February 3, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall I did NOT see this coming. Be sure to watch the preview. It defies description or even commentary. I am actually speechless.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Miscellaneous 
14 Comments »
February 2, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton Want a new Plasma TV for your Super Bowl party? Just go to church and get one free! Kim Riddlebarger details this atrocious practice.
The Pearcey Report reported yesterday the defrocking of R.C. Sproul, Jr. Today they reported Sproul's response.
A few months ago, Living Hope Ministries released their latest documentary: The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon (it can be viewed online in its entirety). FAIR (a Mormon apologetic ministry) has now posted a point-by-point response.
Every kid wants their own Jesus doll right? Well, now you can get yours for only $24.99. Is anyone else disturbed by this?
The January 2006 edition of Countercult Apologetics Journal has finally been posted. In the “Book Reviews” you'll find my review of David Rowe's I Love Mormons.
Update your link lists with the new Mere Orthodoxy blog! Welcome back Matt 
FIDE-O has a wealth of great posts. Check out the straight facts about the John Calvin/ Michael Servetus controversy. Today they posted a helpful breakdown of the different kinds of Calvinists.
PS- I've very disappointed no one answered by question from the last
link list. So again, where did Doc go at the end of Back to the Future
III?
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 4 Comments »
February 1, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall I woke up Saturday morning to my radio alarm clock blaring the claim that opposition to embryonic stem cell research is merely “religious fundamentalism.” After I groaned and pulled the covers up over my head (who wants to start off the day like that?), it struck me that there's actually a lot of truth to that statement–more truth, in fact, than even the radio talk show host would be willing to admit.
What “fundamentalist” idea was the host objecting to? Not the idea that an embryo is human–a simple DNA test can prove that in a moment. No, he was objecting to the religious idea that all human beings, regardless of their physical characteristics, abilities, or stage of life, have value and rights. He's right that this view can only be sustained in a religious context.
Consider the basis for our freedoms and rights in this country as stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
If there is a God who created us in His image, then there is an intrinsic value that we all hold equally merely by being human. This is the unshakable bedrock of all human rights–the kind of rights no one can question or take away.
But what if there is no God? In what sense would all humans be equal? For the materialist (one who believes that the physical world is all there is), there's no such thing as intrinsic value for anything, let alone humans. Value and meaning are what we create for ourselves. The value of any thing (or person) is granted by society and must be determined on some other basis rather than a universal dignity given by God. The society that rejects the idea of God-given value creates for itself the standard of qualifications a person must meet before he or she is worthy of rights. Some who have not believed in the intrinsic value of all human beings have been generous in their granting of rights; some have decided that skin color, or religion, or disabilities determine the value of a human being. For example,
If materialism is true, then the granting of rights is completely arbitrary and dependent upon whomever is able to gain the most power. Hopefully, if our society embraces materialist ideas to the point where the old “religious fundamentalism” disappears, the people in power will be kind enough to imagine we're all worthy of “rights”; but if it's truly up to them, I wouldn't count on it.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Ethics, Main Page, Philosophy, Religion (General) 9 Comments »
January 27, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall First, they voted it “the most influential work of modern art”:
Duchamp pioneered the use of everyday objects as art, an aesthetic that questioned the nature of art itself.
Of course! Because in a world where nature is all there is, art is what you make it. There is no such thing as a standard of goodness, truth, and beauty. There is no real meaning; there is only the meaning we create for ourselves.
Duchamp was a leader of the Dada movement, an avant garde “anti-art” school of the early 20th century that mocked conventional standards….
Duchamp is celebrated in
Frenchman Fined For Attacking Urinal Artwork
A
“This was a wink at Dadaism,” Pinoncelli told the court in his defense. “I wanted to pay homage to the Dada spirit.”
