The Intelligence of Race

H'm:

It's a biological fact that there are innate differences in IQ among different races. If you can't deal with that, enjoy being a truther.
— Charles C. Johnson (@ChuckCJohnson) January 30, 2015

Set aside the fact that Charles Johnson is a soulless ginger (heh), let's talk about race and intelligence and this assertion he makes about a fact of biology. But more, let's talk about the consequences of his assertion about that fact of biology.

To start, I will declare outright some biases: (a) I fucking love science (ahem) (b) I am bi-racial; specifically, I'm half white boy, half black girl. That sounds weird, but there you have it. I have some skin (heh) in the game, so to speak. And (c) I am a Christian.

I was born in Cameroon, lived the first half of my life in Nigeria in the west of Africa and then moved around until I settled in Florida, which is as close to a melting pot as you will have anywhere else in the US, both in literal and metaphorical terms. What this means is that, as an average observer of humanity--certainly enough to know I don't like most humans--I can tell you that there are truths to be found in generalities about groups. Where things start to fray is in applying those averages, those generalities to individual members of those groups. It takes a steady mind to avoid bigotry, and we are all of us guilty of it regardless of skin color.

For example, the myriad problems in Nigeria have at their root the deep divides between Nigerian ethnic and attendant religious groups: the eastern Igbos, reputed to be more intelligent than the northern Hausas, don't like the western Yorubas, etc. And they each say things about each other in generalities: "Don't trust an Igbo trader, son. He's out to steal as much as he can. Learn to bargain!" And so on.

We are generalization engines. We categorize. We sort and classify. It's what has made us the dominant species on the planet. But it is also the bane of our existence. The source of much strife, of war, of violence, of evil. With this in mind, let's talk about genetics, of which I know just enough from High School & College biology (I was a Zoology major at a University in Nigeria, intending on going on to Medical School). It is a fact that certain attributes pass genetically from generation to generation. It is, truly, settled science if there ever was such a thing. Among black Americans, a doctor will say, high blood pressure is more common. Sickle Cell Anemia is prevalent among black Africans, etc.

Chances are, you inherited your father's thighs or your mother's breasts--which would really suck for you if you're a man. Chances are, you'll likely die from the same disease that killed one of your grandfathers, if medical science doesn't find a cure. Chances are, people will say you have your mother's green eyes, Chances are, you and your sisters share your grandmother's Roman nose. And the list goes on.

There's no valid reason why genetic inheritance of attributes should stop, by human fiat, at the neck and go no higher. Those calf muscles you got from your father, but no one knows why you both suck at mathematics. No idea. Nonsense. Intelligence and the attendant capability is heritable. I've seen it, you've seen it. I believe, based on the evidence, that this is a fact of life.

Well now, what about groups? Ah now there's where the road is not so easy to walk. The Nazis (you knew it was coming) used the "biological fact" of racial differences to send millions to the gas chambers. Does this, one wonders, therefore invalidate the study of racial differences? Of course not, because to do so is to commit a logical fallacy. Are there racial differences between peoples and are those differences genetic? I say yes. Race, like sex, is most certainly not a social "construct" and it is foolish to think otherwise.

And if by extension, there are biological--including morphology--differences between the races, transferrable through the genes, and if, intelligence is likewise transferrable through the genes, it ought to follow that there are differences in intelligence between the races. As a half-black, half-white man, this makes sense to me; it does not make me uncomfortable in the least.

And this is why: I do not apply what I know to be true about groups to the individual members of that group. For two reasons: first because it's committing a logical fallacy to do otherwise and also because earlier I declared the bias that I am a Christian. What that means is that in the way I live my life and in my interactions with people, there are certain rules and regulations that govern and provide guidance to those interactions. I believe I am made in God's image (Imago Dei) and I also believe every human being on the planet is also made in God's image. This does not nullify the fact of our differences, of which there are many: racial, ideological, political, and so on. What is does do is require that I act accordingly for we are, all of us, God's children, brothers and sisters.

The problem is, we're humans. Fallible and fallen creatures that really suck generally. With evil in the heart, we seize on our differences to rationalize our evil actions against others. It is "harder" to shoot your son in the head than a stranger's. It is "easier" to kick a dog (Canis familiaris) than it is to kick a child (Homo sapiens). People and things that are different from us are easier to act against with malice. It is the stuff of which human history is made and all you have to do to convince yourself of this reality is to read a few history books.

So then, for argument's sake accept the fact of the matter that there are differences between the races. The question now is, so what? From which follows, no what? What are we to do with this information? As with most questions posed to humanity, it comes fraught with advantage and danger.

