Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 No 18, Public Act

Despite this, Ken maintains, correctly, that people whose cognitive faculties are functioning properly can intuitively discern the presence of right and wrong. I agree with him, the difference is that I believe that what they discern is in fact the property of being in accord with or contrary to divine commands. Ken clearly does not. The question that some theistic critics of secular morality poses is not whether atheists can discern right and wrong, they can; the question is whether, if atheism is true, right and wrong actually exist.

RELATED POSTS:
With God Anything can be Permitted: Another Bad Argument against Theistic Morality
See labels:
Divine Command Theory
Euthyphro

But when secular morality is abandoned, and religious appeals to what God wants, or what God ordains, this opens the gates wide to the worst sort of moral relativism. It enables any despot to sanction any form of inhumanity by claiming that their god supports it.

This seems crazy to most people but is not at all unusual. Consider the civil rights struggles in the USA. Christian beliefs were used to justify both segregation and the opposition to it. The same in South Africa. Most members of the Dutch reform Church thought apartheid was sanctified by God, whereas many anti-apartheid activists opposed apartheid on religious grounds. Consider slavery. Consider just about any struggle over human rights in human history and we can see examples of a god being used to justify both opposition to, and support of, human rights.

This suggests to me that religion does allow for an extreme form of moral relativism. Truly anything can be justified by claiming support from your god.

[1] Different religious believers appeal to God to justify mutually incompatible practises.

[2] Anything can be justified by appealing to God.

[1a] He or she actually does show that the position is actually justified by appealing to this belief;

[1b] That he or she attempts to show that the position is justified by appealing to this belief.

The flawed reasoning, commonly found in most media commentary on human embryonic stem-cell research, was not lost on the makers of South Park. I love how brutal South Park are in exposing PC rubbish; see the YouTube clips below.

[There are two, fast loading, clips below; they are linked so that both will autoplay]

Hat Tip: Say Hello to my Little Friend: The Beretta Blog and Podcast from Glenn's blog "Yay for stem cell research. But why bring Embryos into it?"

Hone Harawira has called for the men who assaulted Prime Minister John Key to be not dealt with by the courts because the assault was minor and understandable.

This is the same Member of Parliament who voted to criminalise parents for giving their kids a light smack who now wants adults who (allegedly) lightly assaulted the Prime Minister to not face criminal prosecution.

One rule for citizens, one rule for relatives of MP's.

See this clip for yet another President of the United States who supports human embryonic stem-cell research but has no clue what he is talking about.

Bill Clinton says he thinks the issue has become "too politicised" and we should be like him and "hand it back to science." He says this despite having repeatedly re-assured us that the type of human embryonic stem-cell research he supports is restricted to "un-fertilised embryos." He thinks much of the opposition to the issue would be alleviated if people realised this point.

Worse (well not sure which is worse really) the interviewer did not bat an eyelid as his repeated use of the term "un-fertilised embryos."

What do you think he meant by "un-fertilised embryos," watch the clip and share your thoughts?

UPDATE: As Eastside Billie pointed out on motownsports.com,

If this were Palin, McCain, Limbaugh, Hannity or any other right wing it would be spread all over the media. But Billy C? No way. Don't we all know he's brilliant. He's a scholar. The Media will protect any liberal when they talk stupid.

Can you say Dan Quayle?

Hat Tip: NZ Conservative

There is a great exchange on KiwiBlog in the comments section here where Madeleine takes to task some of the other commenters on biblical interpretation. Her ability to render the arguments to stupidity with ease and a nice dose of dry humour thrown in is very amusing and worth a look. She has a gift.

I particularly liked her "Bill killed Jane" analogy and intend to use it in a talk or article sometime though she says I have to footnote her. Madeleine writes:

Just as, if you picked up a murder mystery, randomly flicked it open and read the line “Bob killed Jane” it would be wrong to conclude bob did in fact kill Jane without reading the whole book and seeing the context the statement occurred in. The statement could have been made in the context of a question: “did Bob kill Jane?” It could have been “I had a nightmare last night that bob killed Jane”, it could have been gossip “I head Mary say that Bob killed Jane.” Of course, it could have in fact been the case that Bob killed Jane or it could be a false conclusion the author wants you to think because in fact Peter killed Jane as revealed in chapter 10 - you don’t know and you shouldn’t assume without looking at the context. You cannot just say “what’s your problem, 'Bob killed Jane' is plane English."

The context that words in a text occur in is not a fall-back position, it is a legitimate point and a key component of interpreting any language including an English translation of an Aramaic sermon written using Semitic idioms thousands of years ago.

This one was also good:

..your ability to exegete scripture is about as strong as my ability as a non-surgeon to tell you how to conduct a coronary bypass (without googling).

I could give you a rough idea based on my lay-person’s knowledge of anatomy and of course the number of episodes of Gray’s Anatomy, ER and other medical dramas I watch on TV but I would look like a complete dickhead if I asserted my theory to a cardiothoracic surgeon.

