In a previous post I mentioned Professor Raymond Bradley’s (Bradley) contention that,

[3] The bible teaches that God will torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

In his article he cites several scriptural passages in support of this contention. I think his exegesis is problematic; I cannot go into huge detail in a blog post but I will endeavour to address the main arguments he offers.

In essence, Bradley cites from three sections of the New Testament: Matthew, Acts and the Epistles, and Revelation. I will examine each in turn.

Matthew
Bradley writes:

In the Gospel of Matthew alone he characterizes it in terms which evangelists adore: "unquenchable fire," "fiery hell" (twice), "torment," "burned with fire," "furnace of fire" (twice), "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (five times), "eternal fire," and "eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. [Emphasis Original]

Bradley refers to references to “fire,” “torment” and “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He assumes, without argument, that each of these phrases refer to torturing people. However, an examination of the relevant passages shows this to be false.

Unquenchable Fire
The phrase “unquenchable fire” occurs Matt 5:12 and does not refer to torture.

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire. [Emphasis Added]

The phrase originates in the Old Testament. There it refers not to a fire that tortures but one that consumes what it devours, because it is never put out. (see Isa 1:311, 34:10, 11; Jer 4:4, 7:20, 17:27, 21:12; Ezek 20:47, 48; Amos 5:6). The context bears this out; Matt 5:12 states “burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire” [emphasis added]. The metaphor here is a farmer burning chaff. Now when burned, chaff is consumed and destroyed by fire and not tortured (unless Bradley is asserting that Chaff has consciousness). The picture then is of separation and annihilation, not everlasting torture.

It is worth noting that not only does this passage not support Bradley’s contention (a), it does not support (b) either. In v 10-11 the reason people might be subject to judgement is not because of what they believe, but because of unrepentant wrongdoing. Moreover, the earlier context alludes to “lack of fruit,” an Old Testament idiom for lack of virtuous conduct.

Fiery Hell
The references to “hell fire” do not bear Bradley’s point out either. The Greek word for hell is Ge-Hinnom. Ge-Hinnom was a valley outside of Jerusalem. In the time of Manasseh, this valley was used for human sacrifices to the Canaanite God Molech. For this reason the area became a euphemism for disgrace, shame and contempt. Later after the Assyrian invasion, it was a place where dead bodies were piled up and cremated. Isaiah used metaphors of mass cremation as a metaphor for future judgement. This imagery became a metaphor for final judgment in Jewish Apocalyptic writings.

The term “fiery hell” does not necessitate a picture of everlasting torture; again the references to hell in Matthew bear this out. In 5:29-30 the contrast is drawn between cutting off your hand and throwing it into hell or throwing your whole body into hell. This again is not an allusion to torture (unless severed hands have consciousness?). In Matt 10:28, the contrast is between a person who kills a body and God who kills body and soul in hell. The picture is, again, not of torture but of being discarded and destroyed. Moreover, in all these references things are thrown into hell not because of what they believe but because of what they do.

Burned with Fire
Again when one looks at the actual passages in context, one sees they do not say what Bradley alleges. The repeated picture is of a tree being cut down and burned due to its lack of fruit (Matt 3:11 and Matt 7:19). The imagery is again of throwing something away and destroying it and not of torture (trees are not conscious). Moreover, fruitlessness is standard apocalyptic imagery for unjust conduct, not for mistaken belief.

Furnace of Fire
The references to a “furnace of fire” in Matt 13 do not convey endless torture. In 13:40 the explicit metaphor is of weeds which are pulled out and burned. Moreover in v 47, the furnace stands in a Semitic parallel to fish that are already dead but are thrown away as rubbish. Moreover, in both passages it is clear that judgement is inflicted upon people because they “do evil” or are “wicked”; it is again actions not beliefs.

Gnashing of Teeth
Similarly Bradley appears to interpret the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” as referring to the agony of torture. This again is unlikely. The phrase occurs many times in the Old Testament (Job 16:9; Ps 35:16, 36:16, 37:12; Lam. 2:16) and in the New Testament, and in almost every instance signifies hatred or rage at God or the righteous. Not the agony of pain and torture.

Eternal Fire
It is equally doubtful that the phrase “eternal fire” means eternal torture. Jude v7, for example, uses the term “eternal fire” to describe the judgment that befell Sodom and Gomorrah, towns that were reduced to rubble and not tortured forever.

The passages in Matthew referred to are firstly symbolic, and secondly, do not support Bradley’s contention that they teach that God will torture people forever because of their beliefs. Its also worth noting Bradley’s citations from Matthew are selective. He cites the “fire” metaphor but ignores the metaphors for judgement of being incarcerated or of being expelled from a party which also occur in Matthew, etc and in each case it is the person’s deeds and not their beliefs, which are the basis for judgment.

Epistles and Acts
Bradley’s citations from Acts and the Epistles similarly do not back up his point. He notes,

According to Luke, the reputed author of The Acts, there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12). And St. Paul makes it clearer still when he tells us that "the Lord Jesus Christ shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not know God [my emphasis]and to those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction" (II Thess. 1:7-9). [Emphasis Original]

The problem is that neither passage affirms that people are tortured for ever because of what they believe. The passage in Acts asserts that people are saved in Jesus’ name and does not state that people will be tortured because of their beliefs. Similarly, the passage in Paul does not state that people will be tortured but that they will be destroyed and the basis is not that they do not have certain beliefs but that they “do not know God” and “do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Revelation
At the Auckland Craig v Cooke debate Bradley cited a further passage from the Book of Revelation,

If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

There are several metaphors in this passage, a reference to the “wine of God’s fury” the picture of torment in burning sulphur and the picture of rising smoke. Bradley appears to have attached on to the latter two and interpreted them rather literally. The problem here is that the genre of Revelation is Apocalyptic literature. Such literature is highly metaphorical and uses stock symbols (common symbols repeatedly used in this type of literature). Careful note should be taken when reading Revelation of the metaphors in it and also the Old Testament background of these metaphors. The position is far more nuanced than Bradley appears to think.

