Recently in correspondence with non believer I have repeatedly meet with the following argument. This is usually touted as a kind of self evident mantra.
[1] There is no proof that God exists [2] Its irrational to believe something unless you have proof . Therefore: [3] belief in the existence of God is irrational.
Now we need to elaborate what is meant by proof here; in Philosophical Theology the word is historically used for the various philosophical arguments that purport to show God exists. Such, things as the Cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral arguments for Gods existence as well as the 2 dozen or so other arguments that have been proposed. I take it then that claim then that there is no proof means that these arguments all fail.
I think this argument is a bad one. I’ll elaborate why below.
First note there is an interesting relationship between [1] and [2] , in that if [2] is true then a person should not believe in [1] unless they have some arguments for the truth of [1] merely asserting [1] is not enough. If I believe [1] in the absence of a reason for doing so I am, according to [2] irrational, and hence in the very same epistemic situation the proponent of this argument claims a theist is in. Consequently, the first thing, that needs to be asked is: what’s the basis for asserting [1]?. In order to rationally accept this premise, the objector would need take me through the most sophisticated versions of the cosmological, teleological, moral and ontological arguments being proposed in the literature today and demonstrate that they all fail. Now few atheists I know can do this, most in fact have never even read these arguments and have next to zilch familiarity with the literature on these arguments. It seems to me then that these people hold to an incoherent irrational position. They maintain [1] without any proof or reason at all and then assert in [2] that one should not maintain things without proof or reason.
However, to be fair, some atheists have studied this literature and believe they have rebuttals of the arguments in question. So to advance the argument let us assume they are correct, this takes us to [2], but here I think several problems arise.
First, [2] leads to a regress problem, suppose I believe P, to be rational I need proof, therefore I need an argument and I need to be able to rationally believe the premises of this argument. But then by [2] I need proof for these premises. But then I have to believe further premises and I will need proof for this and so on. Unless we stop at some point and believe something without proof, we will be irrational in believing everything.
Second, [2] leads to scepticism, since at least the time of Hume it has been fairly clear that some of the most important beliefs we hold cannot be proved. Consider the belief in a physical world that exists independently of our senses. It has proven difficult if not impossible to find any argument for the existence of this world which does not assume the external world’s existence as an implicit premise. Familiar Sci Fi scenarios where a person is plugged into a virtual reality machine show its logically possible for the world to not exist and us think it does and have all the current experiences we do and hence deductive arguments from the way things appear are unsound. Inductive arguments appear also to fail. For an inductive argument to work one need’s to assume that the future will resemble the past, that there is uniformity in the world. But the existence of the world is what one is trying to prove. William Alston has argued, cogently I believe that the existence of the external world cannot be proven, neither can for that matter the existence of other peoples thoughts and feelings, the existence of moral rightness, the existence of a past and numerous other things. So if [2] is true we are in serious epistemological trouble.
Third [2] is incoherent, suppose [2] is true, then it follows I should not believe anything without proof. But then I should not believe [2] without proof. Until I become aware of some compelling argument for [2] its irrational to accept it and if the skeptic has no argument to offer me, he is irrational accepting it as well. I think the points above show that such an argument is impossible. Any such argument will employ premises which will need to be justified by other premises, which will need other premises and so on and seeing even things such as the existence of the physical world cannot be proven its doubtful such an argument can get off the ground.
The claim that one is never rational in believing in something without proof “on examination consists of a mass of incoherence. The objector contends that the theist is irrational why? Well because according to a claim for which he has no proof, one should not accept things without proof, oh and according to another claim he has not proved, theism has not been proved. Hardly compelling stuff if the premises are true we should reject them, and if they are not true then the argument is unsound.
When I began studying Theology and Philosophy I discovered that some important Christian traditions claim that not all beliefs require proof to be rational in order to know anything at all, some things need to be taken for granted unproven. On this they are clearly correct. Second, and interesting they maintained that certain theological beliefs about God should be accepted this way.
Now this does not mean that there is no place for rational argument in assessing theological claims, or in thinking about this issues. If one starts assuming belief in God is true, one still need to reason *from* this and see if it can provide coherent answers to various, metaphysical, moral and existential questions. One still needs to ask whether various arguments against belief in God is sound. One still needs to show the implications of what one believes are not contrary to obvious facts. And one needs to be able to examine whether theism is able to cohere with and be consistent with other things we know. One requires arguments to do all these things and if a one cannot do these things reason may provide us grounds for rejecting theism.
But the claim that one cannot prove theism from the outset does not. The traditions I mention deny one needs to be able to do this, one does not rebut them by simply asserting their claims are false one needs to provide them with an argument, and the incoherent nonsense which is often provided is not a very good argument.
Monday, 24 September 2007
Friday, 21 September 2007
Perigo on Faith, Reason, and Tertullian
In a recent issue of Salient Lindsay Perigo laments the “power wishful thinking”. Predictably he cites Christianity as a paradigm of such thinking. However, like many in the media who take swipes at orthodox or conservative expressions Christianity his analysis is superficial. Perigo writes.
Perigo here asserts that Christianity is absurd. Of course merely asserting some thing is absurd hardly constitutes a compelling objection to it. Perigo however suggests that, not only is Christianity absurd, but its practioners actually recognise it’s absurdity and believe because of it. The idea is that they deliberately go against what reason tells them and choose a path recognised as irrational He cites the famous “Credo quia absurdum” popularly attributed to Tertullian to substantiate this claim.
There are a couple of problems here: First, even if it’s true that one Theologian (Tertullian) has suggested that Christianity is absurd and commended belief in it for this reason it does not follow that all Christians or even many follow suit. To establish this Perigo would need to show that Tertullian’s position was the dominant mainstream one for most of Christian history. He does not even attempt to do so. Moreover, the suggestion Tertullains views, as Perigo interprets them was the mainstream views is very dubious .
Second, Perigo’s picture of Tertullian is inaccurate. Its was once common for people to Tertullian as a proponent of extreme fideism a position defined by Alvin Plantinga as “the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason” and the “Credo quia absurdum” passage is the usual reason for this attribution of fideism to Tertullian.
The problems with the extreme fideist interpretation of Tertullian are nicely set out in an article by Robert Sider published in Classical World 73 (April-May 1980), pp.417-9. Sider notes two problems; first, the comment Credo quia absurdum is in fact a misquote and second, he notes that when understood in its context Tertullian was actually commending the Christian faith as rational and philosophically defensible. What Tertullian does in the passage Perigo cites is utilize a line of argument from Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Aristotle (who is something of a hero to Perigo) argues that if something is contrary to current expectations and highly improbable its unlikely that a rational intelligent person will believe it unless they actually witnessed it. Tertullian then is not saying we should believe what reason shows to be absurd because it is absurd. He is utilizing the best epistemological theories of his day to argue that belief in the Gospel is not absurd. Perigo relies on a popular but erroneous stereotype of Tertullian to make his point. A little reading on the issue would cleared have this up. In fact a Google search would have revealed it straight away.
After caricaturing Tertullian as an extreme fidest Perigo goes on to offer another caricature. He states
Perigo cites the example of the Taborites a millennial sect who falsely predicted the imminent return of Christ. Perigo then suggest that Puritans held the same view and imported it to America and hence to contemporary American evangelicals. This is dubious In a study of Puritan Eschatology entitled The Puritan Hope Iain Murray notes that mainstream Puritan Eschatology was not millennial. Looking, at primary sources he argued that the Puritans developed the position that Christ’s return was not imminent the world had to be converted and the institutions of the world Christianised before Christ would return. Nor is it true that the Puritans view has had “wide audience ever since” in fact most American evangelicals today do not except Puritan eschatology ( some would say to their detriment).
Apart from caricature Perigo does provide the occasional argument for his claim that Christianity is absurd. He notes that “in her newly-released letters that Mother Teresa felt she was praying to no one all those years might give [Christians] some cause for pause” but why should it? Does the fact that a prominent apologist of Atheist Anthony Flew relatively recently decided that his advocacy of atheism for numerous years was mistaken and that a God exist give Perigo pause.
Perigo then notes that Kerry Packer after being dead for 15 minutes testified that “there’s nothing there” but again one wonders why this should bother Christians. Christianity teaches a resurrection of the dead at the parousia not popular the stories associated with “near death experiences” the movie ghost or the TV series Medium.
Perigo often says some thoughtful and interesting things. On theology and religion however he does not. Like most in the media he simply spouts stereotypes provides facile arguments and backs this up with ad hominem abuse.
Two thousand years of Christianity have been based on a lie, in which countless millions have blithely and willingly believed, notwithstanding its absurdity—in fact, because of its absurdity, as Tertullian proclaimed:
“The Son of God was born: there is no shame, because it is shameful. And the Son of God died: it is wholly credible, because it is inappropriate. And, buried, He rose again: it is certain, because impossible.”
He might have added: “and because something perverse in us makes us want to believe nonsense.”
Perigo here asserts that Christianity is absurd. Of course merely asserting some thing is absurd hardly constitutes a compelling objection to it. Perigo however suggests that, not only is Christianity absurd, but its practioners actually recognise it’s absurdity and believe because of it. The idea is that they deliberately go against what reason tells them and choose a path recognised as irrational He cites the famous “Credo quia absurdum” popularly attributed to Tertullian to substantiate this claim.
There are a couple of problems here: First, even if it’s true that one Theologian (Tertullian) has suggested that Christianity is absurd and commended belief in it for this reason it does not follow that all Christians or even many follow suit. To establish this Perigo would need to show that Tertullian’s position was the dominant mainstream one for most of Christian history. He does not even attempt to do so. Moreover, the suggestion Tertullains views, as Perigo interprets them was the mainstream views is very dubious .
Second, Perigo’s picture of Tertullian is inaccurate. Its was once common for people to Tertullian as a proponent of extreme fideism a position defined by Alvin Plantinga as “the exclusive or basic reliance upon faith alone, accompanied by a consequent disparagement of reason” and the “Credo quia absurdum” passage is the usual reason for this attribution of fideism to Tertullian.