You have no idea how many times I have felt this way, it is an occupational hazard of being a theologian though I am sure many professionals have similar frustrations when lay people tell them what's what in their specialty.

What do these two pictures have in common?

The Hand Mirror oppose both as forms of oppression against women. In the first one the woman is being "belittled", "denigrated", made the subject of "idiot chauvinism", in the second, the woman's clothing choice is "silly" and her "sexuality is being controlled by her father".

Now look at this image featured in the sidebar of the Hand Mirror:

My body, my choice. Really? I have frequently found left-wing feminists of the ilk at the Hand Mirror to be inconsistent in their application of their feminist mantras, condescending and paternalistic towards women of my ilk. They talk about women's empowerment, equality, the right of women to make their own choices about their sexuality, their bodies, their lives but that's all it is; talk.

In the first image, a woman made a decision to accept a modelling job which involved almost baring her breasts and they wrote her off as a victim of male oppression, ignorant about the realities of the world.

In the second image they blast another woman's choice to cover her breasts with a t-shirt that states the woman agrees with her family's morals. In the comments section, the same author from the first case identifies this image as "Fathers controlling their daughters' sexuality;" implicit from the title is the claim that this woman is "silly". I am confused. Can women not choose their own t-shirts and their own reasons as to why they do not want their breasts ogled?

In the same blog piece the author writes:

Perhaps you can help me choose which is worse - the t-shirt above or the one I can't get a shot of which said "No trespassing. I'm waiting for my husband."

Again the search for an oppressor is sent into full swing in response to a woman making a choice about when and who she wants to have sex with.

Ironically, when Otago University's student rag, Critic, published unwanted comments about my breasts [link is to just one example], denigrated my appearance, etc because I was right-wing, some of the very same Hand Mirror feminists who were witness to this at the time said....

It is a bit rich that one of the reasons the South African rugby council are citing as an obstacle for the Springboks to be able to play the New Zealand Maori Rugby team is that the Maori team are "selected along racial lines." Apparently "the council forbids South African rugby teams playing against opponents selected on racial lines."

Just as well the Springboks cannot play themselves then.

Tonight's TV3 report on the matter included a statement that the Springboks have a quota-policy that requires a minimum of 5 of their players to be non-white. At least five of the Springboks players are selected because of their race.

So let's get this straight. South Africa can refuse to play rugby teams with team members selected on the basis of race but they don't have to select their team to the same standard they hold everyone else to. There is a word for that.

Did the TV3 reporter pick up on this despite pointing it out? No of course not. Neither did the New Zealand rugby union who, if TV3 are reporting this correctly, are taking the tactic of trying to deny the New Zealand Maori team are selected on the basis of race.

New Zealand is fighting back against a South African suggestion that the Maori Rugby Team is racially selected.

Hello. Who do they think that is going to fool? What is the name of the NZ team again? Can non-maori play for it?

Apparently no one in New Zealand can reason so I guess everyone will fall for it.

I am surrounded by idiots.

UPDATE: It appears the double standard was not lost on TV1,

There is also what appears a contradictory situation given South African sides, including the Springboks, must include a quota of non-white players.

Have you ever thought about those TV commercials that target drunk driving? You know, if you have had a few then take a taxi, sleepover, get a sober mate to drive you home.

Also those ones that the fire brigade do; don't drink and fry, if you are having a few drinks then order in takeaways as some huge percentage of house fires are caused by drunk cooks.

Don't drink and drive. Don't drink and fry.

Is it just me or is the problem not actually the driving or the cooking?

I am always slightly disturbed when I encounter Bush-haters amongst my friends. Disturbed not because it surprises me that Bush-hater exist but because my friends are otherwise smart, informed, thinking people who have a healthy degree of scepticism towards the left-wing, anti-conservative values of the media and hollywood; I just don't get how they can navigate other issues well but then buy into all the conspiracy, anti-Bush hysteria.

They in turn, of learning that I think Bush is one of greatest US Presidents of my life time and that I firmly believe he will be remembered up there with Reagan, Lincoln, Roosevelt and Washington as one of the best, think I am insane and are invariably shocked. They start throwing all the conspiracy theories at me, they talk about his motives, his war-mongering and the rest. Typically each demonstrates a superficial understanding of the issues and even when they have read up on some of these issues they still fall into the error of failing to understand the nature of politics and the necessity of spin demonstrating that despite their protests they have and do buy into the media and hollywood's portrayal of Bush.

In New Zealand, even among a Christian or politically conservative constituency, I am very aware that in making these statements I am amongst a minority and that many regular readers will be baffled to discover that I think Bush rocks. If you are such a person but you otherwise generally like what I have to say, please read the following article that appears in today's Herald as it summs up pretty much everything I would like to say.

This article, unlike today's Herald editorial claiming the opposite, was written by a political historian, educated at Cambridge.