The picture of fire and sulphur followed by rising smoke is drawn from the account of Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction by “burning sulphur.” Gen 19 adds,

27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land,

This imagery of sulphur being poured upon people and smoke rising was later used in the Old Testament to symbolise the destruction of various nations. (Deut 29:23; Job 18:15-17; Ps 11:6; Isa 30:33). Perhaps one of the clearest uses of this imagery is seen in Isaiah 34

9 Edom's streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch! 10 It will not be quenched night and day; its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again.

Now Edom did not literally burn forever in sulphur. In fact, taken literally, the differing metaphors in Isa 34 for Edom’s destruction would contradict each other. But Apocalyptic literature is not supposed to be taken this literally (just as many of the phrases we use today are not meant to be taken literally). What Apocalyptic literature does in this instance is use various differing, dramatic, visual images to describe total the destruction of Edom. Similar imagery to this passage is used thought the book of Revelation. In fact, in Rev 18 when the destruction of a city, named Babylon but probably a reference to Rome or Jerusalem, the city is said to be tormented by fire and onlookers watch the rising smoke. The message is that Babylon has been judged and destroyed.
In essence, then, [3] is mistaken. It is based on an excessively literalistic reading of Apocalyptic literature. Bradley’s argument is not an argument for atheism. It can only succeed as an argument for atheism if one accepts both the infallibility of scripture and an excessively literalistic reading of the text, one that fails to take into account the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic writings. The correct response to this objection is not to become an atheist but to reject poor hermeneutics.

Matt

RELATED POSTS:
William Lane Craig, Raymond Bradley and the Problem of Hell Part Two
The Battle of the Bill’s: A Review of the Craig - Cooke Debate

Dr William Lane Craig and Dr Bill Cooke debated the moot “Is God a Delusion?” at Auckland University on 17 June 2008. The debate was chaired by Professor John Bishop and was organised by New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZRAH) and Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship (TSCF) with MandM.

High quality DVD copies of the debate are available from John Welch for $39.95 NZD + P&P.

Our review of the debate is here. Enjoy :-)

During the Q & A at the recent Auckland Cooke - Craig debate, Professor Raymond Bradley (Bradley), Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Auckland University, offered an argument, which he has laid out in more detail in his article A Moral Argument for Atheism, as follows:

Christians accept that:

[1] Any act that God commits, causes, commands or condones is morally permissible;
[2] It is morally wrong to torture people endlessly for their beliefs;
[3] The bible teaches that God will torture people endlessly for their beliefs;

From this he inferred that:

[4] God does not exist.

Dr William Lane Craig (Craig) responded that the conclusion does not follow from the premises unless one assumes that the Bible is infallible. [1] and [2] entail that God will not endlessly torture people for their beliefs. However, [3] entails the negation of this only if one adds the further premise, that whatever the bible teaches about God is true. If one does not grant this assumption, the fact that the bible records that God will do something does not entail that he actually will do this. Hence, even if Bradley’s argument is sound it is really an argument against theism conjoined with biblical infallibility, not against theism per se.

In his article, Bradley argues that this option is unavailable to the Christian theist. He writes:

this would be to be to abandon the chief foundation of religious and moral epistemology (ways of obtaining religious and moral knowledge) … the question arises as to how we are supposed to know of God's existence let alone look to him for moral guidance. After all, it is a distinguishing feature of theism, as opposed to deism, to hold that God reveals himself to us and, from time to time, intervenes in human history. And the Bible, according to theists, is the principal record of his revelatory interventions. If the Bible, with its stories of Moses and Jesus, is not his revealed and presumptively true word, then how are we to know of him? If God doesn't reveal himself through the Old Testament Moses and the New Testament Jesus, then through whom does he reveal himself? To be sure, a theist could well claim that God also reveals himself through other channels in addition to the Bible: reason, tradition, and religious experience all being cases in point. But to deny that the Bible is his main mode of communication would be to deny that the principal figures in Judaism and Christianity can really be known at all. Apart from the scriptural records, we would know little, if anything, of Moses or Jesus, it being doubtful that secular history has anything reliable to say about either. Apart from the scriptural records we would know nothing of the so-called Ten Commandments that God supposedly delivered to Moses, or of the ethical principles that Jesus supposedly delivered in his sermons and parables.

Bradley is mistaken. He confuses the claim (i) that scripture is reliable, with the claim (ii) that scripture is infallible. In order for the Bible to give us reliable, trust-worthy information about God, (i) needs to be the case. However, (i) is compatible with admitting that on some issues scripture is mistaken.

Therefore, Bradley’s argument does not have the bite he (and some members of the audience on Tuesday) thought it did. Nether-the-less as an evangelical, Craig is committed to some form of scriptural infallibility and I share this commitment with him. So it is best to see if another line of attack is available.

Craig’s second point alluded to an ambiguity in [2]. [2] states it is wrong to endlessly torture people for their beliefs. However, this could be interpreted two possible ways, it could be interpreted as:

[2a] It is wrong for human persons to endlessly torture people for their beliefs;
[2b] It is wrong for any person including God to endlessly torture people for their beliefs.