The problems with the extreme fideist interpretation of Tertullian are nicely set out in an article by Robert Sider published in Classical World 73 (April-May 1980), pp.417-9. Sider notes two problems; first, the comment Credo quia absurdum is in fact a misquote and second, he notes that when understood in its context Tertullian was actually commending the Christian faith as rational and philosophically defensible. What Tertullian does in the passage Perigo cites is utilize a line of argument from Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Aristotle (who is something of a hero to Perigo) argues that if something is contrary to current expectations and highly improbable its unlikely that a rational intelligent person will believe it unless they actually witnessed it. Tertullian then is not saying we should believe what reason shows to be absurd because it is absurd. He is utilizing the best epistemological theories of his day to argue that belief in the Gospel is not absurd. Perigo relies on a popular but erroneous stereotype of Tertullian to make his point. A little reading on the issue would cleared have this up. In fact a Google search would have revealed it straight away.
After caricaturing Tertullian as an extreme fidest Perigo goes on to offer another caricature. He states
Taborites of Bohemia predicted that Christ would return to earth in February 1420. Believers in the prophecy braced themselves. ..As the date drew near, mass hysteria took hold, much as it is doing now over global warming. Expecting a huge flood, many people built boats or moved to higher ground. The flood never came. But all over the world, folk carried on believing whatever they wanted to believe.
The Puritans were especially enthused about an imminent apocalypse, notwithstanding Jesus’ singular failure to keep any of his previous appointments, and exported their enthusiasm to America, where it’s had a ready audience ever since.
Perigo cites the example of the Taborites a millennial sect who falsely predicted the imminent return of Christ. Perigo then suggest that Puritans held the same view and imported it to America and hence to contemporary American evangelicals. This is dubious In a study of Puritan Eschatology entitled The Puritan Hope Iain Murray notes that mainstream Puritan Eschatology was not millennial. Looking, at primary sources he argued that the Puritans developed the position that Christ’s return was not imminent the world had to be converted and the institutions of the world Christianised before Christ would return. Nor is it true that the Puritans view has had “wide audience ever since” in fact most American evangelicals today do not except Puritan eschatology ( some would say to their detriment).
Apart from caricature Perigo does provide the occasional argument for his claim that Christianity is absurd. He notes that “in her newly-released letters that Mother Teresa felt she was praying to no one all those years might give [Christians] some cause for pause” but why should it? Does the fact that a prominent apologist of Atheist Anthony Flew relatively recently decided that his advocacy of atheism for numerous years was mistaken and that a God exist give Perigo pause.
Perigo then notes that Kerry Packer after being dead for 15 minutes testified that “there’s nothing there” but again one wonders why this should bother Christians. Christianity teaches a resurrection of the dead at the parousia not popular the stories associated with “near death experiences” the movie ghost or the TV series Medium.
Perigo often says some thoughtful and interesting things. On theology and religion however he does not. Like most in the media he simply spouts stereotypes provides facile arguments and backs this up with ad hominem abuse.
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Bigotry is Tolerance: Homophobia as Orwellian Double-Speak
Kiwiblog has some discussion on the recent mix up between Gordon Copeland and Destiny Church. Predictably respondents in the comments section denounce Destiny as hate filled homophobic bigots. This of course nothing new this charge is frequently bandied about in the media whenever a theological based objection to homosexual conduct is raised.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am no fan of Destiny. Destiny is a Neo-Pentecostal denomination of Christianity, founded by controversial Tele-evangelist Brian Tamaki. Studying Theology over the last decade has lead me to be fairly critical of the Neo-Pentecostal movement. Its anti intellectualism, it’s over emphasis on subjective experience, its a-contextual citing of scripture and excessive emotionalism are all problematic. Moreover, the theology of such Churches is often deeply flawed, as are the dispensational eschatology and corresponding anti-nomist ethics they often expound. Much can and should be said in criticism of this movement and its effect upon evangelicalism
However those who denounce Destiny’s alleged homophobia are not concerned about such theological questions. What they object to is a specific ethical teaching of Destiny Church: that sex between members of the same sex (homosexual conduct) is wrong.
However, this teaching on homosexual conduct is not unique to Destiny Church, it is believed and proclaimed by numerous other religious organisations. My own Presbyterian Church also teaches that homosexual conduct is wrong. As do Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, evangelical Protestants, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness’s etc. Hence the objections raised against Destiny apply with equal force to these organisations as well. An attack on Destiny for holding this belief is an attack on all those groups who agree with Destiny on this point.
Now this objection: that teaching homosexual conduct is wrong is homophobic, has always puzzled me. It puzzles me that educated intelligent people give it so much credence. Because it seems to me an obviously ridiculous argument in fact it is downright Orwellian.
To see this we need to consider what the objector here is saying: he argues that because Tamaki teaches and takes seriously the teaching that sex between people of the same sex is wrong, Brian Tamaki is homophobic. That is he has an irrational fear, hatred and loathing towards homosexual people. Two things are worth noting about this.
First, this argument is clearly fallacious. Tamaki has proposed a moral claim: that sex between members of the same sex is wrong. The objector responds, not with an argument that this claim is false. Rather, he argues that there is something wrong with Tamaki’s character; he has irrational hatred towards others. But this is a paradigmatic case of fallacious reasoning its clearly an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
Second, this attack on Tamaki’s character is based on a clear, non-sequitur. Formally it assumes that if a person teaches that an action A, is wrong, then they are have an irrational hatred and fear of people who engage in A. Such an assumption is false. Destiny also teach that lying and theft are wrong, it does not follow from this that they are inciting hatred and violence against thieves and liars.
If this assumption were correct, the only way one could avoid hatred and violence would be to have no moral teachings at all – which would not be love, but nihilism.
This argument is also incoherent, those making this claim are making moral judgements of their own, they are proclaiming that condemning homosexual conduct is wrong. Parity of reasoning entails then that they are expressing irrational hatred and fear against Destiny Church. By their own argument they are guilty of the very hatred and violence they protest against.
So what do we have here? We have an obviously fallacious objection, which constitutes an attack on another’s character on very flimsy evidence, evidence which is at best worst incoherent and at best nowhere near sufficient to establish the allegation made.
Now I contend that it’s irrational to base ones position on an obviously fallacious argument and it’s irrational to believe something on the basis of an incoherent non sequitur. Moreover, I also contend that it’s wrong to denigrate another’s character on the basis of little or no evidence, this is called slander. To slander someone is to show them contempt; it’s to disrespect them. In this instance one refuses to treat ones interlocutor as a rational agent to be reasoned with instead one ignores what he says and smears him with a unwarranted allegation hoping that other people will also jump to this unwarranted conclusion and despise the speaker.
So; here is the irony, To argue that one should reject a prohibition on homosexual conduct on the grounds that those who say this are homophobic is to express irrational contempt for another person. The charge of homophobia then is in fact an expression of irrational hatred of others.
Welcome to 1984 where irrational bigotry is called tolerance.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am no fan of Destiny. Destiny is a Neo-Pentecostal denomination of Christianity, founded by controversial Tele-evangelist Brian Tamaki. Studying Theology over the last decade has lead me to be fairly critical of the Neo-Pentecostal movement. Its anti intellectualism, it’s over emphasis on subjective experience, its a-contextual citing of scripture and excessive emotionalism are all problematic. Moreover, the theology of such Churches is often deeply flawed, as are the dispensational eschatology and corresponding anti-nomist ethics they often expound. Much can and should be said in criticism of this movement and its effect upon evangelicalism
However those who denounce Destiny’s alleged homophobia are not concerned about such theological questions. What they object to is a specific ethical teaching of Destiny Church: that sex between members of the same sex (homosexual conduct) is wrong.
However, this teaching on homosexual conduct is not unique to Destiny Church, it is believed and proclaimed by numerous other religious organisations. My own Presbyterian Church also teaches that homosexual conduct is wrong. As do Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, evangelical Protestants, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness’s etc. Hence the objections raised against Destiny apply with equal force to these organisations as well. An attack on Destiny for holding this belief is an attack on all those groups who agree with Destiny on this point.
Now this objection: that teaching homosexual conduct is wrong is homophobic, has always puzzled me. It puzzles me that educated intelligent people give it so much credence. Because it seems to me an obviously ridiculous argument in fact it is downright Orwellian.
To see this we need to consider what the objector here is saying: he argues that because Tamaki teaches and takes seriously the teaching that sex between people of the same sex is wrong, Brian Tamaki is homophobic. That is he has an irrational fear, hatred and loathing towards homosexual people. Two things are worth noting about this.
First, this argument is clearly fallacious. Tamaki has proposed a moral claim: that sex between members of the same sex is wrong. The objector responds, not with an argument that this claim is false. Rather, he argues that there is something wrong with Tamaki’s character; he has irrational hatred towards others. But this is a paradigmatic case of fallacious reasoning its clearly an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
Second, this attack on Tamaki’s character is based on a clear, non-sequitur. Formally it assumes that if a person teaches that an action A, is wrong, then they are have an irrational hatred and fear of people who engage in A. Such an assumption is false. Destiny also teach that lying and theft are wrong, it does not follow from this that they are inciting hatred and violence against thieves and liars.
If this assumption were correct, the only way one could avoid hatred and violence would be to have no moral teachings at all – which would not be love, but nihilism.
This argument is also incoherent, those making this claim are making moral judgements of their own, they are proclaiming that condemning homosexual conduct is wrong. Parity of reasoning entails then that they are expressing irrational hatred and fear against Destiny Church. By their own argument they are guilty of the very hatred and violence they protest against.
So what do we have here? We have an obviously fallacious objection, which constitutes an attack on another’s character on very flimsy evidence, evidence which is at best worst incoherent and at best nowhere near sufficient to establish the allegation made.
Now I contend that it’s irrational to base ones position on an obviously fallacious argument and it’s irrational to believe something on the basis of an incoherent non sequitur. Moreover, I also contend that it’s wrong to denigrate another’s character on the basis of little or no evidence, this is called slander. To slander someone is to show them contempt; it’s to disrespect them. In this instance one refuses to treat ones interlocutor as a rational agent to be reasoned with instead one ignores what he says and smears him with a unwarranted allegation hoping that other people will also jump to this unwarranted conclusion and despise the speaker.
So; here is the irony, To argue that one should reject a prohibition on homosexual conduct on the grounds that those who say this are homophobic is to express irrational contempt for another person. The charge of homophobia then is in fact an expression of irrational hatred of others.
Welcome to 1984 where irrational bigotry is called tolerance.