Legacy the Bush-Haters Will Loathe
NZ Herald 16 Jan 09

The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?" "I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.

In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.

At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.

The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after 9/11.

The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.

Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.

History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.

With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac's France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans. History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.

Films such as Oliver North's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.

Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over Aids and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.

When Abu Ghraib is mentioned, history will remind us that it was the Bush Administration that imprisoned those responsible for the horrors. When water-boarding is brought up, we will see that it was only used on three suspects, one of whom was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's chief of operational planning, who divulged vast amounts of information that saved hundreds of innocent lives. When extraordinary renditions are queried, historians will ask how else the world's most dangerous terrorists should have been transported. On scheduled flights?

The credit crunch, brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting upon home ownership for credit-unworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead Bush's very un-ideological but vast rescue package of $700 billion (£480 billion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze, and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000. Sneered at for being "simplistic" in his reaction to 9/11, Bush's visceral responses to the attacks of a fascistic, totalitarian death cult will be seen as having been substantially the right ones. Mistakes are made in every war, but when virtually the entire military, diplomatic and political establishment in the West opposed it, Bush insisted on the surge in Iraq that has been seen to have brought the war around, and set Iraq on the right path. Today its GDP is 30 per cent higher than under Saddam, and it is free of a brutal dictator and his rapist sons.

The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War. Iraq has been a victory for the US-led coalition, a fact that the Bush-haters will have to deal with when perspective finally – perhaps years from now – lends objectivity to this fine man's record.

Matt's post on the practice of throwing the bigot label at Christians as a method to silence debate got me thinking. Some of my thinking came out in the comment I wrote on Half Done and in Matt's comment in the original post but I still feel I have more to say.

I'm someone who (stating the obvious perhaps) happily walks into the thick of heated and hostile debate. To be more accurate I am someone who willingly does this; I don't always find it easy or exciting; in fact, sometimes I am terrified. I still my fears by remembering I fear God more than men and by recalling Saphira's words in Eragon "without fear there cannot be courage."

It is true that I am wired that way more than most people and I do enjoy the intellectual challenge but I am still human; my apparent confidence is not always actual and I do find the abuse and the mud difficult to weather, especially when I am abandoned by those who should be standing with me or I see those who share my views believing the lies said about me or those who will only secretly associate with me lest their public image be tarred by mine (funny, given I think I have more respect in the public square than most Christians and in fact my opponents will often try to tar me by suggesting an association with the very people who are so concerned that their good public image might be damaged by an association with me).

Then there are those who frown on our and others, attempts to engage culture and deem it pointless for a range of reasons. David Farrar (who I do not include in this list but I quote here because his comment is paradigmatic) wrote in More on Abortion,

In my experience with abortion debates, no-one who is pro-choice or pro-life is open to persuasion to change their views.

Where David is right is that when debates go around and around on peripheral points and people are emotive and uncritical and go all over the place no one's point of view changes, if anything the opposite occurs. However, David is wrong if he means that this never happens. Over the years I have seen many people change their positions on abortion and on a number of other polarising topics, simply through exposure to a rigorously reasoned case irregardless of their worldview. Further, I don't find it that hard to achieve these changes in heart in other people.

This is in part because arming yourself with the ability to reason gives you an immediate advantage over the majority because the majority are not practised in it, and also because we live in a culture where propaganda and slogans pass for informed comment. Most people know what they are supposed to believe and have a vague idea of why - typically something emotive that sounds like it is a 'right' - but the why is frequently not founded on anything of substance and quickly unravels when exposed to critique.

The worst though are those who buy the lie and sell out their faith. I get most frustrated at my fellow Christians. I expect to not be on the same page with the left and at times the secular right, but Christians are supposed to get it.

When the bigot label gets hurled amidst the mud and everyone acts all angry and hurt, far too many Christians immediately assume there is truth in what they are being subjected to; their position must be bigoted or maybe it was the approach they got wrong. They accept the criticism, despite the lack of argument or factual basis and modify their own approach and position.

I suspect that part of this is that Christians themselves are often nice people and they know they must conduct themselves ethically or answer to God so they make that very human mistake, we all make at times, of transposing how they would conduct themselves onto others; thus they swallow the lie and forget the scripural mandate to not entertain accusations of immoral conduct without corroborating evidence. The other part of it is that Christians, like the majority of society, are too uncritical.

Now it is always worthwhile to check one’s approach is not overly confrontational and is well reasoned and supported but throwing out one's position or watering it down just because someone abused you and issued a string of unflattering accusations is ludicrous. To the hardened anti-Christian activist the problem is that your are a Christian and you are breathing. So yes, the problem is bigotry but it's not coming from the Christians.