Now in order for Bradley’s argument to follow, [2b] needs to be the case. It needs to be the case that God is engaging in wrongdoing if he tortures people for their beliefs. However, in the article Bradley cites in support of this argument, he provides reasons only for [2a]. He argues that to deny principles such as do not torture people endlessly for their beliefs,

... would be to ally oneself with moral monsters like Ghenghis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. It would be to abandon all pretense to a belief in objective moral values. Indeed, if it is permissible to violate the above principles, then it isn't easy to see what sorts of acts would not be permissible. .. [It] would be tantamount to an embrace of moral nihilism. And no theist who believes in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount could assent to that.

What Bradley fails to appreciate is that these absurd consequences follow from the rejection of (2a) and not from the rejection of (2b). Moreover, as Craig noted there are good reasons for thinking that it is (2a) and not (2b) that is true. This is because (2b) assumes that God has duties. Both, Craig and I believe in a meta-ethical view known as the Divine Command Theory (DCT). According to this position, it is wrong for a person to perform an action, if and only if, God commands them to not perform this action. It follows from a DCT that God has duties only if he issues commands to himself. Given he does not issue commands to himself, it follows that God cannot have duties.

God does issue commands to human beings. One command is to not torture people for their beliefs. It follows that (2a) is true and (2a) prevents us allying ourselves with moral monsters such as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc.

Craig’s response, then, is correct. I am inclined to think, however, that Bradley’s argument can be recast without presupposing that God has duties. It is essential to theism and to the defensibility of a divine command theory to maintain that:

[1’] God is good (where good is referred to in terms of virtues as opposed to (duties).

And a person, following Bradley’s lead, could argue that:

[2’] A good person does not torture people for their beliefs.
[3] The bible teaches that God will torture people endlessly for their beliefs.

And [1’], [2’] and [3’], when conjoined to a commitment to biblical infallibility, entail a contradiction.

The best response to Bradley is to attack [3]. Now note that [3] asserts at least two things; first: (a) scripture states that God will torture people forever; second, (b) God does so because of what such people believe. The crucial question then is what reasons Bradley offers for the truth of (a) and (b)? In my next post I will examine some of these reasons and argue that they are mistaken.

Matt

RELATED POSTS:
William Lane Craig, Raymond Bradley and the Problem of Hell Part Two
The Battle of the Bill’s: A Review of the Craig - Cooke Debate

Despite holding to a somewhat contrary viewpoint and despite having had more than one clash of viewpoints it appears that our critics accord us some praise. I just now stumbled accross this thread on GayNZ.com's forum discussing Christian blogs and websites and was pleasantly surprised by the comments on our blog.

Kay writes: "The M & M blog is scarier because their posts almost make sense ... over the top hatred like www.godhatesfags.com is so extreme that its hard to take it seriously. M&M sound plausible & reasonable ..."

Kaiwai agrees: "... some of the things I agree with ... don't dismiss everything he [Matt] says."

Kind Kit adds: "Yes, Matt and Mads are certainly cogent, and even logical after a fashion. Dr Flannagan wears his philosophical training rather well. They are not frothing lunatics by any means... "

Cale concludes: "I do know what you mean though about them being persuasive, they managed to gather enough people together to block the Otago campus support for the CUB bill and Madeleine spoke dangerously well."

We would like to clear up a couple of things though:

1. The MandM blog is NOT "sponsored by the Elusive Brethren & Right Wing American Fundamentalists" but if either of the afore mentioned wish to sponsor us please send cheques to Private Bag 93119, Henderson, Waitakere City....


2. Kaiwai wrote of us: "I don't set out to impose my views by way of legislation - if I want to 'change the world', I'd sooner set an example by living the life I preach, then hope that it'll rub off on others."

Holding to classical liberal and libertarian political views respectively and being evangelical Christians means we believe in less State and in changing the world in precisely the manner Kaiwai expressed. For example we don't just oppose the Civil Unions Act but also the Marriage Act because both are outside the legitimate functions of the State.


3. Depraved claimed: "The problem with Matt - they're pro-life and yet, anti-sex education and anti-condom. They're against the very things which would drastically reduce unwanted pregnancies. An example, someone is in an accident, they're killed - the autopsy says that the individual could have survived had they worn a seat belt. Matt's solution is 'ban the car' when the common sense approach would be to make safety belts compulsory and improve driver training."

We are not Catholic, we have no problem with condoms beyond the fact that using them is like having a shower wearing a raincoat (we use other forms of contraception). Our children's knowledge of sex education is more than thorough and they could give a family planning sex educator a run for their money. But I suspect what Depraved is alluding to is our opposition to the State teaching sex education at all, and, in the amoral, relativistic manner they do.

Further, I am not in favour of banning cars but I do believe that it should be illegal for people to use cars to kill other people with. Nothing strikes me as more absurd as a pro-choice social policy that says let's legalise dangerous driving and allow people to freely and deliberately smash their cars into pedestrians on demand and when the body count for this practice (suprisingly) gets rather high, respond to this by increasing education on seatbelt use in schools.

Matt

I was absolutely horrified to wake up this morning to hear that Parliament had passed the Criminal Procedure Bill last night.

While there were some good things in the Bill (as there usually are) such as the district courts being able to hear P cases, I am most appalled at the attack on double jeopardy; the rule that a defendant cannot be tried more than once on the same set of facts (note: we are not talking new facts, new evidence). This law was laid down in section 26 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act:

"No one who has been finally acquitted or convicted of, or pardoned for, an offence shall be tried or punished for it again."

The doctrines autrefois acquit and autrefois convict (the defendant has already been acquitted or convicted on these facts) have long been established within common law and find their place in human rights charters around the world so for the government to erode them in this manner is yet another example of their disregard for rights and freedoms.