Thursday, 13 September 2007
That Is Soooo Unfair
Frequently when my six year old son tries to take something from his siblings, something that belongs to them and he has not asked for, he attempts to justify his actions with the phrase “but I want it” said in an annoying whiny, loud, self-pitying tone.
An important part of moral education is to teach people they can’t just take whatever they want. One's conduct needs to be guided by principles that often restrict one from doing certain actions one might want to do. The phenomena of temptation involves cases where what one wants and what is right are at variance. In such cases a person of integrity should resist doing what she wants rather she should do what is right.
These points are obvious or at least one would have thought they were.
Today while driving I heard people ringing talk back radio complaining about the fact that New Zealand does not have as much sport on free to air TV as Australia does. One caller in particular stated emphatically that there was something unfair about this; without free to air TV those who enjoyed rugby would have to pay money to watch it and not everyone can afford this.
I find this reaction, well, odd.
I have had a similar reaction to arguments that were proposed by fellow students when I was studying at Uni. The argument was made that student loans or course fees were unfair. Why? Well, because it meant those who want an education have to pay for it. The price means those who cannot afford this can’t get it or at least have to borrow money to do so and if they borrow money they have to pay this back. Notice the premise in both arguments; if I am unable to afford something that I want to have then that is unfair.
Surely a moments reflection shows this premise to be false? Surely this is obviously so? I for example want to visit Greece, Italy, Isreal and Eygpt as having spent a good part of my life studying the history of these places I want to go there. I really would love to visit friends of mine in Colorado. I would love to live in a bigger house. Does it follow that it is unfair that this is not given to me 'free'? Is the fact that if I gained these things I would have to pay for them unjust? Is the fact that I cannot currently afford everything I want really an issue of justice? Surely not!
Some would say that I am belabouring a straw man here, particularly with the tertiary education issue. The issue is not that it is unfair merely because I want to study at Uni as going to Uni is not a luxury item like a trip to Rome. It is unfair because I have a right to a university education. (So the argument goes.)
Now I think this is one of those areas where appeals to “rights” is misleading. Rights and duties are correlated. If I have a right to Q from P, then P has a duty to provide me with Q. Moreover, in a political context, these duties are enforceable. Not only does P have a duty to provide me with Q but the state should punish P if P fails to discharge this duty.
Once this point is realised, appeals to rights can be seen for what they are. They are attempts to impose by force a duty upon other people. Liberal lefties love to talk about defending human rights and opposing evil religious conservatives who “impose their values on others” but their language hides the real moral situation. What in fact they want is to reject the imposition of some duties on others while supporting the imposition of others. This is one of the reasons why I incline to the view that rights talk is redundant and should be dropped and replaced with the older moral discourse which merely emphasised duties. It enables situations to be viewed with a clarity that is otherwise hidden.
The phrase I have “a right to Q” is ambigious and couching the issue in terms of duties clarifies the issues. When someone claims they have "a right" they could mean a negative right or a positive right, a negative right to rugby watching or tertiary education means that the person whom the right is against has a duty to not prevent you (via coercion or intimidation) from accessing those things. A positive right means that the person has a duty not to prevent you from accessing those things but to actually give them to you. In addition, saying I have a right to X does not tell us who this right is held against couching the issue in terms of duties does.
Returning to our example, what these people appear to be saying is that the government has a duty to provide people with free rugby games and a tertiary education if they want these things. Everyone else in society has a duty to contribute their money towards their TV watching or their tertiary education and breaching this duty is so serious that justice requires that those who do not do this be arrested and incarcerated. Is this a plausible claim?
I think it is not. I agree that parents have a duty to provide their children with a basic education and I agree that parents who do not do this are guilty of neglect and should be prosecuted for doing so. But the suggestion that the state has a duty to educate adults up to masters and PhD level and that a citizens failure to provide other adults with the funds to do this is a serious breach of their duties warranting prosecution seems far fetched. It is not as though failure to watch the All Blacks thrash Italy or to gain a PhD in physics means one is condemned to a dehumanising degrading existence.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that people who make these claims are presenting sophisticated versions of my six year old son "I want that so I am going to take it. You give it to me or else." They are essentially calling on a powerful strong person (the state) to intimidate other people to give them what they want. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not understand how intelligent adults can believe that this constitutes serious moral or ethical discourse in our society. Or how words like “rights” can cause people to systematically deceive themselves as to the nature of what they are doing.
This view of “rights” and public discourse essentially turns democracy into an egocentric mob where one segment plunders another for their own personal gain and political parties compete for votes by promising their faction the better spoil. To pass it of as progressive caring policy is nonsense.
An important part of moral education is to teach people they can’t just take whatever they want. One's conduct needs to be guided by principles that often restrict one from doing certain actions one might want to do. The phenomena of temptation involves cases where what one wants and what is right are at variance. In such cases a person of integrity should resist doing what she wants rather she should do what is right.
These points are obvious or at least one would have thought they were.
Today while driving I heard people ringing talk back radio complaining about the fact that New Zealand does not have as much sport on free to air TV as Australia does. One caller in particular stated emphatically that there was something unfair about this; without free to air TV those who enjoyed rugby would have to pay money to watch it and not everyone can afford this.
I find this reaction, well, odd.
I have had a similar reaction to arguments that were proposed by fellow students when I was studying at Uni. The argument was made that student loans or course fees were unfair. Why? Well, because it meant those who want an education have to pay for it. The price means those who cannot afford this can’t get it or at least have to borrow money to do so and if they borrow money they have to pay this back. Notice the premise in both arguments; if I am unable to afford something that I want to have then that is unfair.
Surely a moments reflection shows this premise to be false? Surely this is obviously so? I for example want to visit Greece, Italy, Isreal and Eygpt as having spent a good part of my life studying the history of these places I want to go there. I really would love to visit friends of mine in Colorado. I would love to live in a bigger house. Does it follow that it is unfair that this is not given to me 'free'? Is the fact that if I gained these things I would have to pay for them unjust? Is the fact that I cannot currently afford everything I want really an issue of justice? Surely not!
Some would say that I am belabouring a straw man here, particularly with the tertiary education issue. The issue is not that it is unfair merely because I want to study at Uni as going to Uni is not a luxury item like a trip to Rome. It is unfair because I have a right to a university education. (So the argument goes.)
Now I think this is one of those areas where appeals to “rights” is misleading. Rights and duties are correlated. If I have a right to Q from P, then P has a duty to provide me with Q. Moreover, in a political context, these duties are enforceable. Not only does P have a duty to provide me with Q but the state should punish P if P fails to discharge this duty.
Once this point is realised, appeals to rights can be seen for what they are. They are attempts to impose by force a duty upon other people. Liberal lefties love to talk about defending human rights and opposing evil religious conservatives who “impose their values on others” but their language hides the real moral situation. What in fact they want is to reject the imposition of some duties on others while supporting the imposition of others. This is one of the reasons why I incline to the view that rights talk is redundant and should be dropped and replaced with the older moral discourse which merely emphasised duties. It enables situations to be viewed with a clarity that is otherwise hidden.
The phrase I have “a right to Q” is ambigious and couching the issue in terms of duties clarifies the issues. When someone claims they have "a right" they could mean a negative right or a positive right, a negative right to rugby watching or tertiary education means that the person whom the right is against has a duty to not prevent you (via coercion or intimidation) from accessing those things. A positive right means that the person has a duty not to prevent you from accessing those things but to actually give them to you. In addition, saying I have a right to X does not tell us who this right is held against couching the issue in terms of duties does.
Returning to our example, what these people appear to be saying is that the government has a duty to provide people with free rugby games and a tertiary education if they want these things. Everyone else in society has a duty to contribute their money towards their TV watching or their tertiary education and breaching this duty is so serious that justice requires that those who do not do this be arrested and incarcerated. Is this a plausible claim?
I think it is not. I agree that parents have a duty to provide their children with a basic education and I agree that parents who do not do this are guilty of neglect and should be prosecuted for doing so. But the suggestion that the state has a duty to educate adults up to masters and PhD level and that a citizens failure to provide other adults with the funds to do this is a serious breach of their duties warranting prosecution seems far fetched. It is not as though failure to watch the All Blacks thrash Italy or to gain a PhD in physics means one is condemned to a dehumanising degrading existence.
It is hard to resist the conclusion that people who make these claims are presenting sophisticated versions of my six year old son "I want that so I am going to take it. You give it to me or else." They are essentially calling on a powerful strong person (the state) to intimidate other people to give them what they want. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not understand how intelligent adults can believe that this constitutes serious moral or ethical discourse in our society. Or how words like “rights” can cause people to systematically deceive themselves as to the nature of what they are doing.
This view of “rights” and public discourse essentially turns democracy into an egocentric mob where one segment plunders another for their own personal gain and political parties compete for votes by promising their faction the better spoil. To pass it of as progressive caring policy is nonsense.
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Tuesday, 11 September 2007
9/11
Today in New Zealand the date is the 11th of September, this date marks the anniversary of a terrible crime, an event where planes were used to increate and kill thousands of innocent civilians in order to strike terror into the heart of the local population.
Those reading this will suspect that I am talking of the attack on the world trade towers in 2001. I am not. The event I refer to occurred in September 11th 1944 the bombing of Darmstadt. This was one of several bombing raids performed by the allies against German occupied Europe. What’s less well known was that Churchill under pressure from his ally Stalin, perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, authorized the deliberate area bombing of civilian cities. Defenders of these actions argued it was necessary to destroy the morale of the German people. The raid on Darmstadt created a fire storm 1 mile high. The roaring firestorm so terrified the population that most people stayed in their bomb shelters leading to them dying of suffocation. In his fascinating monograph Humanity Jonathan Glover notes that over 12000 people died in this raid. Carolin Schaffer a survivor of the raid tells how she and her children were forced to flee through piles of corpses. She covered her children’s eyes for fear that the images would traumatize them for life.
Darmstard was only one of many area bombings performed by the allies. A year earlier between 24 July and 3 of August the city of Hamburg was repeatedly attacked. On the night of the 27th the bombings created a firestorm with temperatures up to 800 degrees. Roads melted and fleeing civilians found their feet stuck in molten tar and asphalt while they were burnt alive. Glover’s account contains disturbing accounts from eyewitnesses, stories of charred women and children, with brains tumbling onto the ground. The firestorm of the 27th killed 40,000 people. Similar things can be said about the fire bombing of Dresden in 1945 which killed 30,000.