My doctor asks me for a family history so he can help me avoid "family-related" problems so I can live longer and healthier than my mother who died young. The racist down the street from me assumes because of my mother's skin color that I am unintelligent, if not outright stupid, and because of this, am two steps away from being violent. Well, in a way, he's right: I am steps away from being violent, but that requires he takes the first few steps first. :)

For good and for bad, there are differences between the races. For good, we can tailor health practices to ensure we all live longer. For bad, we can have Auschwitz. Personally, for you, as an individual, what should this bit of information do for you? Information, data, sitting there means nothing. You may as well have never known it--and I believe this is the path many take, to turn a blind eye. Does this mean that you will act in a certain way when you meet a black person? An Arab? A Jew? A Chinese man? Will it change the way you would have acted?

If it is shown that the intelligence of black Africans is lower than that of white Europeans, does this mean you now understand why black African countries are such hell holes? Does this remove the blinders, everything now clear? Does the relatively high intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews now mean we should only have those Jews be scientists? Drawing only from that class of persons the doctors, engineers? Are you, as a white man, better than me, as a half-white man who is in turn better than a fully-black man? What does "better" mean in this situation?

As a government, do we start passing legislation barring certain groups from occupying certain posts in society based on genetics? Are we to segregate blacks in certain sections of our cities (which they already do on their own, by choice, it seems)? Japanese? Do we pass laws requiring that blacks cannot intermarry with Asians because the ensuing offspring will be "less capable" for society?

What do we do with this information, considering it's truth? Now, what? Considering how bad we are at statistics, replete through and through with cognitive bias after cognitive bias, now what.

Ew, Christians

Douthat is right;

Palmer’s secular and scientistic worldview, of course, is not the worldview of the classical world, which was far more inegalitarian and cruel than the still-Christian-influenced secular humanism of our own era.

Read the rest, then with that in mind, read Palmer's loathsome article for Slate.

The Illegality of Christianity

I read without real surprise about the Oregon bakery that's gone out of business because the Christian owners refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

In addition, they're being investigated by the State of Oregon for discriminatory practices.

Here's why I'm not surprised: in many states, it is already illegal to practice Christianity and I'll formulate an argument for why.

Christianity is a discriminatory religion.

It makes certain claims about humanity, and these claims are intensely discriminatory. It calls people names. It categorizes people.

Of course, it also freely ‘offers’ a way out of that categorization, but that's neither here nor there in the context of this post.

In the modern state, it has become illegal to discriminate.

Therefore to practice Christianity is illegal.

There are quite a number of people who can't wait to see this come to actual, practical fruition, when practicing Christians will be imprisoned for holding fast to a faith that discriminates.

These will be interesting times.

Be Worthy, Redux

A friend on twitter responded to clarify what he thought the guy who said this meant:

“When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her.The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.” ― Venerable Abp. Fulton J. Sheen, Life is Worth Living

Here’s his take, from two consequent tweets:

Don’t think that’s what he’s saying. He’s explaining Paul’s letter: Men, love your woman as Christ love the Church.

Then:

He also puts a load of the responsibility on women to be honorable, moral, noble, virtuous. Then challenges men to match.

Now, I like my friend. He’s one of the more intelligent guys I know on that chatterbox of a site, but he’s absolutely misguided about this point—something I’ve told him directly. I’ll take the second tweet first and perhaps deal with the husband love of wife as Christ loved the Church tweet later (although that firstly stated, pesky submission part is a bitch to wrangle, no pun).

God—through Paul and the Venerable Abp—in apparently telling women to be “moral, noble, virtuous” then challenging “men to match” them is like asking two equally dirty children for one to mimic the other as an example “worthy” of it. There is no difference between men and women in the sin department. That’s the biggest problem I have with these kinds of statements. Both sexes are covered in the blackest of sins in God’s eyes so it’s rather silly to “challenge” one of those two equally filthy creatures to “match” the other. After the matching takes places, they’re both still just as dirty as the other.

Regardless, even if that particular interpretation is wrong—and it’s not—by asserting there’s a difference between men and women, with women taking the “load of responsibility” first then challenging “men to match,” one is, by definition, placing women—an equally sinful, disgusting creature in God’s eyes, remember—on a pedestal; maybe not as a worshipful object per se, but certainly as an example of some sort, to which men should strive to attain.

This is nonsensical yet unfortunately, it’s not the first time I’ve read stuff like this—that somehow women are more “pure” somehow, more “worthy,” serving as some kind of example to which men should “aspire” to be worthy of.

I first found out about Glen T. Stanton, Director of Family Formation Studies for Focus On The Family on Dalrock’s excellent blog. Stanton wrote a book titled, Secure Daughters, Confident Sons: How Parents Guide Their Children into Authentic Masculinity and Femininity.
In chapter 6 Metamorphosis to Womanhood:  Making Healthy Women out of Healthy Girls he explains that women are essentially innately good:

We should appreciate what a profound life transition takes place when a girl becomes a woman…
A good woman is the more intricate of the species, for while both men and women are complex and profound, women universally have more interesting layers to their femininity than men have to their masculinity….
…
As you read through the qualities described below, please keep in mind that much of this is innate, but because our culture seems to fight so hard to suppress certain natural tendencies, it’s our privilege and responsibility as parents to watch out for opportunities to nurture and guide in these areas.