In the system of law we use in New Zealand a person is innocent until proven guilty. This system means inevitably that sometimes the guilty will get off and the innocent will be convicted. Whilst no one likes or condones these negative connotations the alternative is worse because the solution to ensuring that the guilty always get convicted is to imprison every accused and likewise, the solution to ensuring the innocent never get convicted is to never convict anyone. The system is balanced to make it difficult to convict because it is generally deemed worse to send an innocent person to jail than to fail to punish the guilty.

So we are left having to accept that once a court has heard a case, weighed the evidence and ruled, that's that. Allowing the state to keep having a go because despite the court's assessment, the state "know" this person is guilty (or worse because of trial by media, the public "know") is to give the state far too much power and to give society far too much uncertainty in the justice system. Whilst it may succeed in increasing the chances of nailing the guilty it equally runs the risk of allowing the state to run trial after trial after trial with its vast resources against the innocent.

Labour undid hundreds of years of jurisprudence on human rights formulated by far greater legal and ethical minds than any of them possess in one sitting last night. Just remember that next time you decide that someone guilty got off after listening to the 8 second soundbite on the news or reading the 600 word article in the Herald; if a judge and 12 of your peers who heard all of the evidence, got to see the body-language and hear the tone of voice of the witnesses ruled the other way, maybe they were in a better position to assess the case. If the police failed to build their case then tough. If anything, knowing they can have a second crack will encourage them proceed with a lower standard of evidence.

Of course with the passage of this Bill the government have not completely removed Double Jeopardy but have only removed it in certain circumstances which the Herald reports as:

"when compelling evidence has been presented that is likely to lead to conviction, and when an acquittal is found to have been tainted."

However, the common law already allowed this following Connelly v DPP [1964] AC 1254, which allowed exceptions on the grounds of special circumstances such as so called tainted trials and new evidence but this law goes further than that.

When you put together:

The Doonegate affair
The repeat failure to rosecute politicians who commit crimes
The abolition of the Privy Council replaced with a unilateral state appointment of judges
The passing of the Terrorism Suppression Act
The Electoral Finance Act
The illegitamcy of retroactive legislation
The placing of what consistutes reaonable force in the hands of the police rather than a court
The personal use of police resources
The public commitment to marginalise critical viewpoints from society
The increased presence of trial by media
The increased growth and intrusion of the state into daily life
(and probably more than I can think of just now)

alongside a series of reforms, the common thread of which makes it easier for the state to successfully prosecute we realise just how scary New Zealand has become in the few short years of this Labour government.

Madeleine

UPDATE:

I discovered on reading Don't Vote Labour "The bill passed its third reading 108-11, with the Greens, the Maori Party and independent MP Gordon Copeland opposing it."

While I am not surprised to find myself in the same company as the Greens and the Maori Party on this one as the Greens do occaisionaly stand on the right side of these types of ethical issues (though often the reasons they give are completely bizarre) and the Maori Party I have a lot of time for on some issues of this nature such as the Seabed and Foreshore, but what was with ACT voting for it?

I have an initial report from the Palmerston North Bill Craig v Bill Cooke debate held last night:

There was a massive turnout of 1399 exactly in attendance. The word is that Cooke stepped it up and performed better than in Auckland but that Craig still won. Feedback from those in attendance was that it was a fantastic evening, thoroughly enjoyed by all.

I have been promised a more thorough report later today so will update this post accordingly.

Madeleine

UPDATE:

Author of Confusion wrote this review, reproduced in part below:

William Lane Craig & Bill Cooke Public Debate (Palmy)

Last night (19th June, 2008) I attended the debate which I talked about in a previous post.
I was astounded at the attendance - the Regent Theatre in Palmerston North has a capacity of about 1,400 and it was easily 90% full for most of the night. There was an impressive diversity of age, gender, and race evident in the audience and I would say it was a fairly accurate cross-section of adult society (it certainly wasn’t an old white men’s club!). From responses to the speakers the audience was polite but predominantly Christian and this reinforces my impression is that there is a growing religious movement pushed by several of fairly active church groups in Palmerston North and it is something I am going to start keeping a closer eye on.

My overall impressions of the debate were disappointing, and pretty much match Damian’s initial impressions. Craig had a definite game plan in the debate, and it was clearly a game plan from a skilled formal debater. Set up premises and then defend them. Sadly Cooke’s game plan was to dismiss the moot, largely ignore Craig’s premises (begrudgingly discussing them, almost as after thoughts) and mostly talking to three points almost despite whatever Craig said. I will raise these first and then go on to discuss Craig’s arguments:

Cooke’s Approach

1. Atheists do not assert there is no god but that they do not see the case for god as compelling or even a coherent claim (based on weak definitions). Unfortunately, while an interesting point, Craig never really tried to pin this on Cooke so it was really not a point worth making in the debate.
2. He used Lloyd Geering’s idea that the notion of “God” is a barrier to understanding the world around us, and that focusing too much on god gets in the way of rational discourse and promotes undue authority amongst those who claim to understand it. This was an interesting tactic but it failed against the so-called “logic” of Craig because most people (including Craig) missed the connection.
3. Cooke’s final point was that we should stop arguing about our differences and instead focus on our similarities and on solving real problems. This sort of argument, while noble, is not the way to win debates. He talked about how he was happy that Craig was a Christian and that he encouraged diversity of opinion. Again very noble, but in debates it is about point scoring not nobility (one reason I dislike the format) and this counted against Cooke especially in an audience of largely opposing views.

So overall it didn’t really seem like Cooke came to debate. The only life really came from him during the Q&A when some quick witted answers did score some points, but by then it was far too late. If the debate was scored he would have clearly lost.

We really want to send out a big thanks to some of the people who helped us to pull off the Auckland leg of Dr William Lane Craig's tour.

First of all to Tertiary Students Christian Fellowship (TSCF) for bringing Bill Craig out to New Zealand in the first place and overseeing his tour and making time in his itinerary for him to travel to Auckland. Particular thanks go to Nigel, Mark and Liz.