Many in the west forget do not know about these events. I talk to well meaning sincere students all the time who know all about the atrocities of Hitler and have no idea that Churchill supported terrorism moreover often when this is pointed out they do not care. After all he was fighting Hitler.
I highlight these events not to engage in the specious reasoning of anti war activists. The invalid tu quoque which states that because the west has engaged in terrorism of this sort in the past that some how means they are mistaken to condemn it now. Such arguments seem to suggest that because we did not do the right thing in the past we should not do it now. Nor do I wish to engage in the facile “Bush is a hypocrite” argument; such reasoning displays a shallow understanding of ethical argument, one that mistakes attacking against a persons character with actually offering an argument against the proposition asserted by the person. Any first year critical thinking or logic class would clear these issues up; the fact that educated University students seriously put them forward is a shame to our education system.
I highlight to say simply this terrorism in all its forms should be condemned. The Christian Just war theory condemns deliberately targeting and killing non combatants in war. It bases this on the sixth commandment “you shall not kill” but notes, following Augustine, that when this commandment is read in it's context it admits of two specified exceptions; killing an aggressor to defend of the innocent from his attack, and killing a person justly sentenced for a capital crime. The commandment is issued to all human beings. It does not say it’s wrong for the US to do this but Sunni Muslims who do it against America are freedom fighters. It does not say that we should condemn Israel when (and if) they deliberately attack civilians but then agree to listen and hear the complaints of Palestinians when they blow up Israeli women and children and encourage their teenagers to do so. It does not say that we should revile the CIA for dubious actions they have engaged in and yet praise terrorist organizations like Nelson Mandela’s ANC. All forms of terrorism should be condemned. All people, including all governments, are required to obey Gods law.
The leftwing forces of “peace” and “tolerance” in our country reject Gods law and find the idea that Governments are under God as absurd. In popular discourse they replace Gods law with the most bizarre unprincipled stance on violence. They say the state should never kill when a person has been found guilty of serial murder. But they slaughter by the thousands innocent children for social, economic reasons in state hospitals at taxpayer funds. They tell us the US should not intervene in Iraq to bring down a brutal dictator and stop his slaughter of thousands of innocent people. Yet they support military intervention in the Solomon Islands to stop riots. It’s wrong to correct disobedient children with force, but they then exhort thousands of dollars of tax payer money out of adults, by threatening force and violence for any social cause they deem worthy of support. This leads to the absurd situation where Journalists on TV tell us that Bush and other American conservatives are the equivalent of Bin Laden and the Taliban. As though a country that executes serial murderers is the same as one that executes women for not wearing a Burka. As though condemning pornographic filth is the same as banning TVs and kites. Their real ethic is clear; violence is good when used by us for causes we like by regimes who oppose those we hate. It should not be used against murderers only innocent tax payers, it should not be used against dictators only against those dictators which the UN ( which is composed of dictators) like. A plane that attacks a military target illegally located within a civilian area and which inevitably but unintentionally hits a civilians ( after ringing the civilians and telling them to leave) is a terrorist because the person who did it is a Jew and supported by the US. However a terrorist who fights apartheid is a hero and Muslim Jihadists they are simply venting understandable frustration at western colonialism.
This is one of the reasons people do not know about Darmstadt, because the Nazis were evil racists, they are the figure the left use to label any person they don’t like, so no one cares about the Germans. People confidently forget or excuse the atrocities committed upon german civilians by the allies. They also minimize the even worse social polices and massacres of Stalin our ally in the war. What is needed is not the pragmatic utilitarianism of the left. But a consistent stance grounded in the law of God. Violence is wrong when intentionally wielded against innocent people. However, to protect the innocent, governments must wield it against criminals and those who engage in aggression against the innocent. This applies domestically and internationally. I say hunt Bin Laden down kill him. Destroy terrorists everywhere and anywhere when they threaten us. Refuse to give in to them or negotiate with them until they denounce terrorism. Execute the evil people who rape and kill children here at home. Arm the police with tasers and when a criminal is threatening the innocent use them. However let those of us who are innocent, whether civilians in other countries or non criminals at home, use our life liberty and property as we please. Stop restricting our liberty appropriating our property and threatening us with incarceration us as means to achieve your social ends. Stop killing unborn children by the thousands to further the women’s revolution while selectively condemning “non violence” and prattling about peace when those who threaten the innocent us are challenged by governments doing the job God instituted them to do. Show us you actually have some moral discernment and can tell the difference between guilt and innocence, aggression and non aggression.
Black is not white and your continual claiming it is does not make it so.
Those reading this will suspect that I am talking of the attack on the world trade towers in 2001. I am not. The event I refer to occurred in September 11th 1944 the bombing of Darmstadt. This was one of several bombing raids performed by the allies against German occupied Europe. What’s less well known was that Churchill under pressure from his ally Stalin, perhaps the greatest mass murderer in history, authorized the deliberate area bombing of civilian cities. Defenders of these actions argued it was necessary to destroy the morale of the German people. The raid on Darmstadt created a fire storm 1 mile high. The roaring firestorm so terrified the population that most people stayed in their bomb shelters leading to them dying of suffocation. In his fascinating monograph Humanity Jonathan Glover notes that over 12000 people died in this raid. Carolin Schaffer a survivor of the raid tells how she and her children were forced to flee through piles of corpses. She covered her children’s eyes for fear that the images would traumatize them for life.
Darmstard was only one of many area bombings performed by the allies. A year earlier between 24 July and 3 of August the city of Hamburg was repeatedly attacked. On the night of the 27th the bombings created a firestorm with temperatures up to 800 degrees. Roads melted and fleeing civilians found their feet stuck in molten tar and asphalt while they were burnt alive. Glover’s account contains disturbing accounts from eyewitnesses, stories of charred women and children, with brains tumbling onto the ground. The firestorm of the 27th killed 40,000 people. Similar things can be said about the fire bombing of Dresden in 1945 which killed 30,000.
Many in the west forget do not know about these events. I talk to well meaning sincere students all the time who know all about the atrocities of Hitler and have no idea that Churchill supported terrorism moreover often when this is pointed out they do not care. After all he was fighting Hitler.
I highlight these events not to engage in the specious reasoning of anti war activists. The invalid tu quoque which states that because the west has engaged in terrorism of this sort in the past that some how means they are mistaken to condemn it now. Such arguments seem to suggest that because we did not do the right thing in the past we should not do it now. Nor do I wish to engage in the facile “Bush is a hypocrite” argument; such reasoning displays a shallow understanding of ethical argument, one that mistakes attacking against a persons character with actually offering an argument against the proposition asserted by the person. Any first year critical thinking or logic class would clear these issues up; the fact that educated University students seriously put them forward is a shame to our education system.
I highlight to say simply this terrorism in all its forms should be condemned. The Christian Just war theory condemns deliberately targeting and killing non combatants in war. It bases this on the sixth commandment “you shall not kill” but notes, following Augustine, that when this commandment is read in it's context it admits of two specified exceptions; killing an aggressor to defend of the innocent from his attack, and killing a person justly sentenced for a capital crime. The commandment is issued to all human beings. It does not say it’s wrong for the US to do this but Sunni Muslims who do it against America are freedom fighters. It does not say that we should condemn Israel when (and if) they deliberately attack civilians but then agree to listen and hear the complaints of Palestinians when they blow up Israeli women and children and encourage their teenagers to do so. It does not say that we should revile the CIA for dubious actions they have engaged in and yet praise terrorist organizations like Nelson Mandela’s ANC. All forms of terrorism should be condemned. All people, including all governments, are required to obey Gods law.
The leftwing forces of “peace” and “tolerance” in our country reject Gods law and find the idea that Governments are under God as absurd. In popular discourse they replace Gods law with the most bizarre unprincipled stance on violence. They say the state should never kill when a person has been found guilty of serial murder. But they slaughter by the thousands innocent children for social, economic reasons in state hospitals at taxpayer funds. They tell us the US should not intervene in Iraq to bring down a brutal dictator and stop his slaughter of thousands of innocent people. Yet they support military intervention in the Solomon Islands to stop riots. It’s wrong to correct disobedient children with force, but they then exhort thousands of dollars of tax payer money out of adults, by threatening force and violence for any social cause they deem worthy of support. This leads to the absurd situation where Journalists on TV tell us that Bush and other American conservatives are the equivalent of Bin Laden and the Taliban. As though a country that executes serial murderers is the same as one that executes women for not wearing a Burka. As though condemning pornographic filth is the same as banning TVs and kites. Their real ethic is clear; violence is good when used by us for causes we like by regimes who oppose those we hate. It should not be used against murderers only innocent tax payers, it should not be used against dictators only against those dictators which the UN ( which is composed of dictators) like. A plane that attacks a military target illegally located within a civilian area and which inevitably but unintentionally hits a civilians ( after ringing the civilians and telling them to leave) is a terrorist because the person who did it is a Jew and supported by the US. However a terrorist who fights apartheid is a hero and Muslim Jihadists they are simply venting understandable frustration at western colonialism.
This is one of the reasons people do not know about Darmstadt, because the Nazis were evil racists, they are the figure the left use to label any person they don’t like, so no one cares about the Germans. People confidently forget or excuse the atrocities committed upon german civilians by the allies. They also minimize the even worse social polices and massacres of Stalin our ally in the war. What is needed is not the pragmatic utilitarianism of the left. But a consistent stance grounded in the law of God. Violence is wrong when intentionally wielded against innocent people. However, to protect the innocent, governments must wield it against criminals and those who engage in aggression against the innocent. This applies domestically and internationally. I say hunt Bin Laden down kill him. Destroy terrorists everywhere and anywhere when they threaten us. Refuse to give in to them or negotiate with them until they denounce terrorism. Execute the evil people who rape and kill children here at home. Arm the police with tasers and when a criminal is threatening the innocent use them. However let those of us who are innocent, whether civilians in other countries or non criminals at home, use our life liberty and property as we please. Stop restricting our liberty appropriating our property and threatening us with incarceration us as means to achieve your social ends. Stop killing unborn children by the thousands to further the women’s revolution while selectively condemning “non violence” and prattling about peace when those who threaten the innocent us are challenged by governments doing the job God instituted them to do. Show us you actually have some moral discernment and can tell the difference between guilt and innocence, aggression and non aggression.