So we have here a point on which both a Catholic church leader AND a Protty (as I’ve come to call us Protestants) advocate the purity and higher “worth” of females. Males, on the other hand are moral reprobates requiring civilization and a veritable injection of “aspiration” and of course, a woman figure to aspire to! To quote Stanton again:

Each conveyor belt leads not necessarily to manhood but to male aging, because that’s what the mere passage of time produces.  But good men don’t just happen …

Interestingly, if the tables were turned and somehow women were supposed to strive to be worthy of a man. Well, hellfire and brimstone, what a piece of patriarchal propaganda! How dare he?
It is hogwash. If anything, the Bible is clear on just which of God’s creatures is to be responsible for the other, and hint, hint, it’s not the female of the species.

Update: As if to further buttress this little rant of mine, here's former Governor Huckabee, preacher, (around 3:58') talking about "valuing" women, but that not being enough for the good Christian man, he also wants to "elevate" her. As they say on Twitter: SMH

Become Worthy

I just read this:

“When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.” ― Venerable Abp. Fulton J. Sheen, Life is Worth Living

 Which made me think of this:

Apparently it still needs to be said and I'll say it yet again:

WE ARE ALL—Men AND Women—FALLEN CREATURES AND NO ONE BUT GOD BELONGS ON A PEDESTAL.

No one—male or female—has to become “worthy” of anyone else. We're all pretty shitty sinners with foibles, depredations, wanton characters, & iniquitous. All of us are black-hearted, loathsome creatures:

²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

That's from St. Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 3, verse 23. That "all" is you, me, your dad, your mom, your sisters, EVERYONE. ALL of us. She may look better than you, gentlemen and certainly prettier, but her shit smells just as badly as yours and, depending on the day and Mexican diner, worse.

To put a woman, no matter how much you love her or how virginal or "pure" she is, on a pedestal is to substitute her for God, a burden that she—and certainly no one—can shoulder. The only thing we should ALL strive to be worthy of is of Christ's freely-given gift of salvation.

What tears me a new one is that apparently, the Sheen quoted is a church leader of some sort who should know better.

Evolutionary Truth

An interesting book recently published, contains:

Notice something else. The atheist naturally thinks that our belief in God is false. That’s just what atheists do. Nevertheless, most human beings have believed in a god of some sort, or at least in a supernatural realm. But suppose, for argument’s sake, that this widespread belief really is false, and that it merely provides survival benefits for humans, a coping mechanism of sorts. If so, then we would have additional evidence—on the atheist’s own terms—that evolution is more interested in useful beliefs than in true ones. Or, alternatively, if evolution really is concerned with true beliefs, then maybe the widespread belief in God would be a kind of “evolutionary” evidence for his existence.

You’ve got to wonder.

Indeed.

Panorama

I don't see ‘Heathen.’

[Hat tip: Redeemed Mind]

The Banging Gong

It never fails that on the days I most need my brain cells, they take a rousing drinking vacation, damned things.

Here’s a quote from a post on a blog which shall remain nameless for now, dealing with the Big Bang and whether the ‘material universe’ either (1) may not have started at the Big Bang or (2) may not actually have a cause and therefore, needs no explanation.

That’s assuming, of course, that the Big Bang is indeed the beginning of the material universe, which might not be the case. Even if the Big Bang should turn out to have a material cause, though, the general principle will still hold true: time is a property of material reality, and the law of cause and effect is bound to time (since the cause must occur before the effect in order to be an actual cause), and therefore there will never be a time when material reality, in some form, does not exist. Ultimately, material reality must be an uncaused cause, which has no beginning, no cause, and no “explanation.”

If wading through my mental miasma will allow me, it seems there’s something intrinsically wrong with this quote, perhaps an equivocation—or maybe an obfuscation—of the meaning of time and of causality. It seems it’s asserting that the presence of time is a necessary and sufficient factor for causality so that if it doesn’t exist (as it doesn’t before the Big Bang) it is impossible to have causality.

What’s wrong with this, if anything?

For Athol

Note: This is a reply to a post elsewhere. Read on if you like, but it was meant for Athol Kay.

[I decided to put in a longer comment in response.]

FW: You're making a category mistake when you talk about Odin, Zeus, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the same vein “definitionally” as God. By definition, Odin, Zeus, and the FSM are man-made. God, by definition, isn’t.

Athol: It's a common religious viewpoint that everyone else's god is man-made except their own definition of god which is the true one.

[I’m not sure you understand what I mean by a category mistake. Say what you will about the various religions’ definition of God, god, G-d, Odin, Zeus, the FSM. In point of fact, you can show, on first principles, and without subjectivity, that Odin, Zeus, and the FSM are all man-made creations. We have good reasons to know that these do not exist. By definition (whether you agree with this definition or not, doesn't matter at the present. To show that the definition is wrong is an argument that can be made in the future, but not in the context of what I’m pointing out, ie. A category mistake. Also, important to note is the fact that I’m not talking about a Christian God, or any other particular religion’s God.
Regardless, it is a well-established principle of argumentation that one starts discussions of our sort with definitions then proceeds from there) God—according to the OED—is “The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.”
When I speak of God, I am referring to this definition. Because of this, you are making a category mistake by lumping such, definitionally, with Odin, Zeus, the FSM. It’s like saying “most bananas are atheists.”]

