial kind and what would make it wrong to kill you and me now would have been present at every stage of our development. In short, a human person is an organism belonging to the species homo sapiens.

The questioner asks whether crushing an acorn is the same as cutting down a full-grown tree with a chain saw. It appears that the questioner is attempting to make the analogy that an acorn is not a tree in the same way that an embryo is not a person, and as such, killing an embryo is not the same thing as killing a person. The analogy, however, is a false one. An acorn is certainly not a tree. A tree is a fully developed plant and an acorn is an underdeveloped plant. However, both the acorn and the tree are by nature plants of a particular kind. If the acorn came from an oak tree, then it shares the same nature as the oak tree from which it came. Therefore, the difference is not an essential one, but merely accidental—a difference in development. In the same way, although an embryo is not a toddler, adolescent, or adult, it is by nature a human person. Additionally, I would add that an acorn has not yet germinated. This further shows the weakness of the analogy. There is no human equivalent to pollination and germination. I don’t rake oak trees out of my yard when I collect acorns, but I would argue that I certainly pull up oak trees when I pull up the sprouts.

Now to the dilemma. Here we are confronted with having to make a choice between saving a four-month-old baby girl, and saving multiple embryos. If we accept the reasoning above, the 30 embryos are human persons. So, how do we resolve this dilemma? I think the best way to approach this scenario is to treat it as we do in circumstances that call for Triage. Triage is a process of sorting or selecting who can benefit most in a crisis situation . It is often used in emergency rooms, on battlefields, or at disaster sites when there is a real need to allocate resources and time. The process does not adjudicate based on status, age or gender but rather on the likelihood of benefit from immediate attention. The 30 embryos are most likely discarded or left over embryos from the reproductive process known as in vitro-fertilization (IVF). [IVF poses multiple ethical problems, at least as it is currently practiced.] They will probably never be implanted and allowed to develop further. In short, they are doomed whether or not they are saved from the impending disaster presented in the scenario. However, the four-month-old baby girl will clearly benefit from my saving her.. Therefore, I would choose to save the baby girl.

D. Scott Henderson, Ph.D.
www.dshenderson.com
http://ratio-intellectus.blogspot.com

Posted in Ethics | Print | No Comments »

Print This Post

BioEthics Q&A 1

21. January 2010 by Sound Rezn.

We’re getting  comments and questions from our show on Bioethics last week (remember - to send in Q&A to the show use questions@soundrezn.com). Here is one of them , answered by an SES alumnus Dr. Scott Henderson:

QUESTION: Just started listening to today’s program.  I always appreciate the Biblical teaching you bring when I am able to listen. On today’s topic, I need more information, Biblical council concerning caring for elderly parents.  I wonder how much medical assistance, prescription drugs, etc.,we should pursue when trying to provide care.  My father is in a nursing home.  He is unable to do anything without assistance.  He has a feeding tube because he lost the ability to swallow last spring and he made the decision to have the tube put in.  Today he is barely able to talk or carry on a conversation.  His sight is almost gone. He yells “help” day and night.  Sometimes he needs help.  Usually, he simply wants someone by his side so that he is not confused about the activity around him or in the hallway.  Sometimes he really needs help. It has been suggested to increase a drug that he is currently using which would probably cause him not to yell so much, but probably sleep more. I do not know how to make these decisions.  Watching both my parents suffer with Alzheimer’s disease, I wonder what we are doing by adding another drug to keep them going.  My heart aches with this ethical question wanting to be obedient to God and to honor my father and mother as we are commanded to do. This is only a small portion of the situation.  I know my family is not the only one struggling with elderly parents.  I would appreciate any council you may offer. Most of all, I am asking for prayer.  Our Father in heaven is not a god of confusion.  But, at times, I ache with confusion.

REPLY: It is no easy thing to watch a loved one deteriorate when there is no perceivable hope of recovery.  That’s why cases like these can be so hard to decide.  This case also exemplifies how technological advances in medicine, while many in their benefits, also bring with them burdens.  Fortunately, traditional medical ethics, informed by the Hippocratic and Christian traditions, provides us with important distinctions that are helpful in guiding our way through the maze of these kinds of hard cases.