You've got to hand it to the guy–at least he gets it, even if
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Philosophy No Comments »
January 26, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton |
According to J.P. Moreland and Garrett DeWeese, “The gospel is never heard in isolation. It is always heard against the background of a worldview.” (157) Therefore, part of our responsibility in sharing the gospel is to cultivate a worldview that can make sense of it. Moreland and DeWeese have written Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult to help meet the need of Christians who aren’t trained to deal with certain philosophical worldview issues. |
The book begins by explaining the basics of logic- the laws, forms of argumentation, and common fallacies. Periodically, summary definitions of key terms are placed in boxes to the side of the text. The first chapter ends describing the importance of philosophy to theology and how the two fields interact.
Following these introductory explanations, the bulk of the book is divided into the five main areas of contemporary philosophy- metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, anthropology, and science. Moreland and DeWeese seek to provide a balance of covering the current debates in each area, while not getting bogged down in all the nuances of the debates. On occasion, application is made of certain points to their importance for Christians. After the five main areas of contemporary philosophy are dealt with, Moreland and DeWeese provide a final chapter on the intellectual crisis of our day and the importance of philosophical training for Christians.
I was somewhat disappointed with Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult. I was expecting an accessible guide to the basics of philosophy. Unfortunately, I don’t think someone without prior philosophical training would be able to get through the first two chapters. Most of the book is precise and clear through its points and argumentation. However, the brief outline of Reformed epistemology and its application to apologetics is overly simplistic and confused.
What I found most useful about the book was the applications it made for why certain points are important for Christians. While being philosophically rigorous, Moreland and DeWeese demonstrate the need for interaction between philosophy and theology in a manner that brings further devotion of our hearts and minds to Christ. Though the book makes philosophy only “slightly” less difficult, it is generally a good introduction to the important philosophical issues of our day.
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts 38 Comments »
January 25, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall The assertion that people only argue over ideas because they’re trying to maintain their power over others has been appearing again and again in the Christian material I’ve been reading lately. This idea is especially popular in emergent circles (as I previously discussed here), but I’ve been encountering it elsewhere, as well.
This claim has always been jarring to me, striking me as cynical and empty, but I didn’t have any concept to match up with this gut reaction until I heard Jay Wesley Richards speak Monday night on “The Death of Materialism” at the Stand to Reason Masters Series. He described the impact of materialism on various disciplines and then showed how this faulty basis for our society is beginning to break down as, one by one, the assumptions of materialism in each discipline are proving to be false.
That’s when it hit me: the perspective that all arguments over beliefs are merely power plays is a very materialistic (i.e., the natural world is all there is) view. If we’re merely animals and there is no spirit, moral law, or ultimate standard for truth and goodness, then explanations for our behavior must be limited to primal reasons. When animals fight, they’re fighting for ultimate domination for the sake of domination and all of its perks. But is that the best explanation for the arguments of humans over ideas? Only if we, too, are merely animals, as materialists claim.
But what if there is more than the natural world? What if there is such a thing as ultimate truth, beauty, and goodness? What if we’re more than animals? What if God exists and we bear His image–an image which includes a love for His truth and a desire to honor His name? If that is the case, then our behavior can be explained by something more than the materialist can imagine–a sincere love for God and Truth motivating us to enter the struggle to determine and defend both. The materialist can’t comprehend the idea that human beings care more about truth than they do about power. For them, there is nothing beyond mere power. But shouldn’t we, as Christians, see clearly that there’s more to what’s going on than power plays?
How has the Church been lured into this materialistic thinking? How did we come to view the world through the same eyes as the materialists? Many of us have been listening too hard and too long to the wrong voices, people.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Philosophy 14 Comments »
January 24, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall Pyromaniac is no longer. Phil Johnson has decided to join the revolution. Welcome to Pyromaniacs!
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous No Comments »
January 24, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall Author and secular humanist Kurt Vonnegut was interviewed on NPR (listen here) yesterday morning. His assertion at the beginning of the interview that “Karl Marx got a bum rap,” has been getting some attention. However, there's a much more unexpected exchange towards the end of the interview about the “tribal” thinking among scientists–how they take a defensive posture, protecting their own views from the opposing intelligent design “tribe” at the expense of exploring real scientific questions.