FW: In essence then, you’re positing a claim, hidden though it may be: the universe was here because humanity needed a “place in the sun,” so to speak, in order to experience it . What proof do you have for this claim?

Athol: You're positing that claim for me. We don't need to be here, we just are.

[Au contraire, I’m *interpreting* your claim. You’ve now changed it from a asserting a claim to a non-assertion which, begging your pardon, is a cop out. You see, you’re not simply stopping at asserting without evidence that there is no need for humanity to be here (and all the attendant corollaries), but you’re taking a massive leap in logic to concluding that therefore, there is no God. *It could very well be there we do not need to be here and that we just are. BUT this is NOT a sufficient AND necessary condition for God’s non-existence.* It could be that God exists AND we do not need to be here and that we just are. To say that there is no God, Athol, is a claim to knowledge. And again, every claim to knowledge requires supporting evidence. So, what are your reasons for this claim to knowledge?]

FW: The science is very clear on the issue: the Universe “started”. How is not quite clear or universally agreed upon, but that it did start existing at some point isn’t a bone of contention. Why did it start? Wel … If, according to the laws of Physics and Logic, anything that begins to exist has a cause. The Universe has a beginning. Care to posit what caused the Universe?

Athol: My point is that it doesn't matter what caused the universe. You're determined for there to be an answer to "why". There isn't one.

[I suppose you have proof that there isn’t an answer as you so confidently claim. Again, every claim to knowledge requires evidence. I’ll await yours.]

Athol: Also you seem to be trying to posit intention to the laws of physics. Things may have causes, but no intent to cause an effect. Water does not intend to become a river. Excess rain may cause the river to flood, but it does not intend it to flood.

[In order to make such a statement as “water does not intend to become a river,” you’re ascribing properties to water that it simply cannot have. Intent is a property of a moral, personal agent. Water is not a moral nor is it a personal agent and so you’re again making another category mistake.]

FW: You ask why not, supposing (I assume) that you already know the answer to your question—I assume because you wouldn’t have brought it up otherwise, no? Would you care to explain your answer? And of course, also be prepare to back it up with evidence?

Athol: I'm pointing out there is no answer to that question. You just have to accept reality as being what it is and figure out what you want to do in life.

[This sounds suspiciously like relativistic nihilism. Do you know for certain there is no answer to that question? The only way to provide such an answer is to have a full and complete knowledge of the Universe. For all you know, you and everything you “know” is an illusion, and you’re but a brain in a vat of salt water whose “knowledge” is being provided through electrodes placed to titillate your brain. Unless you know this is not true, you simply cannot say with any definitive certainty that life has no answers. I presume you’ve not read Kant.


Unless, of course, you have proof positive there’s no answer. In which case, I again await your evidence.


An addendum: what are the practical implications of your worldview? How indeed, to quote you, does one “accept reality” and therefrom, figures out what to do in life? Who’s to say what you’ve figured out is your reality is real and true and you’re not hallucinating? If you were in front of Hitler and he asked you why he shouldn’t destroy all those millions of Jews because, in his reality, they were Untermensch and deserved to be slaughtered in the gas chambers? On what basis would you tell him his reality was *WRONG* or *NOT REAL* when it is very real TO HIM?]

FW: As for me, the ontological answer to "why" is clear from the evidence and again, I can explain the evidence further, if you care to take this discussion any further.

Athol: You're like a baby looking at a mirror. I'm telling you all you see is light reflecting off the mirror. You keep telling me you see another baby in there.

[Cute.]

Jesus The Meek

I left a comment on this post and thought it’d make a good post, so here:

Interesting article, well-written.

Not just the Church, but America, has lost its idea of what being a man means. Manliness is natural, and every man ultimately understands that intuitively. It's built-in, God-created.

It does not mean hyper-aggressive, but it does mean competitive. It does not mean violent, but it does mean having a "stand-up, take charge" attitude. In other words, it is a soldierly attitude: one that shows solid, honorable dependency, a knightly attitude.

For the last 60 years, this attitude has become anathema; America is systematically beating this characteristic out of its men and boys and there are few men standing athwart history, yelling “stop!” without the fusillade of invective (misogynist!!) directed their way. Many men'd rather disengage.

Which allows society free reign to reconfigure the male brain into a gentler, gelded vision of natural itself. From the moment a boy steps into daycare and until college—if he gets to attend—his role models are female. Those from whom he seeks approval are 90% female. And many times, these female teachers will not tolerate “normal,” i.e. generally rowdy male behavior in class. No, what they want are easy-going boy-girls. Girls, on the other hand, are uniquely and naturally suited for such environments. I believe this is the main source of the explosion in mood modifying drug prescriptions for boys of school age.