The oldest of these is the Hippocratic tradition.  This tradition maintains that the primary duty of the physician is to do no harm.  This precludes the administration of poisons in order to prematurely end the lives of patients.  The Hippocratic ethos conceives the primary practice of medicine as the relief of suffering wrought by disease.  When medicine can no longer accomplish this end, the physician and patient ought to recognize the futility of medicine and withdraw or withhold its use.  Thus, this tradition asserts that the purpose of medicine is to relieve suffering associated with sickness and disease and that when medicine can no longer achieve this goal, the physician should no longer employ medicine.  (The exception here is comfort care.  This should always be prescribed.)  The implication is that the extension of medicine beyond its purpose could potentially cause greater harm to patients in hopeless medical conditions.

In conjunction with the Hippocratic tradition, traditional Christian medical ethics draws out two important distinctions that remain well embedded in American law and ethics.  While recognizing an obligation to heal, there exists no moral obligation to extend life at all costs.  The traditional means for determining whether care is beneficial is found in the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary care.  Ordinary care refers to any treatment modality that has reasonable benefit for the patient, as determined by the patient.  According to the Christian moral tradition, foregoing these sorts of treatments is morally prohibited.  Extraordinary care refers to any treatment modality that does not provide reasonable benefit to the patient, as determined by the patient.  In other words, the treatment is overly burdensome and benefits the patient little, if at all. These sorts of treatments may be foregone.

There is also the distinction between killing and allowing to die.  While the Christian tradition prohibits the direct killing of an innocent human person, allowing someone to die is sometimes morally permissible. For instance, a patient may decide not to employ certain medical treatments to prolong his or her life.  Withholding such treatment, if the treatment is deemed extraordinary by the patient, is morally acceptable even though it will result in the death of the patient.  In another case a patient may decide to stop a medical treatment or procedure that has already begun.  In cases of this sort, withdrawing treatment is considered morally permissible if such treatment is considered extraordinary by the patient.  Finally, when the administration of pain medication contributes to a patient’s death, the general consensus is that in such cases the intention to relieve pain qualifies the act as an indirect cause or a hastening of death (by use of the principle of double effect)..  In these cases it is the underlying condition that is considered the direct cause of death.  When the wishes of a patient are unknown, then a surrogate should decide based on either the substituted judgment standard (in which case the surrogate decides by virtue of his or her personal knowledge of the patient) or the best-interest standard (what is in this patient’s best interest).

The application of these distinctions to this case indicates that the best course of action is to accept the increase of the drug as an effort to make your father more comfortable.  Clearly his diminished condition is causing him distress, which is only going to get worse as time goes on.  When it is clear that a patient is dying, is unaware, and cannot improve, it is appropriate to consider limiting life-extending treatment. But that is different than extending care to ease suffering. It’s not clear that the administration of the drug will needlessly prolong his suffering.  Rather, it sounds like a comfort care measure that ought to be given.

Another related issue concerns the continued administration of the feeding tube that your father initiated. It is possible that in the course of discussing options with his health care providers, the suggestion of withdrawing the feeding tube may come up as his condition deteriorates.. This could potentially complicate matters.  There is considerable debate among Christian ethicists concerning the appropriateness of withdrawing nutrition and hydration.  Some argue that it should be considered ordinary care under all circumstances, while others might consider it extraordinary under certain conditions, such as when a patient enters a state of severe diminished conscious capacity (e.g., patients in a permanent vegetative state).  These are hard cases, especially when a patient has failed to make his or her wishes known ahead of time.  My recommendation is that you should seek means to ensure that your father is as comfortable as possible in his final days, and since his condition does not fall into a category in which the tube might be considered overly burdensome (extraordinary), the feeding tube should not be removed.

D. Scott Henderson, Ph.D.
www.dshenderson.com
http://ratio-intellectus.blogspot.com

Posted in Ethics | Print | No Comments »

Next Entries »