KV: It's obvious through the human experience that extended families and tribes are terribly important….. Where you can see tribal behavior now is in this business about teaching evolution in a science class and intelligent design.
NPR: Are…are–
KV: Look, it's–the scientists themselves are behaving tribally.
NPR: How are the scientists behaving tribally?
KV: They say, you know, about evolution, it surely happened–the fossil record shows that; but look–my body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such a machine.
NPR: Does that mean that you would favor teaching intelligent design in the classroom?
KV: Look, if it's what we're thinking about all the time, if I were a physics teacher or a science teacher, it'd be on my mind all the time as how the h*** we really got this way. It's a perfectly natural human thought. And okay, if you go into the science class, you can't think this? Well, all right. As soon as you leave, you can start thinking about it again without giving aid and comfort to the lunatic fringe of the Christian religion. Also I think that, you know, it's tribal behavior–I don't think that Pat Robertson, for instance, doubts that we evolved. He is simply representing a tribe.
NPR: There are tribes on both sides here, in your view.
KV: Yes.
Materialist scientists aren't going to be able to ignore the evidence offered by the ID movement for much longer if even Kurt Vonnegut is starting to catch on to their defense-at-all-cost strategy. The dogmatism with which Darwinism is protected from examination will eventually lose out to intellectual curiosity.
A special thank you today to all those in the ID movement facing unrelenting opposition and ridicule in order to drive a wedge between science and naturalism so we can finally be free to follow the evidence where it leads.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Main Page, Science No Comments »
January 21, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall In response to my post on men and justice and my mention of the show 24, Micah asked, “[I] was curious about how you would draw lines between justice and ‘what must be done’ in awful situations. Are there things even manly men should not do, even in a ticking bomb scenario?”
Interesting question. I’ve had many a difficult discussion on the ethics of 24. I love a show that makes you think! I’m not an expert on ethics, but I’ll give this a shot. To answer your question, Micah, I have to move away a bit from the idea in my post of justice in punishment and/or discipline to a more general discussion of the ethics of 24-like situations of protecting people from evil.
First, to use a 24 illustration, an example of the kind of “horrible” thing I was referring to in my original post is Jack’s letting someone he cared about die in order to save the life of one of the bad guys who had important information needed to save the lives of millions. A woman also involved in this situation couldn’t understand how Jack could do this–that is, set aside his emotions and do what had to be done to save the most people. (I think that’s vague enough in order to not be a spoiler–I won’t even specify the season.)
But the line gets more difficult to determine when the question is whether or not Jack (with no other options) ought to deliberately kill an innocent person in order to save the lives of millions.
Then, there have been two times when he has clearly crossed the line by killing someone, not because it was absolutely necessary, but because he was seeking his own justice for the deaths of people he loved. It wasn’t his place to kill those people–he didn’t have the authority to do so. (It’s true…Jack’s not perfect, much as I hate to admit it.)
I think there are a lot of factors that play into what’s okay and what isn’t, depending on the situation. This is one of those lines that’s difficult to explain, and yet we tend to know in our gut when it’s been crossed and when it hasn’t. I think two factors are key: necessity and authority.
Jack has chopped off a person’s hand, shot people, and worse. But, with the exceptions I mentioned, he does only what is necessary and nothing more. More precisely, he does what is necessary for the good of all and not the good of one (as a last resort, when the two can’t be reconciled)–even if that one is someone he cares about. Other characters have failed because they haven’t been able to do this. In a moment of weakness, they’ve chosen what’s necessary for their own good or the good of their loved one at the expense of the many.