Unfortunately, this beat-down does not kill but merely diverts natural male inclinations so that we now see Christian (young) men taking the tough guy, MMA route. It's cosmetic, but betrays the guys' natural drives. Isn't that ironic?

The modern Church shares the guilt in allowing this state of affairs to continue and is being rewarded by the distinct lack of male attendance—at least not until those males are in their 70s and basically “inert.” Jesus The Meek hasn't left the building, he's still there whimpering in the corner.

I don’t know if I got my point across well, but who cares? No one’ll listen anyway.

H. G. Wells On Humanity

Sink me, I’ve taken to Twitter and abandoned ye olde blog. Sorry about that, but I know no one reads this darn thing anyway.

Tough Questions Answered’s Bill Pratt wrote about H. G. Wells’ conversion from naïve humanist to shell-shocked realist. In his book, A Short History of the World from 1937, Wells wrote:

Can we doubt that presently our race will more than realize our boldest imaginations, that it will achieve unity and peace, and that our children will live in a world made more splendid and lovely than any palace or garden that we know, going on from strength to strength in an ever-widening circle of achievement? What man has done, the little triumphs of his present state…form but the prelude to the things that man has yet to do.

To be followed by this after World War II, from A World at the End of Its Tether:

The cold-blooded massacres of the defenseless, the return of deliberate and organized torture, mental torment, and fear to a world from which such things had seemed well nigh banished—has come near to breaking my spirit altogether…“Homo Sapiens,” as he has been pleased to call himself, is played out.

Pratt’s point is one that should—but doesn’t and never will—resonate with too many: Mankind cannot pull itself out of the quicksand, we need a supernatural hand up. Our very natures are immensely flawed and as such, you cannot save yourself.

Live with it or die with it.

Three Reasons

Three, count ‘em, three reasons why the transcendent cause of the universe is plausibly to be taken to be personal:

First, as Richard Swinburne points out [in The Existence of God], there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. For example, if I come into the kitchen and find the kettle boiling, and I ask Jan, “Why is the kettle boiling?” she might answer, “The heat of the flame is being conducted via the copper bottom of the kettle to the water, increasing the kinetic energy of the water molecules, such that they vibrate so violently that they break the surface tension of the water and are thrown off in the form of steam.” Or she might say, “I put it on to make a cup of tea. Would you like some?” The first provides a scientific explanation, the second a personal explanation. Each is a perfectly legitimate form of explanation; indeed, in certain contexts it would be wholly inappropriate to give one rather than the other. Now a first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and his volitions, a personal explanation.

Second, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality. The only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, like numbers. But abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Indeed, their acausal nature is definitive for abstract
objects; that is why we call them abstract. Numbers, for example, cannot cause anything. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind.

Third, this same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. We’ve concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause. By the nature of the case, that cause cannot have any beginning of its existence or any prior cause. Nor can there have been any changes in this cause, either in its nature or operations, prior
to the beginning of the universe. It just exists changelessly without beginning, and a finite time ago it brought the universe into existence. Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and
sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn’t the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

One might say that the cause came to exist or changed in some way just prior to the first event. But then the cause’s beginning or changing would be the first event, and we must ask all over again for its cause. And this cannot go on forever, for we know that a beginningless series of events cannot exist. There must be an
absolutely first event, before which there was no change, no previous event. We know that this first event must have been caused. The question is: How can a first event come to exist if the cause of that event exists changelessly and eternally? Why isn’t the effect co-eternal with its cause?

To illustrate: Let’s say the cause of water’s freezing is subzero temperatures. If the temperature were eternally below zero degrees Centigrade, then any water around would be eternally frozen. If the cause exists eternally, the effect must also exist eternally. But this seems to imply that if the cause of the universe existed eternally, the universe would also have existed eternally. And this we know to be false.

One way to see the difficulty is by reflecting on the different types of causal relations. In event/event causation, one event causes another. For example, the brick’s striking the window pane causes the pane to shatter. This kind of causal relation clearly involves a beginning of the effect in time, since it is a relation between events which occur at specific times. In state/state causation one state of affairs causes another state of affairs to exist. For example, the water’s having a certain surface tension is the cause of the wood’s floating on the water. In this sort of causal relation, the effect need not have a beginning: the wood could theoretically be floating eternally on the water. If the wood begins to float on the water, then this will be a case of event/event causation: the wood’s beginning to float is the result of its being thrown into the water. Now the difficulty that arises in the case of the cause of the beginning of the universe is that we seem to have a peculiar case of state/event causation: the cause is a timeless state but the effect is an event that occurred at a specific moment in the finite past. Such state/event causation doesn’t seem to make sense, since a state sufficient for the existence of its effect should have a state as its effect.

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

On the basis of a conceptual analysis of the conclusion implied by the kalām cosmological argument, we may therefore infer that a personal Creator of the universe exists, who is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and unimaginably powerful. This, as Thomas Aquinas was wont to remark, is what everybody means by “God.”