It is not that the Christian position needs modifying, these people will hate regardless. Sure, they'll sometimes back off if the Christian modifies their stance but that's because the weak, wishy-washy, emotive, irrational position they have moved to lacks credibility outside Christian circles and is no longer effective. Take a look at this post by Kay about Christian websites and see whether it is bigotry or effective cultural engagement that really scares our opponents. [Apologies for using a self-congratulatory example]

The M & M blog is scarier because their posts almost make sense. ( http://www.mandm.org.nz/ ) Idiocy can be just funny. Even over the top hatred like http://www.godhatesfags.com/ is so extreme that its hard to take it seriously. M&M sound plausible & reasonable but have gaps in logic twisting their reasoning. Slimy.

But over on http://www.godhatesfags.com/ - the home page of the Westboro Baptist hurch - they're thanking God for the $US10.9 Million court verdict against them - because it means their message is being spread around the world! Weird.

For people whose tactic is to paint anyone who offers a credible response to their position as a bigot it serves their interests to ensure that the public square is either dominated by extremists that they can easily discredit and wishy-washy claptrap that lacks credibility; they want credible reasoned critique to go away and they are not going to be tolerant and respectful unless they can neutralise your message.

Never underestimate the power of a sound argument, never fear entering a debate, though of course pick your battles wisely. Conduct yourself ethically, never let it be personal and always remember that the price of having Christianity’s abusers stop frothing at the mouth is all too often a failure to engage culture and that is a price that is not worth paying. None of us like upsetting people, but the best way to win respect is not to shy away from the argument but to demolish it without getting nasty or personal.

I am a Theologian with a strong background in Philosophy; apart from Philosophical Theology, my particular area of interest is Ethics. Given this, I often post my thoughts and reflections on moral issues of various persuasions on this blog. I have discussed the morality of warfare, whether it is sometimes permissible to lie, the morality of torture, capital punishment, the nature of our obligations to the poor.

On occasions, I discuss issues related to abortion and homosexual conduct something which, I think, is unavoidable if one is a theologian writing from a relatively conservative evangelical perspective. I believe that homosexual conduct is contrary to divine law and I believe that feticide is homicide. The latter claim is not just a casual opinion; I spent some years writing a PhD thesis on the topic and over the last couple of years I have had articles published in this area.

Now a pervasive response to my position on these issues is that appeals to divine law to condemn practises like feticide or homosexual conduct are really an expression of bigotry. One would think that it would be fairly obvious to people that you don’t refute a position by calling the person who holds it a bigot and it is tempting to dismiss this response as simply a confused ad hominem; the problem is that people do not appear to find this obvious. In my experience, many people even educated people, recoil from considering any argument against feticide or homosexual conduct or listening to theological concerns on these matters because they perceive such positions to be bigoted.

It’s worth fisking this objection a bit. A good place to start is to ask what does this charge amount to? When someone claims that another is a bigot, what is meant by this? The Pocket Oxford English Dictionary defines a bigot as someone who is obstinate in his or her beliefs and is intolerant of others. Presumably, the objector claims that one who appeals to the law of God to condemn feticide or homosexual conduct (or some other practise celebrated by contemporary liberal secularists) displays or expresses these features - they are both obstinate and intolerant. The accusation clarified, an obvious question arises, why hold this claim?

Obstinance
Turning to the issue of obstinance, why must a person who holds these beliefs do so in an obstinate manner? Could they not have come to these beliefs as a result of careful reflection? Alternatively, could they hold to them because they are not convinced the counter arguments are sound? What is needed here is some argument to preclude such options and none is forthcoming.

I suspect that what lingers behind this accusation is the belief that theologically-based opposition to abortion is obviously mistaken and the case against it so compelling that no rational, informed person could think otherwise. If so, then this is not so much an argument against such appeals but an assumption that those who make them are mistaken on other grounds. The objector should come clean about what these other grounds are and put forward the compelling, unassailable arguments that everyone else should apparently already know about.

Let me add further that as a person who studies ethics and aspires to be a professional theological-ethicist, nothing is more frustrating than being told by a journalist or a tax lawyer that it’s an obvious fact that a certain theological ethical stance is mistaken. Further, if I think otherwise I must be misinformed and ignorant of the subject, a subject they often have done little or no study on. Perhaps this is one area where a little humility is needed.

Intolerance
Turning to the issue of intolerance, let me here just say that, the concern about intolerance implicit in this objection is mistaken. Even if the proponents of more conservative positions were intolerant, this would only constitute an objection to their behaviour if it were first assumed that people have a duty to refrain from intolerance and this assumption is problematic.

In many contexts intolerance is appropriate and contrary to popular slogans, a virtue. Imagine a society that tolerated rape, child molestation or infant sacrifice? Moreover if unqualified, the assertion that people have a duty to be tolerant entails that one should tolerate intolerance, is deeply paradoxical.

For this charge to have any substance, the objector needs to specify what sorts of action he or she thinks one should tolerate and which ones are such that intolerance is inappropriate. He or she needs to justify this distinction and then provide reasons for thinking that appeals to divine law in a subject like feticide fall into the latter category yet no argument of this sort has been forthcoming.