Black is not white and your continual claiming it is does not make it so.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Praise the Lord - I Can't be Bothered Thinking
I teach at a theological college. This morning I was on campus checking my mail box when a theological discussion erupted around me. The students were discussing the question of pre-millennial eschatology, specifically whether the Temple needs to be rebuilt in Jerusalem and the levitical priesthood restored before Christ’s Pre-millennial return. I am not a Pre-millennialist and hence agreed to some extent with what the students were saying, however, I found the arguments they gave to be very superficial, it was of the “this view is true because it pleases certain oppressed peoples and makes God look nice” variety. Next, however, I heard a statement that really got my back up.
“Oh I don’t care about any of that, I know Jesus comes back and that’s all that matters, who or under what circumstances, who cares”
At this point, I joined in the conversation pointing out that a Mosque currently stands where the temple would need to be rebuilt. I suggested that demolishing an Islamic holy site and building a Temple there could in fact lead to war and the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I also noted that how one approaches brokering peace in this part of the world could depend on a correct answer to this question, hence, it had some important practical significance. This point, however, rolled of my interlocutress’s back.
“Oh well, as long as Christ comes back, I don’t care about what the correct theology is.”
The fervour of my response shocked even me, I asked a direct question.
“Why are you here?”
The student looked puzzled.
“Why are you at a theological college if you don’t care what the scriptures teach? If what is the truth of the matter means nothing to you as long as you attain salvation? Why come to college and study the scriptures if ultimately you have no desire to learn what they say? Go home and stop wasting everyone’s time.”
The student said to me,
“I am not required to be able to answer those questions.”
I responded,
“Yes you are, you are a Theology student that’s an important vocation. You should be informed about the questions and debates that occur in Eschatology and you should be attempting to understand what the truth is, that’s why you are here.”
The student informed me that I was rude and she did not want to discuss the matter further. I went home thinking, was I out of line here?
One thing that immediately sprang to mind was the fact that this student apparently refuses to listen to messages she finds rude. While presentation is important, shouldn’t the real question be whether what I said was true? Sometimes the truth is offensive and unpleasant.
But that still leaves the question was I out of line? am I out of line in my attitude here?
I do not think I am although admittedly I may have been too blunt; I am not always as sensitive as I should be. Years of being abused and derided as an ignorant fundamentalist moron tends to toughen ones skin and harden you a bit. It also customises you to debate that is less than tactful and polite and it is hard to re-contextualise this debate style in nicer, politer company.
My manner of presentation aside, I think I am right to be concerned. One of the biggest problems of contemporary evangelicalism is the lazy, superficial attitude that I heard expressed in this discussion. God gave us minds, he revealed us truth through the scriptures and he commands us to grow in an understanding of him. Evangelicals actually believe in truth. Understanding God and his ways is one of the greatest mysteries of the universe and the answers matter deeply, they relate to the deepest existential questions we all face.
The attitude that suggests that as long as “I am saved” then wrestling with these answers, caring about what is true and developing our understanding of the whole counsel of God is unimportant reflects a self-centred mindset for which I find it hard to have any thing but contempt. As a Theologian I believe it is my duty to try and understand these issues and to offer credible answers to life’s questions. Of course I am aware that I could be wrong and need to be open to that possibility. I am also aware that on some issues I do not know the answer, either because I find the debate inconclusive or I lack knowledge of certain issues necessary for resolving the issue. However, I do not think that agnosticism or humility concerning the answers to such questions should be grounded in an “I don’t know the facts, I do not understand the issue and I do not want to because I do not care” attitude.
Working at a theological college often depresses me because I am frequently exposed to this mind numbing, anti-intellectual superficiality and a culture of people who think that such mediocrity is “spiritual”. It is like they really believe that God is impressed with bumper stickers saying “Jesus loves you” or “eternity smoking or non-smoking?” and see this as an effective ambassadorship of his message.
Evangelicals need to wake up to the fact that we are a joke in contemporary NZ society. I have worked in secular universities for several years and watched as mind numbing, clichéd responses to serious questions is cheered on as effective by glorified youth groups. At the same time the surrounding culture gets a clear message that Christians are dingbats who are simply clueless. Stereotypes that enlightenment thinking has drummed into a generation about faith being irrational are simply reinforced.
Sadly I have also found that some times these same hostile sceptics often are very interested in the questions evangelicals address. They will talk and listen for hours to a sensible theologically informed answer and are genuinely interested in truth and issues to do with God and Morality. The problem is that frequently it is us who are not. We have reduced the gospel not to truth but to a pragmatic “it works and enhances my life” message. Evangelism looks uncannily like those tedious Chuck Norris infomercials telling us to “buy a total gym and we too can get a trim body” or the raving Anthony Robbins ads “I bought his tapes and now I am successful; it can work for you too!” The problem is that in a corrupt world falsehood sometimes works and as martyrs world wide can attest, truth can get you tortured and killed.
Augustine of Hippo coined a famous motto which became a guide to later Christian scholasticism, this was the motto of “Faith seeking understanding.” He held that we should accept the message of the gospel by faith, but that one should utilise reason to understand this Gospel, to explore its implications, to answer objections and to develop an informed application of its message to various issues.
For centuries Theologians followed this method, to read Augustine or Aquinas, Calvin, Ockham, Grotius or the Puritans or even contemporary writers like Alvin Plantinga is to catch a vision of God and his world that is richly profound and both existentially and intellectually satisfying. One finds oneself drawn into the conversation in an attempt to wrestle with them, critically engaging ones mind in the contemplation of the greatest being of all, God. One gains ownership of one's faith and is driven to a hunger to learn more of God out of devotion to him.
I was forced to read writers like this when I was faced with challenges to my faith that my Church could not answer and the experience was transforming but I have never been able to fit into the New Zealand evangelical church ever since. Exposure to the real thing inevitably makes the mind numbing dosage of clichés, slogans, pithy pat wit, the “Jesus loves me, he works, ignore the rest” view of mature spirituality difficult to tolerate. I find this view to be one of the biggest barriers to the Gospel and subsequent social transformation in New Zealand today. Consequently, I find myself adopting an almost zero tolerance attitude towards it. God is not impressed by lazy minds who run from a challenge and hide in the comfort of mutually affirming pot luck dinners while the rest of the world goes to hell. And its time the evangelical world stopped thinking this was acceptable.
I recently spoke to a respected Christian leader who speaks in numerous theological colleges in NZ and he informed me that he has had to dumb his message down in order to survive. That speaks volumes; normally academics get promoted for intellectual rigor and depth but it is a sad state of affairs when excellence in understanding God is a liability and superficially an asset. If this is the way we promote and educate Christian leaders then may God help New Zealand Society.
“Oh I don’t care about any of that, I know Jesus comes back and that’s all that matters, who or under what circumstances, who cares”
At this point, I joined in the conversation pointing out that a Mosque currently stands where the temple would need to be rebuilt. I suggested that demolishing an Islamic holy site and building a Temple there could in fact lead to war and the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I also noted that how one approaches brokering peace in this part of the world could depend on a correct answer to this question, hence, it had some important practical significance. This point, however, rolled of my interlocutress’s back.
“Oh well, as long as Christ comes back, I don’t care about what the correct theology is.”
The fervour of my response shocked even me, I asked a direct question.
“Why are you here?”
The student looked puzzled.
“Why are you at a theological college if you don’t care what the scriptures teach? If what is the truth of the matter means nothing to you as long as you attain salvation? Why come to college and study the scriptures if ultimately you have no desire to learn what they say? Go home and stop wasting everyone’s time.”
The student said to me,
“I am not required to be able to answer those questions.”
I responded,
“Yes you are, you are a Theology student that’s an important vocation. You should be informed about the questions and debates that occur in Eschatology and you should be attempting to understand what the truth is, that’s why you are here.”
The student informed me that I was rude and she did not want to discuss the matter further. I went home thinking, was I out of line here?
One thing that immediately sprang to mind was the fact that this student apparently refuses to listen to messages she finds rude. While presentation is important, shouldn’t the real question be whether what I said was true? Sometimes the truth is offensive and unpleasant.
But that still leaves the question was I out of line? am I out of line in my attitude here?
I do not think I am although admittedly I may have been too blunt; I am not always as sensitive as I should be. Years of being abused and derided as an ignorant fundamentalist moron tends to toughen ones skin and harden you a bit. It also customises you to debate that is less than tactful and polite and it is hard to re-contextualise this debate style in nicer, politer company.
My manner of presentation aside, I think I am right to be concerned. One of the biggest problems of contemporary evangelicalism is the lazy, superficial attitude that I heard expressed in this discussion. God gave us minds, he revealed us truth through the scriptures and he commands us to grow in an understanding of him. Evangelicals actually believe in truth. Understanding God and his ways is one of the greatest mysteries of the universe and the answers matter deeply, they relate to the deepest existential questions we all face.
The attitude that suggests that as long as “I am saved” then wrestling with these answers, caring about what is true and developing our understanding of the whole counsel of God is unimportant reflects a self-centred mindset for which I find it hard to have any thing but contempt. As a Theologian I believe it is my duty to try and understand these issues and to offer credible answers to life’s questions. Of course I am aware that I could be wrong and need to be open to that possibility. I am also aware that on some issues I do not know the answer, either because I find the debate inconclusive or I lack knowledge of certain issues necessary for resolving the issue. However, I do not think that agnosticism or humility concerning the answers to such questions should be grounded in an “I don’t know the facts, I do not understand the issue and I do not want to because I do not care” attitude.
Working at a theological college often depresses me because I am frequently exposed to this mind numbing, anti-intellectual superficiality and a culture of people who think that such mediocrity is “spiritual”. It is like they really believe that God is impressed with bumper stickers saying “Jesus loves you” or “eternity smoking or non-smoking?” and see this as an effective ambassadorship of his message.
Evangelicals need to wake up to the fact that we are a joke in contemporary NZ society. I have worked in secular universities for several years and watched as mind numbing, clichéd responses to serious questions is cheered on as effective by glorified youth groups. At the same time the surrounding culture gets a clear message that Christians are dingbats who are simply clueless. Stereotypes that enlightenment thinking has drummed into a generation about faith being irrational are simply reinforced.
Sadly I have also found that some times these same hostile sceptics often are very interested in the questions evangelicals address. They will talk and listen for hours to a sensible theologically informed answer and are genuinely interested in truth and issues to do with God and Morality. The problem is that frequently it is us who are not. We have reduced the gospel not to truth but to a pragmatic “it works and enhances my life” message. Evangelism looks uncannily like those tedious Chuck Norris infomercials telling us to “buy a total gym and we too can get a trim body” or the raving Anthony Robbins ads “I bought his tapes and now I am successful; it can work for you too!” The problem is that in a corrupt world falsehood sometimes works and as martyrs world wide can attest, truth can get you tortured and killed.
Augustine of Hippo coined a famous motto which became a guide to later Christian scholasticism, this was the motto of “Faith seeking understanding.” He held that we should accept the message of the gospel by faith, but that one should utilise reason to understand this Gospel, to explore its implications, to answer objections and to develop an informed application of its message to various issues.
For centuries Theologians followed this method, to read Augustine or Aquinas, Calvin, Ockham, Grotius or the Puritans or even contemporary writers like Alvin Plantinga is to catch a vision of God and his world that is richly profound and both existentially and intellectually satisfying. One finds oneself drawn into the conversation in an attempt to wrestle with them, critically engaging ones mind in the contemplation of the greatest being of all, God. One gains ownership of one's faith and is driven to a hunger to learn more of God out of devotion to him.
I was forced to read writers like this when I was faced with challenges to my faith that my Church could not answer and the experience was transforming but I have never been able to fit into the New Zealand evangelical church ever since. Exposure to the real thing inevitably makes the mind numbing dosage of clichés, slogans, pithy pat wit, the “Jesus loves me, he works, ignore the rest” view of mature spirituality difficult to tolerate. I find this view to be one of the biggest barriers to the Gospel and subsequent social transformation in New Zealand today. Consequently, I find myself adopting an almost zero tolerance attitude towards it. God is not impressed by lazy minds who run from a challenge and hide in the comfort of mutually affirming pot luck dinners while the rest of the world goes to hell. And its time the evangelical world stopped thinking this was acceptable.
I recently spoke to a respected Christian leader who speaks in numerous theological colleges in NZ and he informed me that he has had to dumb his message down in order to survive. That speaks volumes; normally academics get promoted for intellectual rigor and depth but it is a sad state of affairs when excellence in understanding God is a liability and superficially an asset. If this is the way we promote and educate Christian leaders then may God help New Zealand Society.
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Fruit not Drugs?
Today I returned from a trip to Sydney. As I exited customs and headed for my taxi I kept feeling like I had missed something, some step in security - maybe I had taken a wrong turn?
You see when I flew to Australia I had to fill in a card answering a number of questions about what I was bringing into the country. You know the ones, you just mindlessly fill them in and get on with your trip. This time though the questions around drugs were particularly prominent for me as I had brought with me some prescription pain killers for my neck (hurt it blowdrying my hair recently - long story) and I realised I had to declare them which was a bit of a pain as I ended up getting separated from my colleagues.
On the way home I wondered if I should just not declare them so as to not risk the separation thing again but resolved to do the right thing. Imagine my surprise on filling in the NZ entry card, as I ticked each box and came to the end having answered questions about mud and wood items and fruit only to find that there was no question about drugs at all!
Surely they must ask me in person as I go through customs... I listened intently for my opportunity to confess to the drugs in my handbag, "No, I don't have any fruit in my hand bag, just some eclipse mints and a biscuit I didn't eat on the plane." I was waived on and the next thing I knew I was outside heading for my taxi.
The Aussies want to know about your criminal convictions and the drugs you might be carrying, the US wants to know both of the above and your Nazi party affiliations but all NZ cares about is whether you are carrying any fruit!
You see when I flew to Australia I had to fill in a card answering a number of questions about what I was bringing into the country. You know the ones, you just mindlessly fill them in and get on with your trip. This time though the questions around drugs were particularly prominent for me as I had brought with me some prescription pain killers for my neck (hurt it blowdrying my hair recently - long story) and I realised I had to declare them which was a bit of a pain as I ended up getting separated from my colleagues.
On the way home I wondered if I should just not declare them so as to not risk the separation thing again but resolved to do the right thing. Imagine my surprise on filling in the NZ entry card, as I ticked each box and came to the end having answered questions about mud and wood items and fruit only to find that there was no question about drugs at all!
Surely they must ask me in person as I go through customs... I listened intently for my opportunity to confess to the drugs in my handbag, "No, I don't have any fruit in my hand bag, just some eclipse mints and a biscuit I didn't eat on the plane." I was waived on and the next thing I knew I was outside heading for my taxi.
The Aussies want to know about your criminal convictions and the drugs you might be carrying, the US wants to know both of the above and your Nazi party affiliations but all NZ cares about is whether you are carrying any fruit!
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Iraq and the Just War Theory: Why I choose not to support the anti-war movement.
I found this last night, I wrote it at the beginning of the US invasion in 2003 at that time I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq and was considering joining the anti-war movement in Dunedin. I posted it up on a newsgroup to get some answers from peace activists. I have edited it slightly and incorporated some of the responses I made to objections in the ensuing discussion into the main text.My views on permissibility the invasion have since changed. However I stand by what I said here:
I was sitting down last night watching the News and pondering whether the doctrine of a Just War ruled out a military intervention by the US in Iraq. While I was doing this an idea came to me. I was struck by the fact that no one has asked whether the Doctrine would justify Iraq defending themselves against the US invasion. It seems odd that no one has asked this. There is after all two sides to a conflict and both sides are required to act according to Gods law. Why were people predominately concerned with the actions of only one of the belligerents? It is almost as if we people think that democratic nations have a duty to refrain from unjust belligerency, dictatorships do not. I submit that this is absurd.
Upon reflection I came to the conclusion that the just war doctrine would not permit Iraq to engage in a defensive war against the US. Just war doctrine states that a war to be lawfully prosecuted must meet 6 requirements 1) it must be fought for a just cause with just aims 2) it must be prosecuted by someone with the lawful authority to do so 3), It must be a last resort 4) one must have a reasonable chance of success in prosecuting these aims 5) The cost one incurs by going to war must not be greater than the evil one is trying to prevent and 6) only force must be used proportionate and discriminate ( aimed only at non combatants) force should be utilized in prosecuting the war.
I will examine each of these criteria in turn.
1) The cause and aim is to prevent a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, being removed from power this is hardly a just cause.
Some deny this, they suggest that Iraq is defending it’s oil reserves from foreign annexation. I demur for three reasons
First, “the no blood for oil” argument is a bad one. The aim of the US is to topple the regime, of course Oil could be the motive (just as it could be the motive of Frances decision to veto). But even if it was all it shows is that the US has bad motives. It does not show their actions are unjust. Consider a person can give to charity because he wants others to be impressed by his piety, this would be a bad motive but it does not follow that giving to charity is wrong, or that he should not give to charity. It simply tells us about his character the no blood for oil argument expresses a logical fallacy, attacking a person’s character not their reasons.
Second, Saddam’s aim is not to prevent the US getting Oil. To see this simply ask whether Saddam would settle for a situation where his regime fell, his people liberated but Iraq kept the Oil. Would he stop fighting and surrender on such terms NO. Which shows his aim is self preservation not protecting people from getting oil?
Third even if protection of Oil reserves was Saddam’s aim (which it is not) the question could still be raised over whether this is a just cause. Is maintaining possession of Oil and money is a just cause for war, normally one does not have aright to kill to defend money. If America is not permitted to shed blood for oil why is Iraq?
2) Holds only if one grants that a dictator who ceased power by force and stays in power largely by rigged votes is the legitimate ruler of Iraq. notice the words "if" here I was cautious because I am tempted to think that a de facto regime can be legitimate even if dictatorial, that does not mean that everything the regime did is legitimate. We recognize China's government for example and various others.
The standard response I get to this is that Bush rigged the election in Florida and so does not have lawful authority either. This is not an adequate response. My suggestion is that Saddam lacks lawful authority to wage war. Saying that Bush has no such authority does not address this, in fact it tends to confirm it. If Bush can't wage war because he was not really elected then neither can Saddam why is it acceptable for dictators to engage in wars and yet not unelected leaders of free countries?
3) Clearly does not hold, Saddam could have taken numerous reasonable non violent actions to prevent invasion. He could have stopped oppressing his people. He could have gone into exile. Saddam could have stepped down; he could have allowed his people to have free democratic elections and reformed the regime so that it upheld justice and human rights. These are all perfectly reasonable things that he had a duty to do any way and they would have averted war. Why is the US is being condemned for not exhausting all non violent solutions when Saddam did not either. You can't have it both ways, a rule that says dictators don't need to find peaceful alternatives but free countries do.
4) Does not hold, it is not likely that Saddam can defeat the coalition in a war, he could not beat Iran, was beaten soundly by the US last time and has a weaker army this time.
[note: one response I got to this point was that I was completely brainless if I thought this. I was told that Saddam’s forces would drive the US advance back, another respondent said the Arab world would unite and defeat the US as a response to the invasion. I have not put my responses to this here. I don’t think I need to…]
5) Does not hold the "evil" being prevent is the toppling of a brutal dictatorship and so is not an evil at all. Consequently the costs incurred by the Iraqi people by fighting the coalition are not outweighed by a positive good.
The response I get to this claim is that Saddam is no more of a dictator than George W Bush who signed Bush has signed over 200 death warrants [ Bush is the former governor of a death penalty state see here ]. Again this is beside the point I have not argued that the US or Bush are fighting a just war, I merely said Iraq is fighting an unjust one. Even if one grants that Bush's actions are problematic it does not mean that Saddam’s are not. Taken at face value this argument confirms my claim. I take it that people who make this argument consider these actions by Bush to be wrong if so then Saddam doing the same thing is wrong and I assure you he has executed more than 200 people.
I am surprised anyone takes this argument seriously. There is a world of difference between executing people found guilty by due process of committing first degree murder which is what happens in the US. and executing women and children without trial, often for trivial reasons, or for actions which are not crimes ( such as criticizing the government or being a Kurd).There is also a difference between a lethal injection and being tortured to death in an Iraqi torture chamber. I am at a loss to understand why some who oppose the war cannot draw such basic and obvious distinctions. Is as though any killing by the US, no matter what the circumstances, is murder but when the same action is done by Iraq it’s excusable.
6) Saddam is does not have a track record of using force discriminately. He has a history of massacring civilians. His defenders tend also to disrespect non combatant immunity by a) housing military targets in close proximity to civilian centers and hence effectively using civilians as shields b) executing POW's and disrespecting their rights, c) disguising troops as civilians.
[One peace activist responded to this point by saying that my claim Saddam did these things was simply my biased opinion and hence worthless. He appeared to maintain that Saddam was a democratically elected popular leader. I kid you not]
So Iraq fails on nearly every criterion, except perhaps 2). In fact I am inclined to think that even if the US invasion is unjust it meets more of the criteria for a just war than Iraq’s defense does, making the American invasion less morally problematic than the Iraqi's defense . This means in fact that Saddam had a to not defend himself against the attack. If he had done this the US would not have used force and nearly every adverse effect associated with the war that people are concerned about would not have happened. Saddam therefore is as much responsible (perhaps more so) for whatever happens as the US is. His derelection of the duty to not engage in an unjust wars has lead to these things coming about
These observations lead me to question the tactics and strategy of the Peace movement. This movement is advocating that the U.S withdraw because they are fighting an unjust war. It states that because the US are prosecuting such a war there should be demonstrations against the US. The question needs to be asked are governments allowed to prosecute unjust wars, if the answer is yes then the peace movement has no case , because Bush is not doing anything wrong, if the answer is No then it follows that Iraq also has a duty to refrain from fighting this war and that Iraq has a duty to cease fighting and withdraw its defenses from Bagdad. The peace movement should be picketing Iraq's decision to fight, burning Iraqi flags demanding that Saddam step down, storming Iraqs embassies etc. We should see hundreds of thousands of people marching denouncing Iraq. But we do not.
Consider it this way. The war can be stopped in two ways either by the US ceasing to invade or by Iraq ceasing to defend, It seems to me that putting pressure on Iraq to stop fighting is in fact preferable to demanding a US withdraw. For three reasons first because even if one grants the unjust nature of both wars I suspect that the US will conform to the model of a just war better than Iraq does. Second, because Iraq withdrawing and the US liberating Iraqi people from tyranny without violence is surely a better outcome than the US withdrawing and liberated people being crushed with violence, reprisals etc And Third because if it did this it would also gain support of those who support the US invasion and hence represent a broader base of people and gain more popular support.
Why then is the peace movement most of its efforts on denouncing the coalition? If the peace movement wants to credibly pass itself of as concerned with justice for the people of Iraq rather than a simply a movement that is committed to anti Americanism while turning a blind eye to dictatorships It should focus most of its efforts protesting the actions of the Iraqi leadership. It should call for the Iraqi leadership to put down its weapons and cease fighting an unjust war. Until it does many people even those who have doubts about the justice of Americas actions will remain skeptical of its goals. If not morally appalled at its selective blindness and lack of concern for the Iraq people.
RELATED POSTS:
More on Iraq and the Just War Theory
I was sitting down last night watching the News and pondering whether the doctrine of a Just War ruled out a military intervention by the US in Iraq. While I was doing this an idea came to me. I was struck by the fact that no one has asked whether the Doctrine would justify Iraq defending themselves against the US invasion. It seems odd that no one has asked this. There is after all two sides to a conflict and both sides are required to act according to Gods law. Why were people predominately concerned with the actions of only one of the belligerents? It is almost as if we people think that democratic nations have a duty to refrain from unjust belligerency, dictatorships do not. I submit that this is absurd.
Upon reflection I came to the conclusion that the just war doctrine would not permit Iraq to engage in a defensive war against the US. Just war doctrine states that a war to be lawfully prosecuted must meet 6 requirements 1) it must be fought for a just cause with just aims 2) it must be prosecuted by someone with the lawful authority to do so 3), It must be a last resort 4) one must have a reasonable chance of success in prosecuting these aims 5) The cost one incurs by going to war must not be greater than the evil one is trying to prevent and 6) only force must be used proportionate and discriminate ( aimed only at non combatants) force should be utilized in prosecuting the war.
I will examine each of these criteria in turn.
1) The cause and aim is to prevent a brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, being removed from power this is hardly a just cause.
Some deny this, they suggest that Iraq is defending it’s oil reserves from foreign annexation. I demur for three reasons
First, “the no blood for oil” argument is a bad one. The aim of the US is to topple the regime, of course Oil could be the motive (just as it could be the motive of Frances decision to veto). But even if it was all it shows is that the US has bad motives. It does not show their actions are unjust. Consider a person can give to charity because he wants others to be impressed by his piety, this would be a bad motive but it does not follow that giving to charity is wrong, or that he should not give to charity. It simply tells us about his character the no blood for oil argument expresses a logical fallacy, attacking a person’s character not their reasons.
Second, Saddam’s aim is not to prevent the US getting Oil. To see this simply ask whether Saddam would settle for a situation where his regime fell, his people liberated but Iraq kept the Oil. Would he stop fighting and surrender on such terms NO. Which shows his aim is self preservation not protecting people from getting oil?
Third even if protection of Oil reserves was Saddam’s aim (which it is not) the question could still be raised over whether this is a just cause. Is maintaining possession of Oil and money is a just cause for war, normally one does not have aright to kill to defend money. If America is not permitted to shed blood for oil why is Iraq?
2) Holds only if one grants that a dictator who ceased power by force and stays in power largely by rigged votes is the legitimate ruler of Iraq. notice the words "if" here I was cautious because I am tempted to think that a de facto regime can be legitimate even if dictatorial, that does not mean that everything the regime did is legitimate. We recognize China's government for example and various others.
The standard response I get to this is that Bush rigged the election in Florida and so does not have lawful authority either. This is not an adequate response. My suggestion is that Saddam lacks lawful authority to wage war. Saying that Bush has no such authority does not address this, in fact it tends to confirm it. If Bush can't wage war because he was not really elected then neither can Saddam why is it acceptable for dictators to engage in wars and yet not unelected leaders of free countries?
3) Clearly does not hold, Saddam could have taken numerous reasonable non violent actions to prevent invasion. He could have stopped oppressing his people. He could have gone into exile. Saddam could have stepped down; he could have allowed his people to have free democratic elections and reformed the regime so that it upheld justice and human rights. These are all perfectly reasonable things that he had a duty to do any way and they would have averted war. Why is the US is being condemned for not exhausting all non violent solutions when Saddam did not either. You can't have it both ways, a rule that says dictators don't need to find peaceful alternatives but free countries do.
4) Does not hold, it is not likely that Saddam can defeat the coalition in a war, he could not beat Iran, was beaten soundly by the US last time and has a weaker army this time.
[note: one response I got to this point was that I was completely brainless if I thought this. I was told that Saddam’s forces would drive the US advance back, another respondent said the Arab world would unite and defeat the US as a response to the invasion. I have not put my responses to this here. I don’t think I need to…]
5) Does not hold the "evil" being prevent is the toppling of a brutal dictatorship and so is not an evil at all. Consequently the costs incurred by the Iraqi people by fighting the coalition are not outweighed by a positive good.
The response I get to this claim is that Saddam is no more of a dictator than George W Bush who signed Bush has signed over 200 death warrants [ Bush is the former governor of a death penalty state see here ]. Again this is beside the point I have not argued that the US or Bush are fighting a just war, I merely said Iraq is fighting an unjust one. Even if one grants that Bush's actions are problematic it does not mean that Saddam’s are not. Taken at face value this argument confirms my claim. I take it that people who make this argument consider these actions by Bush to be wrong if so then Saddam doing the same thing is wrong and I assure you he has executed more than 200 people.
I am surprised anyone takes this argument seriously. There is a world of difference between executing people found guilty by due process of committing first degree murder which is what happens in the US. and executing women and children without trial, often for trivial reasons, or for actions which are not crimes ( such as criticizing the government or being a Kurd).There is also a difference between a lethal injection and being tortured to death in an Iraqi torture chamber. I am at a loss to understand why some who oppose the war cannot draw such basic and obvious distinctions. Is as though any killing by the US, no matter what the circumstances, is murder but when the same action is done by Iraq it’s excusable.
6) Saddam is does not have a track record of using force discriminately. He has a history of massacring civilians. His defenders tend also to disrespect non combatant immunity by a) housing military targets in close proximity to civilian centers and hence effectively using civilians as shields b) executing POW's and disrespecting their rights, c) disguising troops as civilians.
[One peace activist responded to this point by saying that my claim Saddam did these things was simply my biased opinion and hence worthless. He appeared to maintain that Saddam was a democratically elected popular leader. I kid you not]
So Iraq fails on nearly every criterion, except perhaps 2). In fact I am inclined to think that even if the US invasion is unjust it meets more of the criteria for a just war than Iraq’s defense does, making the American invasion less morally problematic than the Iraqi's defense . This means in fact that Saddam had a to not defend himself against the attack. If he had done this the US would not have used force and nearly every adverse effect associated with the war that people are concerned about would not have happened. Saddam therefore is as much responsible (perhaps more so) for whatever happens as the US is. His derelection of the duty to not engage in an unjust wars has lead to these things coming about
These observations lead me to question the tactics and strategy of the Peace movement. This movement is advocating that the U.S withdraw because they are fighting an unjust war. It states that because the US are prosecuting such a war there should be demonstrations against the US. The question needs to be asked are governments allowed to prosecute unjust wars, if the answer is yes then the peace movement has no case , because Bush is not doing anything wrong, if the answer is No then it follows that Iraq also has a duty to refrain from fighting this war and that Iraq has a duty to cease fighting and withdraw its defenses from Bagdad. The peace movement should be picketing Iraq's decision to fight, burning Iraqi flags demanding that Saddam step down, storming Iraqs embassies etc. We should see hundreds of thousands of people marching denouncing Iraq. But we do not.
Consider it this way. The war can be stopped in two ways either by the US ceasing to invade or by Iraq ceasing to defend, It seems to me that putting pressure on Iraq to stop fighting is in fact preferable to demanding a US withdraw. For three reasons first because even if one grants the unjust nature of both wars I suspect that the US will conform to the model of a just war better than Iraq does. Second, because Iraq withdrawing and the US liberating Iraqi people from tyranny without violence is surely a better outcome than the US withdrawing and liberated people being crushed with violence, reprisals etc And Third because if it did this it would also gain support of those who support the US invasion and hence represent a broader base of people and gain more popular support.
Why then is the peace movement most of its efforts on denouncing the coalition? If the peace movement wants to credibly pass itself of as concerned with justice for the people of Iraq rather than a simply a movement that is committed to anti Americanism while turning a blind eye to dictatorships It should focus most of its efforts protesting the actions of the Iraqi leadership. It should call for the Iraqi leadership to put down its weapons and cease fighting an unjust war. Until it does many people even those who have doubts about the justice of Americas actions will remain skeptical of its goals. If not morally appalled at its selective blindness and lack of concern for the Iraq people.
RELATED POSTS:
More on Iraq and the Just War Theory
Craig Young on "Bare Backing"
Craig Young is shocked by statistics about “bare backing” being prevalent in the Gay community. Bare backing in case you don’t know is the name Craig gives to un-protected anal sex. Young is shocked because it suggests there exists a “parallel world where Paul Cameron tells the truth.”
To understand this you need to understand something of Craig’s methods. Many critics of homosexual conduct have been for some time citing studies and evidence which suggests that homosexual conduct, as typically engaged, in is dangerous. Craig Young’s standard response has been ad hominem; he notes that one source sometimes cited in support of these claims is Paul Cameron and, according to Craig, Cameron was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for falsifying one of his studies. Craig fails to see that this is not an adequate rebuttal. First, even if Cameron’s work lacks credibility he is often only one of many sources these authors use. Contrary to what Craig seems to think you do not refute numerous studies by showing that one of them is false. Second, the fact that Cameron was kicked out of an organization for falsifying his research in a particular a study does not mean that every study he wrote or authored was shonky or bad.
Despite his initial shock at discovering that merely attacking the character of one scholar does not establish the falsity of a thesis. Craig attempts a predictable save. The prevalence of unsafe sex amongst homosexual men is actually the fault of evangelical Christians not of the bare backers who actually do it.
This argument suggests that people (in this case certain Christians) are responsible not just for the foreseeable causal consquences of their actions. But also for other peoples free responses to these actions (or at least such responses which one can be expected to predict) Young suggests that because it’s foreseeable some people choose to respond to Christian condemnation of homosexual conduct by forming a segregated culture, and its foreseeable that this culture will respond to segregation by condoning and engaging in “anti social behaviour”. It follows Christians are responsible for the behaviour.
I think this understanding of scope of moral culpability is false. Consider the following example from Augustine. Suppose a man approaches a woman and tells her that he will kill himself if she refuses to have sex with him. Does that mean that she is a murderer if she refuses?[1] Her refusal would not constitute homicide even though his death is a foreseeable result of her choice. Although she foresaw his or her death, she did not cause it. It was caused by the free decision of the tempter to commit suicide.
In an excellent article, Alan Donagan notes that historically Christian and Jewish casuistry agrees with Augustine on this point. Christian ethicists typically…
I think the same line of argument addresses Craig’s second argument,
There is something even worse about this line of argument however: if it were true it would mean that any person can require me to assist them in any behavior they wish merely by threatening to do something worse if I do not. Such a principle essentially sanctions black mail and creates an obligation to collaborate in any wrong no matter how grave in response to a threat to a third party. Even worse, if the blackmailers carry out the threat they make us responsible what happens and not them. I can help but think this is a terrible distortion of ethical analysis
I think it’s clear then that Craig’s analysis is mistaken. I will add a final note: Barebacking is an activity that occurs between consenting adults. Both parties agree to engage in causal unprotected anal sex. Now people like Craig have been arguing for some time that homosexual sex is permissible, precisely because it’s engaged in by consenting adults. Denials of this principle have been denounced by Craig’s news group Gaynz as bigoted, oppressive etc. Hence it’s hard to see how they can consistently oppose barebacking. Of course they may believe that barebackers need to be informed of the dangers of the practice. Such things as the fact that their partner is likely to have had hundreds of previous ones, that there are dangers associated with anal sex etc. The problem is that Craig and Gaynz have decried claims like this as false, as scaremongering etc. So I guess the question we need to put to Craig is this. If people who engage in same sex behavior are typically not promiscuous but enjoy relationships as stable as their heterosexual counterparts. If homosexual sex is not dangerous and there is nothing wrong with any sexual activity between consenting adults. What’s wrong with bare backing?
Craig should stop being bigoted and be celebrating the sexual diversity that exists within his own community. The fact he is not celebrating shows that he cannot consistently live with the ideology he expounds.
[1] Augustine, On Lying, 9.
[2] Alan Donagan, “Moral Absolutism and the Double-Effect Exception: Reflections on Who Is Entitled to Double-Effect?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1991): 498.
To understand this you need to understand something of Craig’s methods. Many critics of homosexual conduct have been for some time citing studies and evidence which suggests that homosexual conduct, as typically engaged, in is dangerous. Craig Young’s standard response has been ad hominem; he notes that one source sometimes cited in support of these claims is Paul Cameron and, according to Craig, Cameron was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for falsifying one of his studies. Craig fails to see that this is not an adequate rebuttal. First, even if Cameron’s work lacks credibility he is often only one of many sources these authors use. Contrary to what Craig seems to think you do not refute numerous studies by showing that one of them is false. Second, the fact that Cameron was kicked out of an organization for falsifying his research in a particular a study does not mean that every study he wrote or authored was shonky or bad.
Despite his initial shock at discovering that merely attacking the character of one scholar does not establish the falsity of a thesis. Craig attempts a predictable save. The prevalence of unsafe sex amongst homosexual men is actually the fault of evangelical Christians not of the bare backers who actually do it.
[T]he US Christian Right has had some dark successes in curtailing LGBT rights and mainstream HIV/AIDS prevention programmes. This has meant that the US LGBT communities are far more ghettoised than most other international LGBT communities, so it tolerates distorted antisocial behaviours that are one response to segregation from the rest of one's society. What else could one call the cowboy bareback DVD producers that prey on young gay men barely past the age of consent that appear to be the backbone of barebacking?Craig here argues as follows: dangerous sexual practises are a response to segregation from society and segregation from society is the result of moral condemnation from Christians in that society. Ergo these Christians are responsible for the dangerous practises. Now something like this argument is common, like many common liberal arguments I reject it. Here is why:
This argument suggests that people (in this case certain Christians) are responsible not just for the foreseeable causal consquences of their actions. But also for other peoples free responses to these actions (or at least such responses which one can be expected to predict) Young suggests that because it’s foreseeable some people choose to respond to Christian condemnation of homosexual conduct by forming a segregated culture, and its foreseeable that this culture will respond to segregation by condoning and engaging in “anti social behaviour”. It follows Christians are responsible for the behaviour.
I think this understanding of scope of moral culpability is false. Consider the following example from Augustine. Suppose a man approaches a woman and tells her that he will kill himself if she refuses to have sex with him. Does that mean that she is a murderer if she refuses?[1] Her refusal would not constitute homicide even though his death is a foreseeable result of her choice. Although she foresaw his or her death, she did not cause it. It was caused by the free decision of the tempter to commit suicide.
In an excellent article, Alan Donagan notes that historically Christian and Jewish casuistry agrees with Augustine on this point. Christian ethicists typically…
limit an action’s effects, and a fortiori what its agent intends to bring about in doing it, to those that follow from it in course of nature and the ordinary operation of social institutions, and not from the free reactions of others to it.If we apply this point to Craig’s analysis his argument falls down. Christians who condemn homosexual conduct do not cause people to engage in bare backing. In fact by condemning homosexual conduct they are explicitly telling them not to engage in it. If a person does it anyway, then they doing so in defiance of their will and hence without their consent consequently any negative consequences that follow are the responsibility of the “bare backer” not the person opposed to bare backing.
(Thus actions in the ordinary course of business, for example, those of postal officers in delivering a letter that has been mailed, are not counted as free reactions.) The principle on which they do is that a free reaction to an action, is a ‘new action’ (‘novus actus’), the effects of which are their effects, and not those of the action to which they are reactions.[2] [Emphasis added]
I think the same line of argument addresses Craig’s second argument,
And how could the blanket censorship of targeted adolescent gay HIV/AIDS prevention education not have resulted in a situation where there are young men who see nothing wrong in having unsafe sex- possibly because they've been isolated from metropolitan gay communities where they would have gotten that message?Putting to one side Young’s mistaken definition of censorship, here the same problem arises. The Christian expresses a volition that people not engage in homosexual behavior they believe that such behavior is wrong. Because they believe this they also refuse to help people engage in such conduct, that would make them complict in wrongdoing. A group of adolescents refuse to listen and do it anyway as a result they die. Craig suggests that this means that Christians are responsible for these deaths. This follows only if people are responsible for and culpable for the foreseeable actions of other people even when these other people are acting contrary to their expressed desire and as I argued above this is false.
There is something even worse about this line of argument however: if it were true it would mean that any person can require me to assist them in any behavior they wish merely by threatening to do something worse if I do not. Such a principle essentially sanctions black mail and creates an obligation to collaborate in any wrong no matter how grave in response to a threat to a third party. Even worse, if the blackmailers carry out the threat they make us responsible what happens and not them. I can help but think this is a terrible distortion of ethical analysis
I think it’s clear then that Craig’s analysis is mistaken. I will add a final note: Barebacking is an activity that occurs between consenting adults. Both parties agree to engage in causal unprotected anal sex. Now people like Craig have been arguing for some time that homosexual sex is permissible, precisely because it’s engaged in by consenting adults. Denials of this principle have been denounced by Craig’s news group Gaynz as bigoted, oppressive etc. Hence it’s hard to see how they can consistently oppose barebacking. Of course they may believe that barebackers need to be informed of the dangers of the practice. Such things as the fact that their partner is likely to have had hundreds of previous ones, that there are dangers associated with anal sex etc. The problem is that Craig and Gaynz have decried claims like this as false, as scaremongering etc. So I guess the question we need to put to Craig is this. If people who engage in same sex behavior are typically not promiscuous but enjoy relationships as stable as their heterosexual counterparts. If homosexual sex is not dangerous and there is nothing wrong with any sexual activity between consenting adults. What’s wrong with bare backing?
Craig should stop being bigoted and be celebrating the sexual diversity that exists within his own community. The fact he is not celebrating shows that he cannot consistently live with the ideology he expounds.
[1] Augustine, On Lying, 9.
[2] Alan Donagan, “Moral Absolutism and the Double-Effect Exception: Reflections on Who Is Entitled to Double-Effect?” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (1991): 498.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