So there.

Penn And Fredder

I had quite the Twitter interaction with Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller and a bunch of other guys.

One of the funnier ones with with a guy, TalonNYC who asserted that all religions are true. After pointing out that many religions have beliefs that directly contradict each other (Judaism and Islam, for example, do not believe that Jesus Christ is God while Christians do) hence to say that all religions are true is an illogical statement. They can’t all be true—although they can all be false.

This is philosophy of religion 101, as it were, but it astounds me how many people don’t give any thought whatever to beliefs they hold! The very thing they accuse Christians of doing. Talon’s flimsy refuge was to point out that they’re all true to different people. Which of course continues the fallacy—either something is true or it isn’t. True for you but not for me is relativist nonsense and doesn’t hold in the real world.

Another guy, a likeable fellow name Mike Rigsby, made the claim that ‘faith isn’t rational.’ That one took me aback a few seconds. I asked him if he knew there was a difference between blind faith and rational faith. His reply was unclear. Whatever, the meat of the Twitter really comes between Penn and Me.

Penn started the whole thing with the following:

I've been playing bebop jazz for 10 years. Today, I'm dusting off the electric bass and I'm going to play some rock and roll. NoGod Band

to which I responded:

for someone who knows there's no God, you're awfully concerned by Him. The noGod band? Case of stalking The Big Guy?

He said:

I'm really concerned. The damage from superstition hurts us all.

With a slight tongue-in-cheek, I said:

aw come on Penn, including Santa?? ;)

Obviously in jest.

That started the whole heap. Here are some various statements by the big man himself, all made without providing proof:

Any belief in god is a negation of love for other people. (Asked him why he believed this, no answer.)

Morality is strictly human and not god. It's based on love and survival. Religion has no morals (After I said: “find humor in Penn talking moral rights bcos I wonder what his source of this right is, if not God.”)

I replied:

love subjective; practical for you not same for me. For you, morality choice. No objective standard,yes?

Or if base morality strictly on survival, how different are we from animals who eat their own young?

He then said:

Not just survival, also love and practicality. As far as killing one's young, that's a bible thing.

Oooh, snarky, snarky, snarky! Of course, all this proves it’s quite difficult to converse in less than 140 characters.

He continues:

Yes, "faith" is the true hate and evil.

After I said:

On love. So whatever I "love" is my morals? How about if I love killing Jews? That's OK by your defn?

He goes:

Yes, the religious have been big on killing jews.

Completely dodging the question with another cute little ad hominem which I pointed out with “nice sleight of keyboard, Penn! ”

Here’s where it got exciting, when he made the following statement with me and him going back and forth:

@fwoodbridge - Atheism doesn't need to be provable. There's nothing to prove. It's an absence of belief.

@pennjillette you need to look at a dictionary, Penn.

@fwoodbridge - Check the Oxford English dictionary. Absence of belief or disbelief - like everyone is most gods.

@pennjillette simple question: does God exist?

@fwoodbridge How would anyone know that? I know that I'm not taking your word for it, and that makes me an Atheist.

@pennjillette So you're not an Atheist, you're an Agnostic

@fwoodbridge  - Nope, agnostic is an epistemological term, once your agnostic you still have to be Atheist or Theist.

@pennjillette One doesn't necessarily go from "I don't know" to "I know: No God" Penn

I decided to use his much-loved OED (to which I happen to have access!) to define the terms:

@pennjillette Agnostic-One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown

@pennjillette OED: Atheist-One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

He continues with this howler:

@fwoodbridge - If you don't know, you can't believe and if you can't believe, you're atheist.

@pennjillette Penn, you can't go from NOT KNOWING to KNOWING enough not to believe. Illogical.

@fwoodbridge It's just epistemological. How things are known. In the meantime, there's no god, and I believe you know that.

@pennjillette You believe I know this. On what grounds do you believe I KNOW there's no God?

@fwoodbridge - Saying I KNOW there's no god, is the same as saying I don't believe in god, unless I AM omniscient. I'm not god.

@pennjillette BTW, happy to see you know one property of God is omniscience. Which makes Him different from Santa or unicorns!

@pennjillette In which case, you've just made a truth claim. Now prove it.

@fwoodbridge - Well, you're thinking enough that I think you'll be atheist is a little while. I hope it works out for you.

@pennjillette Ah, the well-known "wish you well" dodge to providing proof! :-D Thanks, Penn. A real pleasure chatting with you!

@fwoodbridge - Thanks, man. It's really not a dodge. I did explain my point, and I think you understand it well.

Well, if you consider not answering any questions with any definitive answers, getting the basic idea behind agnosticism and atheism wrong, indulging in ad hominem utterances, he was a really great guy with whom to speak!

I’ll still catch his very entertaining show though. I just won’t trust his judgment on matters religious—especially when you consider this is his next book!!

Oh, You Want Reasons?