Bible College of New Zealand gave us free use of their lecture rooms, accommodation and advertising space in their Guff Sheet. Jenny was particularly awesome in ensuring the finer details were sorted.

Auckland University Philosophy Department came to the party with hotel accommodation, lunch and hosting a departmental seminar where Bill Craig spoke. Their HoD Professor John Bishop did a great job over making sure the Craigs were looked after and of course chairing the debate.

The New Zealand Association of Rationalist Humanists (NZARH) booked the lecture theatre, engaged the videoing services of the talented John Welch and helped with promotions and logistics and we understand it was one of their members who came to the rescue when we got overcrowded and hooked up the live video feeds. Liz & Helen and many others put lots of work into this and were a pleasure to deal with.

Finally to the main attractions, Dr Bill Cooke for stepping up for the debate and presenting the Atheist case and Dr William Lane Craig for agreeing to all these speaking engagements and for showcasing Christian Philosophy in such a positive light.

M & M

My small idea of getting Dr William Lane Craig to have a debate at Auckland University ended up being an event that far exceeded my expectations. Despite the New Zealand Association of Rationalists and Humanists (NZARH) booking a larger lecture theatre at the last minute we still had to open up three additional lecture theatres with live video feeds and we still had people sitting on the floor! Question time had to be extended because of the interest. The range of people in attendance was excellent; hardened skeptics, evangelical Christians and everyone in between, young and old, high school students through to tertiary faculty.

My experience within the tertiary sector and NZ Christiandom has lead me to believe that despite the secular and popular veneer one sees in New Zealand culture and often in the church, there is a real interest in questions about God, religion and morality. The reaction last night to a civil, rational, intellectual exchange over these issues confirms my suspicion that not only are people hungry for articulate and well thought out answers to these questions but that they can handle these answers coming in a sophisticated and academic manner; the trend of dumbing down these issues in order to be seeker friendly or to have lay appeal is misguided.

Anyway to the debate; the moot was “Is God a Delusion?” Bill Craig opened by defining a delusion, in accord with the dictionary, as a false belief. He then contended (A) there are no good reasons for thinking atheism is true; and, (B) there are good arguments or reasons for believing in God.

In support of (B), he summarised five arguments which he has defended in more detail in the Philosophical literature, very briefly they were: (i) the Kalam Cosmological argument (God is the best explanation for the origin of the Universe); (ii) The New Teleological argument (God is the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the Universe); (iii) The Meta-Ethical Moral argument for theism (God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral norms); (iv) God is entailed by the best explanation of certain facts about the historical Jesus and his resurrection; and, finally, (v) a brief summary of Plantinga’s thesis that immediate experiences about God provide prima facie grounds for affirming that God exists.

Cooke’s opening was disappointing. I am not saying this because I am a theist and he is not, I have read many skeptical Philosophers who provide brilliant and powerful arguments for atheism (Paul Draper and Michael Tooley are obvious examples) and although I disagree with them I think they provide challenging cases that I can respect. However, Cooke did not follow their lead. Instead Cooke opened by defining atheism as the claim that “we do not know what the word God means.” Cooke then went on to state he does not think Thiesm is false but is rather a distraction. His argument then appeared to consist of claims that the concept of God has evolved throughout history, that this belief has been used by some to commit atrocities and to not follow important social and political reforms. He stated that there are numerous other accounts of God and there are non-cognitive forms of Liberal Christianity which are more helpful to the humanistic aims he shares.

Cooke also stated his distaste for a debate format where there were rebuttals. He alluded briefly to the problem of evil; however, he did not offer or defend any of the rigorous probabilistic arguments from evil proposed in the literature by people such as Tooley, Draper and Rowe. A crucial premise of many probabilistic arguments from evil is that God has no adequate reasons for allowing the evils which exist in the world. Craig (along with many Philosophers of Religion such as Wykstra, Plantinga, Van Inwagen, Tooley, Alston) has argued this premise is unwarranted as no reasons have been given for thinking the premise is true. The arguments on this topic are fairly detailed but not complex. Cooke did not offer a rebuttal but simply declared Craig’s position as distasteful.

In rebuttal, Craig noted that Cooke’s definition of atheism was incorrect. He quoted from a standard philosophical encyclopedia a definition of atheism as the belief that God does not exist which is quite different to Cooke’s definition which is actually something more like verificationism. Craig also offered a definition of what he means by God so Cooke could be clear on the meaning of God for the purpose of the debate. Craig then pointed out that Cooke had not offered any arguments for atheism in his speech. He had dismissed a response to the problem of evil but had not argued for it.

Much of the rest of Cooke’s speech was irrelevant as the question was not whether God had good political consequences but whether theism was true. Even if a belief is the result of social evolution over time, it does not entail that it is false (people’s understanding of democracy has evolved over time, it does not follow that democracy is mistaken because it has evolved and developed over time). Craig also noted that the truth or falsity of a belief is a separate issue from the conduct of those who hold to the belief. Similarly, the fact that a belief distracts some people from certain causes does not necessitate that it is false.

Craig also pointed out contradictions in Cooke’s speech. Cooke had stated that he did not contend that theism is false but later on he had stated that God was a human invention. Craig also noted that merely pointing out that other theologians disagree with Craig’s cognitive theism and offer alternative accounts of God does not show Craig’s position is false. The existence of differing opinion on a matter does not render the matter false, the reasons offered are what must come under scrutiny.

Cooke’s rebuttal of Craig was weak. Cooke responded briefly to the meta-ethical moral argument noting that theists and atheists are both aware of certain moral truths and should work together on certain worthy projects. This response, as Craig pointed out, confuses the question of whether an atheist can know moral truths with the question of whether atheism can provide an adequate meta-physical foundation for these truths. Cooke’s position that human beings have no real significance, that morality was simply an evolved convention of some sort, was, in essence, a concession of the meta-ethical argument.

Cooke addressed the Kalam Cosmological argument and New Teleological argument by stating that he was not a cosmologist and neither was Craig. He also suggested Craig’s knowledge of the historical facts surrounding Christ were mistaken, that scholars disputed the alleged facts Craig appealed to. He suggested that Craig was not familiar enough with Gerd Ludemann whose later works Cooke himself had read.

Unfortunately for Cooke, Craig was able to counter these claims. First, as noted Craig has studied contemporary cosmology; he did his doctoral work on the theological implications of big bang cosmology and has authored a book on it as well as several published articles. In addition, he has debated Gerd Ludemann and co-written a book with him and so could point out that Ludemann in fact did accept the facts he appealed to. Moreover, Craig could produce published review articles that surveyed the voluminous literature on the subject and the results showed that the consensus was as Craig had suggested. Craig also produced a fairly amusing illustration from Kai Neilson (perhaps more ironic given that Cooke frequently cites Kai Neilson in his debates) which illustrated the counter-intuitive nature of asserting that something could come out of nothing by nothing.

Cooke did make another claim that Craig did not counter, which was that scientific discoveries are subject to change and so it is questionable to base theological claims on such an unstable foundation. This may be a valid point, the problem is it would appear to uncut a key motif of Cooke’s rationalism. After all, don’t rationalists promote science as a source of knowledge and often attack Christian belief because it allegedly conflicts with science?

So in my opinion Craig was the clear winner. He offered five arguments, Cooke offered weak responses to which Craig adequately responded. Cooke at times refused to argue at all and kept trying to address side issues and did not really offer a case for atheism.

Of course it needs to be noted in fairness, that in many respects this was a mismatch. Craig is one of the best Philosophers of Religion in the world. He has published hundreds of articles defending arguments for God’s existence in the philosophical literature and is an extremely experienced debater. Cooke is a historian of the history of free thought with little or no publications in this area. Some of Craig’s previous debate with philosophical heavyweights like Michael Tooley and Quentin Smith were less one-sided.

I thought some of the real interesting issues and arguments came out in the Q&A. Robert Nola from the Philosophy department made an important point about the New Teleological argument noting that the fact that something is highly improbable does not mean it is irrational to hold to. Craig’s response was probably not as clear as it could be, he noted that the fine-tuning argument is not based merely on the claim that fine-tuning is improbable but rather that fine-tuning constitutes an improbable sequence of patterns. (Craig has made this point more thoroughly in the literature.)

Ray Bradley, a retired Philosophy Professor, raised a version of the deontological problem of evil noting that God seems to violate certain moral duties such as do not kill. Craig’s response was that if one holds to a divine command (DCT) theory of ethics then right and wrong are constituted by God’s commands. From this, it follows that because God does not issue commands to himself, he does not have duties. If God has no duties then God cannot violate any.

However, this is not the full story; one powerful objection to a DCT is to note that God could command abhorrent things like torture and hence a DCT would entail the counter-intuitive conclusion that torture is morally required. Divine Command theorists (like Craig and myself) typically avoid this objection by noting that God is perfectly virtuous and hence there are certain things he would not command. Bradley’s question could be rephrased in terms of whether a virtuous person would command or do these things and Craig’s initial response would not settle this but there are plenty of lines of thought in the literature which could.

In another exchange Bradley raised the issue of Hell noting that the book of revelation portrays this as a place of eternal torment in fire. Craig pointed out that such passages are in fact highly metaphorical and do not in fact say what Bradley thinks they do. Cooke responded by stating that Craig was being inconsistent he sometimes takes the bible literally and sometimes figuratively and Craig (who has a DTheol in New Testament studies) does not understand that the genre of the new testament is myth.

In fact Cooke is wrong and Craig is right. Revelation has a particular genre, it is Jewish Apocalyptic and this genre is known to use special types of recognisable symbolism. Burridge has shown the gospels are written in the genre of greek biography and not myth. Moreover, the implicit assumption on Cooke’s part that when reading a piece of writing with multiple genres (such as the bible) one should either reads everything literally or everything figuratively is absurd. Even in every-day conversation one uses a mixture of both literal and metaphorical phrases and things like context and genre determine which reading one engages in. As Madeleine pointed out to me, one of her favourite books is a sci-fi fantasy novel that contains an index of characters and terms at the back. Despite the fact the index and the story are contained in one book, she would be in error to read the index figuratively or the story literally; it is not uncommon for one book to have more than one genre. Unfortunately in the short exchange, before an audience untrained in biblical hermeneutics, these points may not have been grasped. As a result I think Cooke came across the better in this exchange despite the fact he was wrong.

Critical questions were raised about Craig’s theodicy as well. Craig’s position is that God allows certain evils because they are the best way to bring about greater good that otherwise would not be achieved. Some members of the audience found this counter-intuitive. Craig responded that the goods he envisaged infinitesimally outweigh the evil permitted. Craig’s position is utilitarian; one can allow (or cause) evil in order to bring about greater good. Of course utilitarianism is a sophisticated ethical theory and there have been numerous sophisticated defenses of a utilitarian framework in the literature but of course Craig was not able to go into it in sufficient depth last night.

Overall the night was excellent, a huge turnout and a stimulating discussion of some really deep and important issues. As we left we heard people all around us discussing the ideas offered by both sides and lots of positive feedback about how much they had enjoyed the evening. NZARH arranged to have the event filmed and a copy should be online over the weekend.