Here us the rub; if feticide is an action on a par with infanticide then intolerance towards it is justified. In asserting that it is not, the objector implicitly assumes that feticide is not homicide without offering argument. Similarly if homosexual conduct is a serious form of sexual immorality, such as incest, bestiality, polygamy or adultery, then intolerance against it is not necessarily wrong. Our society, for example, has laws against incest and bestiality and few contend for their repeal (though the chipping away has begun). Once again, the objector here, in making their charge, assumes that homosexual conduct is not seriously immoral.

Now it is possible that these assumptions are correct but it is also possible they are not.
Anyone who appeals to divine law to condemn practises like feticide or homosexual conduct is denying these assumptions. You don’t provide a cogent objection to a position by assuming it is false at the outset and then using this assumption to prove that it is. What is needed is an actual argument for the assumption in the first place. Until some actual argument is forthcoming that demonstrates the falsity of what has been defended, objections based on the notion of tolerance merely beg the question and have no impact on the thesis being advanced.

I think there is a kind of irony here; often when someone accuses Theologians of bigotry they themselves are simply obstinately assuming that their position is true and their assumption leads them to castigate and refuse to tolerate the opinions or person who expresses dissent to the secular liberal orthodoxy. Here, as elsewhere, the accusation of bigotry is a form of Orwellian double-speak.

Seasoned blogger Barnsley Bill shares some tips in Blogging for Dummies, complete with live updates from commenters (including yours truly). It is hysterically funny because, sadly it is so true.

I have reproduced the list and will update it throughout the day linking to live examples that I know of and commenting on relevance, feel free to point to others.

1. Choose a witty sobriquet. Something which makes you sound clever, preferably a character from an obscure novel. If you haven’t read a book use a character from a film.
[Check. MandM plays on a number of cultural icons Eminem - Look Who's Back, M&M lollies, Subway Biscuits and it happens to be how people refer to us (and its less spack that Mattie and Maddie)]

2. Pick up on grammar or spelling mistakes to emphasise your point. If you haven't got a point choose one from someone even angrier than you.
[The observant will have noticed that particularly Matt makes a lot of spelling and grammar mistakes, we think he is dyslexic, but its always a good comeback when you can't refute his argument]

3. Use a straw man to make everyone who says anything reasonable sound like they are advocating child murder. If you don't know what a straw man is, you are probably using one anyway so don't worry.
[Couldn't find an example where one of us was accused of advocating child murder, though I have some dim recollection that it has happened, but here is one where Matt is asked if he wants to confess to being both gay and into pedophilia, ironically this comment came in a discussion where Craig Young complained, justly, that gay men are often falsely accused of all being pedophiles and Matt asked for some more info on his stats.]

4. Exaggerate, misquote and mislead. Deliberately misconstrue simple points in order to emphasise their advocacy of a position they were not taking.
[This happened to me on The Standard just the other day; I pointed out that an income of $40,001 did not make one "wealthy", especially if one had a family an lived in a main centre. Apparently I meant I was an uncaring tory and had no sympathy for "the 70% of New Zealanders who earn LESS than $40000."]

5. Lend legitimacy to your argument by using the following expressions: guardianista, NuLab, dear leader. This will instantly confound MPs and impress your blogging chums.
[I couldn't think of one off hand but then Cactus Kate came to the rescue.]

6. If you're in danger of talking about the issues, remember you're on shaky ground, back away. In fact its probably safer if you avoid this risk altogether by not reading the original post.
[Matt argued that sustenance rights do not necessarily entail statism and anonymous said "So if the government doesn't remove the wealth of the rich the poor will starve." Or here, where the person actually admitted they did not read the post before commenting.]

7. Talk about some mythical age in which this country hadn't had it so good. Usually before there were any immigrants or before social welfare became a 20 billion dollar a year entity.

8. If all that fails reduce everything to 1984. Pick a theme and repeat it over and over again until the internet ceases to exist, or we're all dead, or whatever it is that you're sure is going to happen happens. This is a sure fire way to deal with your crushing sexual inadequacy.
[Sounds like most of the people I went to law school with at Waikato. Sadly it also sounds like most of the lecturers too. Auckland Uni is a massive improvement on that score.]

9. Post a pompous long-winded and convoluted reply that nobody can be arsed reading, so they probably won't bother refuting it. They will just reply that you are a wanker and so one wins the moral high ground! Courtesy of Oswald
[Matt gets accused of engaging in this all the time but if you actually read what he says it is worth wading through. Great live example here, in fact the blog post that sparked these comments could be said to suffer the same problem]

10. Accuse anyone who made a devastating and witty critique that completely blew your point out of the water to be posting under a fake name. Suggest they are really someone that your friends don't like. Courtesy of Madeleine
[Multiple examples from this particular person I am thinking of but here is one where he wrongly accuses someone else of being Matt]

11. Post as anonymous and then complain when other people allege that the other anonymous's comments are yours. Courtesy of Madeleine

12. When you do spot something that most people don't understand but you do, find a way of making a clever statement demonstrating your superior understanding. (Even if it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic just as as long as people think you are cleverer than them) Courtesy of Madeleine
[Couldn't find one off the top of my head but Roger Nome attempts to do this here:"Ahh - argument by analogy. It enjoyed its hay day back in ancient Greece, but it's still good for convincing the masses that a false premise is in fact sound and true." Matt's response is priceless]

13. If in doubt, especially good when you simply lack the ability to respond and you know you are outgunned, invoke the never fail technique of calling everyone hate-filled, intolerant, bigots and wonder out loud where all their venom comes from. Courtesy of Matt
[Exhibit A and Exhibit B and Exhibit C]

14. When discovering someone's post or comment too late to implement 2.-13. (because of wide-spread link and comment support) throw your toys out of the cot and point out, anonymously of course, that the National have not yet removed the draconian legislation affronting free speech and you will have their site torn down. Courtesy of Matt
[See most of the comments from the anonymous's on this thread]

15. If a woman says something you don't like attack her appearance and shaggability. Either call her a fat, ugly, smelly, ham-burger, stuffing heifer or make a llewd suggestions and set up a poll on her sex appeal.
[This was Critic's favourite line of attack against me, and Nexus's, but neither student mags have online examples anymore, though here are two: James Jenkins; Scalia (though Scalia I think is not trying to attack me)]

16. Psychoanalyse your opponent. Refer to their upbringing, their relationship with their father, how much they were breast-fed, their attraction to fire and their alleged sexual inadequacies.
[See here and here.]

17. Godwin's law; find an analogy between the person you disagree with and Hitler (or Muldoon if you want a kiwiana version).
[I think we have all seen examples of these]

We have tapped a rich vein here, the latest three offerings are from Madeleine again

18. Start referring to excreta in your post or comment. i.e. "Pooping in the mouth of democracy". OH DEAR, this "offering" courtesy of OECD

Recently I have been reading Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. (This is not like me because I don't typically read popular apologetics books, and it is even more rare that I would lead a blog entry with one.)

One thing that interested me is that when Keller examines the objections to the Christian faith he addresses first, not the problem of evil, but rather the claim that it is arbitrary, dogmatic, irrational, bigoted, etc to claim that Christianity is true in the face of pervasive religious pluralism. The fact that affirming Christianity involves adopting an epistemic stance that contradicts the stance taken by so many people, is seen as arbitrary and dogmatic.

This is particularly so if one believes, as I do, that certain Christian beliefs are properly basic, that is, one can rationally assert them independently of any proof of their veracity. Doesn't the fact that so many other people do not hold these beliefs and often hold contrary beliefs, make faith of this sort some kind of arrogant bluster? Isn't it arbitrary for me to assume that my particular faith is true and everyone else is incorrect? I do not think so and in this blog I will sketch some of my reasons why.

The first thing to note about this objection is that it is based on a claim that it is arbitrary to believe a proposition in the absence of proof if numerous other people do not hold that proposition.

Now a little reflection should demonstrate the problem with this claim; the claim itself is one many people do not hold, hence, if the claim is true it is arbitrary to believe it without proof. As none has been offered, I am inclined to take the proponent of this view's word and reject it. Moreover, as the proponent himself has not offered a proof it must be irrational for him to accept this proposition. In fact, there is an obvious incoherence in this kind of objection; the objector proposes that I reject Christian belief on the basis of the above claim, however, I can only do that if I accept the above claim. But if I accept the above claim, I am in the very epistemic situation the claim says I should avoid. It is hard to see how any coherent or sensible objection of this sort can be raised.

There is another problem with this objection. Suppose, for the sake of example, I accept the objector's advice, presumably then I should cease to believe in the Christian faith. But if I do this, aren't I adopting an epistemic stance that is contrary to that held by many people? What about the many Christians, for example, who do not reject the Christian faith? By rejecting Christianity I am taking up an epistemic stance that differs from them and hence, am taking up a stance contrary to that held by many people.

One needs to bear in mind too that the pluralist mindset, the concern so pervasive in our culture today, that all religions are equal and it is wrong to say one is incorrect and another is right is a peculiar western phenomena. Many religions reject this mindset, most religions claim that they are true. People generally don't believe things that they think are false; to believe a proposition is to affirm it. Once this is realised it is clear that pluralism itself is one religious perspective, one that is contrary to most, if not all others. Until the pluralist can provide compelling proof of his position, it would be silly and outright irrational, to become a pluralist on the grounds that one shouldn't adopt views widely rejected by others unless one can prove them.

[At a later date I hope to review Keller's book for this blog. It is a very interesting book as although it is popular, it draws on some fairly high level Christian Philosophers such as Plantinga, Alston, Swinburne, etc and for that reason alone is worth reading. It is interesting to see how a pastor can take these writings and ideas and make them accessible to a lay congregation. I am not so impressed with the second half of the book but I have not finished it yet. Reason for the Hope Within is, I think, a better introduction to apologetics, for those who have never studied it but who want to find a starting point, but this is, so far, a good second.]

The blogosphere is abuzz with the Greens new Family Policy which

"proposes setting a level of population New Zealand could sustain and leaving room within that for climate change refugees from Pacific Islands.

They also want parents educated about the impacts of population growth when they are planning their family size and how far apart to have children."

The myraid of problems that scream from those two sentences is so large I am not sure where to begin.

National, ACT and the Maori Party are declaring it a step in the direction of China's one child policy.

Rodney Hide, making a carbon credits joke, said "that perhaps if parents planted a field of trees, they might be able to have twins."

David Farrar makes the point that New Zealand already has a declining population rate and has done for some time anyway which makes one wonder why issue the policy?

Zen Tiger quotes from Frog Blog "Do we as humans have a 'right to breed'?" this reminded me of other crazy lefty ideas like Jim Flynn's Thoughts on Contraception.

Keith Locke, at a loss to understand why most New Zealanders would react negatively to the policy, claims they have been misinterpreted:

"There is no way the Green Party would ever dictate to any parent how many children they should have, ... Every child is a loved and wanted child. It would also be racist to try to dictate family size, given that the various ethnic groups in our society have different birthrates."

There are two problems in the above quote that are not being criticised about the blogosphere that I will highlight here.

The every child is a loved and wanted slogan is ambiguous. It could mean that every child that comes into existence, no matter how it comes into existence, is loved and wanted, or, it could mean that every child that is unwanted should be taken out of existence. Both these situations would lead to every child being wanted.

The statement is a eugenicist slogan promoted primarily by family planning movement which advocate the latter interpretation and promote the latter interpretation via abortion, contraception and sterilisation, campaigning against unplanned pregnancy. Now, I am not opposed to contraception or sterilisation or people knowing how to prevent unplanned pregnancy. My problem is that this organisation is opposed to all and every unplanned pregnancy, even those within stable, married, well-positioned-to-provide families. Dig a little on Family Planning and you find they are a sinister organisation whose roots are in eugenics, we have posted previously on the odiousness of family planning here.

So when Keith Locke used this statement which interpretation did he mean? Given the context of the policy, I think we can safely assume the latter.

The second issue is the Green's definition of racism the reasons they cite for why if they were in fact dictating how many kids families should have it would be wrong. Lets have a closer look at Keith Locke's statement:

"It would also be racist to try to dictate family size, given that the various
ethnic groups in our society have different birthrates."

His argument essentially is that ethnic groups have different birth-rates so to impose one birth-rate, to disagree or be at odds with another ethnicity's viewpoint on this subject, is racist. Racism according to the Greens is defined as disagreeing with the cultural values of another. I don't agree with the cannibalism practices of some ethnicities - guess I am a racist.

Further, the only reason he offers as to why "the Green Party would ever dictate to any parent how many children they should have" is that to do so would be racist. The fact that such a dictum would be nanny-statist, eugenicist and is so far out of the realm of the proper role of the state that it is just plain, outright, wrong seems to be lost on him; but why am I not surprised?

In one of the definitive discussions of the issue, Philosophers Alvin Plantinga and Robert Pennock debated the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools of religiously pluralistic societies at the December 1998 meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association.

[The following is a crude rendition of the issues in the debate - read the debate here: Pennock's case and Plantinga's response]

It is widely held that it is inappropriate for public schools to teach that a particular religion is true given that a segment of children attending the school come from families that do not believe in that religion. What is less noticed is the converse. If the former is correct then it must equally be true that it is inappropriate for a public school to teach that a particular religion is false given that a number of children attending the school come from families that do believe in that religion. Evolution contradicts the teachings of some religions; hence, the question arises, should evolution be taught as uncontested truth?

Having just re-read this debate in preparation for a lecture I delivered last week on the topic, stumbling upon Dr Bob Brockie's piece, Take Nobody's Word for Anything, in the Dominion Post was intriguing; intriguing in how little he understood the issues involved and how he would manifest his own ignorance on the broader question of religion and Science for all in print. The number of straight-forward factual and Philosophical mistakes in one article was breathtaking.

At the heart of Brockie’s argument is a mistaken epistemology and fairly naïve Philosophy of Science. Brockie contends that “true scientists question all authority, trusting only to experimental and verifiable evidence”. However, if science is defined in these terms, science is an incoherent position. The claim that one should question all authority and trust only “experimental and verifiable evidence” is not itself an empirical claim. Hence, if the claim is true we should reject it because Brockie has not provided any “experimental and verifiable evidence” of its truth.

If scientists truly proceed on this assumption, their position will always be self-contradictory as to proceed on this assumption would lead to scepticism on all sorts of issues dear to Brockie’s heart. As a scientist, Brockie assumes that his senses are reliable and reason is a reliable method of getting at truth. Neither of these, however, can be verified experimentally by a non-circular argument. To verify anything, one needs to utilise one’s senses and reason from them, and hence, will presuppose the very sources under question.

However, the errors, myths and lack of verifiable evidence do not end here. Brockie began with the statement “Creationism is just a codeword for biblical Christianity.” This is mistaken. The term “creationism” normally refers to a particular theory of origins that holds the world was created a few thousand years ago in six 24 hour days (not seven as Brockie stated), and that the fossil record is the result of a worldwide flood.

To equate this with “biblical Christianity” is erroneous. First, many non-Christians, particularly Jews and Muslims, hold this theory. The story of Adam, Eve and Creation is shared by the three major monotheistic religions. Second, many Christian’s, even conservative evangelicals, do not accept creationism.

Creationism is premised on the assumption that the first two chapters of Genesis are literalistic history. Whether the genre of early Genesis is literal history is a hotly debated point in Biblical studies, one over which conservative scholars disagree.

Brockie ignored the subtle differences and issues and castigated Christianity as a whole, suggesting no rational person can believe in “answered prayer” a “virgin birth” or “life after death” much of his argument however consists of citing crude caricatures; such as, the claim Christians believe in the existence of “magic apples”.

Brockie’s central theme is the example of Isaac Newton. According to Brockie Newton believed the Latin slogan “Nullius in Verba” which Brockie translates as “take nobody's word for anything”. Apparently “then” as “now” scientists adopted a policy of questioning “all authority, trusting only to experimental and verifiable evidence.” A stance Brockie asserts is incompatible with Christianity.

In fact, Newton was a devout Christian who wrote theological tracts and believed in “answered prayer” and “life after death”. Moreover, in the preface to Newton’s Principia Mathematica, Roger Cotes notes that Newton’s research rested explicitly on theological assumptions. Newton, in fact, even appealed to direct action of God to solve problems within his theory. The picture Brockie paints is well out of accord with the facts.

Incidentally, the Royal Society’s own website states it was founded in 1660 and not 1663 as Brockie stated. Moreover, his translation of “Nullius in Verba” is mistaken. The phrase is an abbreviation of a quotation from Horace; the full translation is, “not compelled to swear to any master's words.” It does not advocate trusting no one, but rather praises objectivity; it the contention that one should be free to come to conclusions at odd with one’s political masters.

If we can learn anything from Brockie’s article it is that uninformed knee-jerk fundamentalists exist on both sides of this debate. The real informed debate on Evolution v Creationism in the public school system is far more nuanced and deserves to be heard; not caricatured, misrepresented and then dismissed on that basis.

I find it really frustrating when I encounter someone who throws the “you think you’re right” accusation at me and assumes that this obviously makes me arrogant and that I should therefore back down and run away ashamed.

I am sick of it and I want to scream in a Destiny/Jim Peron-esque manner, "enough is enough!" I will not be made to feel guilty for thinking my opinion is right, or worse, for what that entails, that I think opinions in conflict with my own are wrong.

Further, I will not engage in the ridiculous practice of beginning every sentence with “it’s just my opinion, but…” (as if that somehow makes what follows the “but” any less of an assertion that I think my position is correct).

The expectation that I should not believe that I am right and everyone else is wrong, that I should not express and argue that my belief is the correct one in the context of a discussion is a ridiculous standard that even those who trot it out do not hold themselves to. You see, everyone thinks that they are right and that all other conflicting beliefs are wrong. E v e r y o n e.

The statement, “you think you are right” is always asserted by someone who themselves thinks they are right in asserting that I think I am right. If their objection is cogent, then I should reject their objection, but, if it is not cogent then I should reject it anyway.

The person who objects that I think I am right is suggesting that I adopt an irrational stance, that I should believe something that I think is incorrect; but if I think it is incorrect then I am not going to believe it.

(If I lost you just then, perhaps you had to reread the preceding once or twice, then perhaps that should tell you something about the logic behind the assertion you should not think you are right)

People like to pretend they don’t think they are right and dress up their “arrogance” by starting sentences with “in my humble opinion,” but like the emperor's new clothes it’s a crock; it's all smoke and mirrors, because no sane person holds to a belief they think is wrong or inferior to other viewpoints. I mean why would you? You would hardly rank the differing views and then decide to hold the second or third most plausible view? You’d hold the view you thought most plausible and by doing that you tacitly reject the other views.

So why not just admit this? Why do we play these games? Why do we buy into the theory that there is something wrong with thinking we are right? Admitting we think we are right does not mean that we have to paint ourselves into a corner, refuse to be open to other’s counter arguments or to refuse to consider new facts. It’s simply an admission that we hold a position. Is there really something wrong with not sitting on the fence? (Which in and of itself is to take a position to not hold a position but lets not go there.)