Reading Verily, Verily, a book which recounts the circumstances around which the translation of the Bible into “vulgar” English that became the King James Version is a true delight for any number of reasons. If you’re a historian, it’s a careful study of the conditions which precipitated the translation, and if you’re a lover of language, there’s a smorgasbord of delights in it.

Here’s an excerpt I just finished this morning, thought enough of it to copy here:

Translation into the vernacular is necessary, they [the translation committee] conclude despite any possible objections. “But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand?” they plead. Even if a person reads and understands Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, that person must understand that the vast majority of Christian people cannot. Beautifully, the translators continue their case; it’s easy to see how there were a few poets on the committees:

Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water; even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed.”

Pretty good, aye what?

By the way, the title of this post is uttered by none other than Samuel (don’t forget the L.) Jackson in Jackie Brown. A good Saturday to ye!

Can You Prove God Exists?

From Peter Kreeft, PhD.:

Before we answer this question, we must distinguish five questions that are often confused.

• First, there is the question of whether something exists or not. A thing can exist whether we know it or not.
• Second, there is the question of whether we know it exists. (To answer this question affirmatively is to presuppose that the first question is answered affirmatively, of course; though a thing can exist without our knowing it, we cannot know it exists unless it exists.)
• Third, there is the question of whether we have a reason for our knowledge. We can know some things without being able to lead others to that knowledge by reasons. Many Christians think God's existence is like that.
• Fourth, there is the question of whether this reason, if it exists, amounts to a proof. Most reasons do not. Most of the reasons we give for what we believe amount to probabilities, not proofs. For instance, the building you sit in may collapse in one minute, but the reliability of the contractor and the construction materials is a good reason for thinking that very improbable.
• Fifth, if there is a proof, is it a scientific proof, a proof by the scientific method, i.e., by experiment, observation, and measurement? Philosophical proofs can be good proofs, but they do not have to be scientific proofs.

I believe we can answer yes to the first four of these questions about the existence of God but not to the fifth. God exists, we can know that, we can give reasons, and those reasons amount to proof, but not scientific proof, except in an unusually broad sense.

There are many arguments for God's existence, but most of them have the same logical structure, which is the basic structure of any deductive argument. First, there is a major premise, or general principle. Then, a minor premise states some particular data in our experience that come under that principle. Finally, the conclusion follows from applying the general principle to the particular case.

In each case the conclusion is that God exists, but the premises of the different arguments are different. The arguments are like roads, from different starting points, all aiming at the same goal of God. In subsequent essays we will explore the arguments from cause and effect, from conscience, from history, and from Pascal's Wager.

Who Made God?

Professor Edgar Andrews on answering that question:

The question "if God made everything who made God?" is an unanswerable question only because it is a nonsense question because it fails to define what it means by God. If you define God as I do as the God of the Bible, the uncreated creator of all things then you can see how foolish it is to ask who created the uncreated one.

H’m, makes sense to me.

What’s So Great About Christianity

My review of Dinesh D’Souza’s book, on Amazon:

Dinesh D'Souza is a battle-hardened Christian apologist who has taken on such notable atheists as Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, Daniel Dennett, and Peter Singer all recorded for posterity on YouTube. A notable characteristic of each debate is that his opponents have all been extremely congratulatory of D'Souza, they've actually walked away licking some wounds!

Of course, before picking up this book, I did not know any of this. D'Souza has long been a favorite author and I was surprised to see he'd written such a book so I picked it up to find a well-written collection of a case for Christianity, based solely on logic and science. He promises this right out of the gate and stuck to this promise throughout the book: no revelatory expositions, no pointing at this or that Bible verse. He writes on page 11, for example, that his "modus operandi is one of skepticism, to view the claims of religion in the same open-minded way that we would view claims of any other sort. The difference," he continues, "between me and my atheist opponents is that I am skeptical not only of the allegedly irrational claim of religion but also of the irrational claims made in the name of science and of skepticism itself."

Like a prosecuting attorney building a case against atheism, D'Souza deftly and succinctly handles all the most important questions raised by the New Atheists: the question of evolution, the question of evil (how can a good God exist in the face of such evil), the question of an objective morality not dependent on opinion, the veracity and historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Chapter 15 in particular (The World Beyond Our Senses: Kant and the Limits of Reason) is a brilliant precise of how we know what we know and whether we can trust it.

All this combines to make a strong case that religious faith in general and Christianity in particular is not altogether unreasonable and that while there are no absolute proofs on its side, the skeptical atheist also bears the burden of proof, only this time of proving that God doesn't exist. A burden, he surmises, they cannot rationally support. In the end, 'What's So Great About Christianity' did end up proving certain things: that D'Souza here, as always, is a steadfast good writer of formidable intelligence, a fact attested to by none other than Christopher Hitchens on several occasions. That the religion of Christianity doesn't require blind, unthinking faith and is thoroughly defensible against atheistic and secular attacks and that we today live in a world positively molded by the tenets of Christianity.

For the budding Christian apologist setting out on the path, this book sits high on the list of recommended titles. Those who understand the basics can then move on to William Lane Craig's [[ASIN:1433501155 Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics]]. Be careful however, for this is an area of philosophy that is not only fascinating beyond belief (no pun intended), but also rigorous.

Highest recommendations.

Nobody Move, Nobody Gets Hurt

There’s a particularly vile excuse modern relativists use to counter anyone brave enough to call them on their behavior and it goes something like this: “No one’s getting hurt so it’s OK!”

Reading Greg Koukl’s book, Tactics, and this blog post has a really good counter to this ridiculous but great-sounding excuse. It consists of asking the excuser if they thought peeping in on women changing clothes was acceptable. I mean, the woman changing her clothes is not getting hurt, right?

How about the dentist in the news a few years back who put his female patient under anesthetic then fondled her. She didn’t feel a thing and he had a good time. Nobody got “hurt.”

Courting Rules

Wintery Knight is fast becoming my favorite blog. In this post which I excerpt below, he discusses rules for courting prospective wives:

Do not believe anything they say to you, because women adapt to men and say what men want to hear. Demand that she read hard books on complicated things like astronomy and economics and education policy. Demand that she write about what she reads. Demand life experiences that show that she has sympathy with things like capitalism and apologetics. Demand a track record of past activism in defense of marriage, the unborn, parental rights, Christianity and small government. Make moral judgments of her constantly and tell her the judgments so you can see how she responds to being judged. Hold her accountable for every mistake she makes - demand that she have a plan to change so that the mistake isn't made again. Push all kinds of moral obligations onto her. Put her in charge of taking care of your pet, your garden, your car, and anything else that can be used to test her to see if she can handle responsibilities. Talk constantly about your desires and feelings. Complain about feminism and female nature all the time. Burden her up with the stories of your hard work day and how hard it is to be a man. Express your concerns about women who withhold sex, put on weight, and spend too much, after they get married. Demand that she engage all of her non-Christian friends and relatives so that they make progress towards better worldviews. Monitor her performance in debates to see how well she can reason and research evidence for her views. Harp on something you like to take care of, like your car, your pet, or your garden - and watch to see whether she shows an interest in it or considers it a rival to be taken away so that she is the only thing to get your attention.

The only way to test a woman for marriage and parenting is to... test a woman for marriage and parenting. And physical attraction is not a good way to test a woman for the roles of wife and mother.

He’s also got rules in other posts for women in testing the viability of men as prospective husbands and fathers which I’d probably have failed! Thank God I found a good woman who isn’t the feminist New Ager type and is a great mother and wife.

That said, I find Wintery’s rules fascinating. Demanding the woman read “hard books on complicated things” is something I have never heard of or seen anywhere else. Of course for a Christian man looking for a wife, marrying someone whose worldview is antithetical to Christ is allowing a Dragon into the home so it makes sense to demand sympathy with that worldview. The other “rules” sound simplistic and sort of brutal, but you know, I find a certain harsh beauty in them once you realize that the choice of a partner should be for life and the next generation of people depends on these choices.

Here’s another relationship advice I found nourishing as well.

First post of 2011. Happy New Year!

Same Old Song & Dance (With A Twist)

Ricky Gervais is not funny.

That is not to say he’s always been that way. Way back, in the original (and best) The Office era, his middle name was ‘hilarious’ then something happened. I speculate it could be when he got famous or when he sold The Office to American TV, but he became most assuredly not funny.

This diagnosis was confirmed beyond a shadow after I’d seen HBO’s Ricky Gervais: Out of England. That stumbling, diffused babbling of a show underscored it: the man’s no longer funny and I can forgive almost anything in my celebrities … but that.

And now, as if to seal himself into the unfunny tomb for eternity, Gervais puts pen to paper and writes A Holiday Message from Ricky Gervais: Why I’m An Atheist for the Wall Street Journal. Now as atheistic missives to the world go (one wonders why they’re constantly proselytizing—if nothing objectively and truly matters, why bother?) it’s a very different, i.e. smellier beast from Bertrand Russell’s. In fact, it’s terrible.

First, it’s not funny.

Second, it’s replete with threadbare atheistic tropes (“science can’t prove God’s existence therefore He doesn’t exist”, “I believe in one less god than you do,” “you don’t need God to be moral,” etc.) and that’s really tiresome. That someone who really cares intellectually—in other words, a real skeptic—won’t seek to do the basic work necessary to answer these Grand Questions smacks of intellectual laziness and worse, hubris. At the very least, a true skeptic will arrive at agnosticism rather than atheism (see Kant, Immanuel; also Pascal, Blaise).

However, the shocker of the article was a recounting by Gervais of his eight-year-old self rejecting theism and the existence of God within an hour of being asked “Why do you believe in God?” by his self-described maladjusted brother. Atheism: so easy an eight-year-old could do it in an hour.

How utterly ridiculous.

And how not funny.