Matt

Recent reports of parents being jailed for home schooling their children in Germany have made me think how greatful I am for our government (a rather rare moment).

Six years ago we removed our children from school and began home educating them. We did this because at the time our eldest son who has Aspergers Syndrome was not coping with school and school was not coping with him. The RTLB's solution was to assign him a teacher aid who basically took him into the library where Christian would roll around the floor all day. By age 8 Christian could not really read, refused to write and never drew pictures.

Knowing that Christian was bright, the children's psych department had tested his IQ and told us he scored in the genius range, we were not happy with this at all. Equally we were not happy that our eldest child, Sheridan (then 11), was often pulled out of her class to calm Christian down because she was the only one in the school who could; she was be teased horribly for having the retard brother. Christian would hide in his wardrobe and quietly cry after school about how bad he was. He was horrified at his own behaviour and quite depressed. Sheridan developed an eating disorder. It was heartbreaking to watch. So, to the horror of the psychiatrist, psychologist, RTLB and our family members who were state school teachers (but I suspect to the relief of Christian's teachers) we removed Christian and Sheridan from school and began home educating them.

What about their social skills? Someone with Aspergers desperately needs social interaction. How will you teach them science and maths and english at high school level? How will you cope having these apparently difficult and irritating children around you 24/7?

We didn't know the answers to those questions when we first began but we knew that we would find them. All we knew for sure was that the situation at school was doing far more harm than good and that our children needed their parents.

The home education community told me to give both kids a break of at least 6 months to recover, that many peer reviewed studies show that it only takes 2-4 years to learn enough to enter life. I thought they were insane. Both kids were "behind" so I did not listen to begin with.

For the first 6 months Sheridan acted like she was in state of relief, liked she had survived a near miss. I had not fully appreciated the stress she was under at school until I pulled her out. She threw herself into all the work I set her and never looked back. However, Christian would scream and throw his work accross the room if I asked him to do anything and seemed to be going backwards so I decided to take the home educator's advice.

They said to limit his TV and computer time and to make sure that I read to them and talked to them and did fun learning actitivities with them where I integrated learning into life experiences. Pretty soon car trips would involve discussions about the different cloud formations we could see and the purposes of farming and forestry. Shopping would see me getting the kids to help calculate the discount in percentage off sales and I would have them calculate the best value in terms of price and quantity in the supermarket. I began to notice that Christian was trying to read billboards and would say things like "oh, now I know what that word looks like written down." Sheridan's eating disorder disappeared as we worked through the latest studies in nutrition.

Christian had begun reading thin books with pictures but would not progress to chapter books. One night Matt pulled out the Magician's Nephew, first book in CS Lewis's Narnia series, and read the first chapter. In typical Asperger style Christian appeared to not have been paying attention at all but we knew by then to ignore that and hope that he was. We put the kids to bed and watched a movie. As we were tidying up the kitchen and locking up, Christian walked into the lounge with the Magician's Nephew in his hand, he said, "I've just finished it." From there we couldn't keep his head out of books.

We went on from there to develop our home education method in the following way, borrowing from the Trivium. Up til age 10 we encourage phonics based reading, basic facts in maths and critical thinking/logic and we foster a love of learning accross a broad range of subjects by talking to them about it and reading to them about it and doing practical things like science experiments. We also teach them to ask questions and how to find out the answers. We work with the child's readiness and we do not stress if they are 8 and cannot read. The term "behind" is not used. We find that the kids will spontaneously write stories and push themselves.

Between 10 and 12 we get them doing some written work, we focus on punctuation and sentence structure and we begin to really up the logic/critical thinking stuff and we start doing maths exercises written down. We teach them how to find answers from primary sources and encourage them to read widely and all sides of a position. No other subjects are formally covered beyond English, Maths and Critical Thinking/Logic. Our phisosophy is that if you can structure and understand an argument and can clearly express yourself and you know how to research you can study anything.

By 13, if they want to, they can choose 1 or 2 other subjects that they find interesting. We found with both our teenagers that they had gravitated towards different subjects anyway; Sheridan is into Ancient History/Archeology and Biology and Christian is into Computer Animation and Science.

Since moving to Auckland we have put 3 of our kids back into school. As Matt's mother was dying we needed the babysitting that school afforded and now as we both work we can really only have Sheridan at home as she is very self-motivated and will go through her work on her own whereas Christian, being Aspergers, likes his days to be structured by someone else and the other two children are too young to be home alone anyway. Hopefully in the near future we will be in a financial position to remove them all from school again but in the meantime school is it.

This is where each of them are at currently:

Noah, aged 6, has struggled to settle into school, he really is not a kid for whom school is a good option as he is a bit of a rascal and like a lot of boys he has taken a while to be ready for school but he is a very bright kid whose curiousity constantly has him in trouble and now his reading is coming on (thanks to us pulling our phonics readers out and largely ignoring the 'guess it from the pictures books' the school sends home).

Brittany, aged 8, was promptly put up a class where she is the youngest in the room. She too is a deep thinking, bright cookie. She has settled well and is the sort of kid who settles easily into any environment.

Christian, aged 13, is academically doing very well. We received a letter home from his science teacher informing us that after exams he was the top student in his form. His maths teacher tells us he has to set Christian harder work than the rest of the class and he is doing great in art and technology and in his other subjects. The guidance counsellor is incredibly impressed with his social skills as he is now well ahead on that score than most Aspergers kids his age.

Sheridan, turned 16 in May (the only one still homeschooled), has just this week been accepted by Auckland University despite her lack of NCEA or Cambridge qualifications. She will complete a foundation certificate and then go on to do an undergraduate degree. As she is really into Ancient History and Archeology so a BA seems to be the way to go but she really enjoys Biology too so she may do a double degree.

We turned to home education not because we wanted to shut our kids away from the world, far from it. We always believed that home education was the superior form of education because it meant you could open the world up to your children, that due to the one on one nature of home education you could really help your children learn at a pace suitable to their ability and to a depth that the dumbed down education system in NZ just does not go to.

When the education system failed out special needs child (though Aspergers is really more of a gift than a disability) we were able to step in an help him to excel. I am horrified to think that families who observe their children stuggling with the school system or who have bright kids that the school system does not cater for enough do not have the option in Germany to assist their children. Worse of all though is the blatent disregard for human rights that the German government is exercising in denying parents the right to educate their children.

Madeleine

I meant to post this ages ago but I have been waiting on the accompanying photos. In a recent post I alluded to Madeleine winning her last equestrian event (pre-car accident). In the last few years she has resumed her sporting interest in horse riding and when our daughter Sheridan bought her horse Trogdor the Burninator (Troggy for short) and had some behavioural problems with him, Madeleine took him on and got him sorted out.

Troggy appeared to not have had any jumping or showing or eventing experience and as Sherry wanted to do pony club Madeleine taught him how to jump and entered him in a couple of events. At his first event, a darby day which is cross country jumping mixed with show jumping stations, they were placed 5th. Which was pretty good for a first outing for Troggy and for Madeleine's first outing in 15 years.

A few weeks later though at the Massey One Day Event (ODE) an event comprising of a Dressage test, a Showjumping round and Cross Country jumping round Madeleine and Troggy found themselves placed second in the Dressage. They went on to jump clear in the showjumping and clear in the cross country. The rider ahead of Madeleine at the close of the dressage did not ride clear so Madeleine won first place.

Here is Madeleine following the prizegiving with her Blue Dressage Rosette and her Red First Place Overall Rosette.

Here they are clearing the last jump of the Cross Country, securing their win.

Madeleine had hoped to compete on Troggy for the rest of the season and to have brought him up a couple of levels for Sherry but the car accident has put this on hold.

I clearly have been spending to much time at Auckland Uni. The other day I was walking from one of Madeleine’s Law lectures. (I have been taping lectures and note taking for her while she has been injured) when a sign caught my eye. It stated “ I only date those who vote green” Now the person who put this sign up was making a point. They were not simply telling the world of their romantic preferences. The sign was intended to make a political point. To advertise the Green party presumably to encourage others to vote for them.

But why? What reasons do the Greens suggest we base this decison on? Voting is a serious business. Parliament legislates: it lays down rules for everyone to follow and backs these up with sanctions. If I refuse to obey these laws by liberty and property will be taken from me. If I refuse to comply I can be physically restrained, beaten, tasered or even shot. This is a serious business, we need to ensure that when people pass laws they do so for good reasons, that they are justified in doing so. If they are not then the state is merely an armed thug who arbitrarily intmidates and assaults others simply because they do not do what it wants.

For these reasons it’s important that we are careful what parties we vote for. We need to be sure that as far as is possible the people who get in will support policies and platforms that yields this awesome power. Justly, that it will use force against aggressor and those guilty of serious crimes while safeguarding the freedoms of the innocent.

The Greens apparently demur. Apparently they think that I should support a party platform merely because doing so will get me a date. Apparently, such questions as whether or not another’s liberty is restricted, whether another person is thrown in jail or their property and economic livelihood is taken from should be determined by whether the person who advocates it looks sexy and is attractive.

These posters then tell us one thing. Don’t vote green, people who hold your and my liberties in such disregard and commend and encourage such a superficial regard for the political process as this are unworthy of office. Anyone who will advocate use naked force against third parties merely to get a date is to corrupt to go anywhere near parliament.

I just got emailed the proof for the cover of the Auckland University In House Short Courses brochure which features me.

Initially Madeleine was diagnosed with whiplash but her pain levels were extreme and she was constantly back and forward with her doctor adjusting pain relief regimes and reducing her work hours. Finally, at work one morning she lost feeling in her arms and legs so was rushed to the doctors and ordered to basically lie on the couch - no work, no driving, no walking anywhere, no physio and of course no horse riding. She was referred to a neck and spine surgeon who ordered an MRI scan.

There was a very real risk that something far more serious than just whiplash had been missed hence the extreme caution imposed by the doctors. Thankfully we now have the results of all the tests and know that she will recover and that there will be no serious long term effects. A disk in her neck was damaged and it will take time to come right. She has another month off work and then they will reassess her to see if she can resume work part-time. The good news is she is allowed off the couch and can drive and walk short distances (long distances cause too much pain).

I have been attending her lectures and tutorials at Uni and taping them for her and taking notes so that she could maintain her law studies. She sat her first test of the year last night and is very sore today but she has done well to have kept up with her readings and with making herself sit through the taped lectures.

Her car was written off but the insurance payout was twice the agreed value so at least that was something. We are not sure if the police have charged the driver who caused the accident, I hope they have as the woman that hit her never even came to check Madeleine was ok, Madeleine never even saw her face. Apparently she just got on her cell phone and stayed by her car! It was passers by and the people in the car in front of her that came to her aid. Even when the ambulance officers took her out of the car the driver at fault kept away.

Our lives have been turned upside down, Madeleine has been in awful pain and has to live on pain drugs, her career has been jeopardised (well not really as her employers are so amazingly supportive - but it will be hard for her to pick things up when she goes back as the nature of her job is very full on with lots of balls to juggle), her income is at 80% and a lot of her medical costs are not covered by ACC at all, her long awaited resumption of her LLB has been put at risk, she had to withdraw from the remainder of the equestrian events for the season and next season looks in doubt after winning her last start and this woman couldn't even say sorry or check she was ok.