Here’s how authority plays a role. I agree that it’s just for someone who murders a person to have his life taken–but only by those who have been given the authority to do so. The authority of the government is given by God–they “bear the sword” as “a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Jack has the authority to fulfill his job of thwarting the terrorists in any way immediately necessary (at least, he has the moral authority–sometimes he goes against the rules of CTU), but he doesn’t have the authority to administer justice. Was it wrong for Jack to kill those two people in my previous illustration? Yes. Was it wrong for them to die? No. Had they been handed over to the government, they would have been justly put to death by those who have this authority. It’s the same result–their lives are taken in both situations, but the lack of authority in Jack’s case makes the act morally wrong for him. (In the case of one of the two people killed, legal prosecution was not possible…Would that affect the moral nature of Jack’s act?)
So, if the question is, “Are there things that Jack should not do in any circumstance?”, I would say that if he’s within the bounds of necessity and authority, I don’t know if I can say there’s a specific act he shouldn’t do if millions of lives are immediately at stake. Consider this: surely, giving an infinite punishment worse than death, followed by death itself, to a completely innocent man is a horrific act if considered by itself, out of context. And yet, this is precisely what God did because it was necessary to save the eternal lives of millions of people. I suppose the key is determining whether or not an act is truly necessary.
I’ve been trying to settle these things in my mind as I watch the show, and I’m still thinking through them; so I welcome any comments that might correct or refine my thinking.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Ethics, Main Page 32 Comments »
January 19, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall An article titled “Men Enjoy Seeing Bad People Suffer” describes the following experiment:
The scientists scanned the brains of 16 men and 16 women after the volunteers played a game with what they thought were other volunteers, but who in fact were actors. The actors either played the game fairly or obviously cheated.
During the brain scans, each volunteer watched as the hands of a “fair” player and a cheater received a mild electrical shock. When it came to the fair-player, both men’s and women’s brains showed activation in pain-related areas, indicating that they empathized with that player’s pain.
But for the cheater, while the women’s brains still showed a response, men’s brains showed virtually no specific reaction. Also, in another brain area associated with feelings of reward, men’s brains showed a greater average response to the cheater’s shock than to the fair player’s shock, while women’s brains did not….
Singer [the researcher], in an e-mail message, said the sex difference in results was a surprise and must be confirmed by larger studies.
Commentary on this article could go in a few different directions. The very tone, word choice, and interpretive slant offered by the writer could alone fill a post. Why is this crucial ability of men degraded as being merely a person enjoying the misfortune of others? Why is the concept of justice never discussed? Why on earth is this difference between men and women surprising to anyone?
I’ve written before about how empathy, while a beautiful and necessary trait in its place in personal relationships, can be a destructive force in society when it perverts justice. This study illustrates well why this danger is more likely to come from women than from men. For us women, our desire to nurture and help people is strong, and our empathy extends to everyone who is hurting, regardless of the person or situation. This makes it difficult to watch others be punished (let alone do the punishing ourselves!)–even when the good of the larger group is at stake. Justice is as good, right, beautiful, and necessary as empathy; but sometimes, as women, our strong empathy causes us to falter when it comes to fulfilling justice.
Thankfully, since we need both empathy and justice, God created men differently. Somehow, they’re able to turn off their empathy when the situation calls for justice. A friend once tried to explain this to me when he said, “You need men in leadership because they can do what has to be done. Sometimes horrible things need to be done. Men can do what they have to do and then move on.” I didn’t fully understand this at the time, but I’ve seen many examples of this in life since. Unfortunately, many women interpret this gift men have as cold-heartedness, not appreciating its necessity. We don’t understand how men do this, and we often secretly think compassion ought to reign over justice in a good society, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Currently, there are few influences in our society praising this ability of men (besides 24, of course–may it live long and prosper). Feminization is fashionable. I wouldn’t be surprised to find this study being used to prove that men are less than women and require some sort of therapy because of their excessive “enjoyment of another’s misfortune,” as the article puts it. Men don’t feel the same empathy as women towards those who have done wrong? They love justice more than empathy? Well then, there must be something wrong with them!
Don’t believe it for a minute, men. Do what God has created you to do at the proper time, in the proper place, for the good of all.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page 5 Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments