Monday, November 22, 2010

Real Men and Intrusive Pat-downs

A caller on the Rush Limbaugh Show asked a couple of questions, “Why aren’t real men doing anything about the pat-downs at airports” (implicit in the question was the idea that a real man would violently protect his family from an intrusive pat-down) and “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” (The questions given here are paraphrases of the caller’s questions simply because I could not remember them word for word.)

These sorts of questions bother me and they make me mad when they are asked in an air of condescension (as this caller did). The reason is because even though they are given in an air of authority, these questions are born of ignorance. Take the first question. The answer to the question is: real men don’t LET their families go through intrusive pat-downs. True, that may not be the aggressive, masculine man’s way of dealing with problems. But what good will aggression do? So a father gets mad as his child is being patted down, punches the TSA agent, and then promptly gets arrested for assault and carried off to jail. Yes, that took care of the problem, didn’t it? Miss your flight and get arrested all at once. While that may be the “masculine” man’s way of dealing with problems, the wise man would know that there is no way to get onto an airplane without going through some kind of intrusive screening, and simply stop flying. “But that doesn’t take care of the problem,” one might object. First of all, it might. If airlines have a severe drop in customers because of people avoiding the screening process, they might get rid of the intrusive screening so as to remain in business. Otherwise, they’ll lose customers to buses and trains, not to mention gas stains as people drive around the country rather than fly. Second, there are other ways to take care of the problem. The biggest is simply to have a general outcry over the procedures, something which is going on right now. The more people who are aware of the problem, the more people who will protest the problem, and unless the TSA and airports are completely tone deaf, they will change their rules. There might even be legal action that can be taken. So avoiding airports to avoid intrusive screening procedures is not wimpy, that is what wise men do. Wrathful men who feel they need to hurt someone to get their point across are those who go into the lion’s den (airport terminals, in this case) raring for a fight with no hope of victory.

And speaking of people who have a desire to do harm to others to get their point across, what about the idea that we are being complacent by not taking up arms against intrusive government? Our country has a built in function for removing corrupt officials who pass freedom-killing legislation: it’s called elections! “When do we take up arms to protect ourselves from Obama?” How about: we DID rebel against Obama on November 2nd and we did it WITHOUT guns. And the rebellion will be completed with the 2012 elections. It would be foolish to resort to violence just because we want an immediate, vengeful fix.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am not against violence. I think there is a place for a man to protect his family and loved ones with physical violence, and I also think that there are times when people should rebel against their government. However, like everything else in life, there is a time for violence and a time for non-violence. In the case of intrusive pat-downs at airports and a freedom-grabbing government, that time is not now: there are still other options available. And like the founders of this country, who only rebelled against Great Britain when all appeals to the king and parliament failed, we should exhaust all legal means of change before we begin an open rebellion. Real men don’t put their families as risk by inciting unnecessary wars and fights.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Things God did not Create

There is a “proof” of the non-existence of God that I have heard a couple of times. It goes something like this:

Person 1: Did God create everything?
Person 2: Yes, God created everything.
Person 1: Does evil exist in the world?
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: If evil exists, and if God created everything, then God must have created evil.
Person 2: But God is not evil nor the author of evil.
Person 1: Therefore, God did not create everything, and therefore God must not be the Creator of everything, thus God doesn’t exist.

The typical answer to this argument goes something like this: evil occurs when God’s rules are not obeyed. Evil is the absence of good, therefore evil does not exit. This is analogous to darkness. Darkness is the absence of light, darkness is not a thing in and of itself. Similarly, evil is the absence of good, evil is not a thing in and of itself.

I’ve found the argument that “evil does not exist” a little unsettling. First of all, how can “good” exist but not “evil”? Both words are used to describe actions: so and so did a good thing, or so and so did an evil thing. Both evil and good have the same origin (a person’s thought or will determines his actions) so how can one exist and the other doesn’t?

Second, the comparison to light and darkness doesn’t hold up. Yes, darkness is the absence of light, but darkness describes a physical phenomena, and God created the physical world. Look at Gen. 1:2. It describes the newly created world as being dark. Therefore, God did create darkness, and if God created darkness, then the analogy would indicate that God also created evil.

I think the solution to the opening “proof” of God’s non-existence is simply this: God did not create everything.

“Heresy! How can you say such a thing?”

Before the stake and firewood are brought out, let me explain. There is a slight of hand going on in the opening argument. When person 2 affirms that God created everything, what he means is that God made the whole universe. However, when person 1 categorizes evil as something that exists (and therefore, part of everything), he is using “everything” to mean the sum total of all things, events, and ideas. So there are two definitions of “everything” being used: “everything is the whole universe,” and “everything is all things, events, and ideas.” These two definitions may seem to be the same, but they are not. Allow me to elaborate by describing those things, events, and ideas God did not create.

First of all, God did not create Himself. He is eternal and has therefore existed from eternity past and will exist to eternity future. Besides, it is impossible for something to create itself. At its creation, something comes into existence, by definition. Yet, something must be in existence in order for it to create anything. So for something to create itself, it would have to be in existence (in order to create itself) and not in existence (it doesn’t exist prior to its creation) at the same time, breaking the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, God could not have created Himself.

While I’m using a logical argument, let’s touch on the fact that God did not create logic. The laws of logic are part of God’s nature, and therefore they also apply to His creation. The law of non-contradiction exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent. The principle of uniformity (not to be confused with the principle of uniformitarianism, the former being the idea that natural laws apply everywhere over time and space, the latter being an idea about the rate of geological actions) also exists because God is eternal, unchanging, and consistent (for a further explanation of how logic is an expression of God’s nature, see “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” by Dr. Jason Lisle, pg. 196-198). God did not create wisdom for wisdom is an expression of God’s thoughts (Prov. 3:19, if God used wisdom to create the earth and heavens, wisdom must have been around before God began creation, before He created anything). God did not create ethics for all the moral laws He gave to man are an expression of His nature. All of these things are an expression of some part of the nature of God. If God did not create Himself, then He also did not create His nature, therefore He did not create those things that are an expression of His nature.

There are things that man created that God did not create. Since man was made in God’s image, we have creative abilities. If we have the ability to create things, then there must be things we created that God did not. For instance, God did not create the internal combustion engine. Now, man does not have the ability to create things out of nothing, so the physical matter that comprises the parts of an internal combustion engine was not created by man. However, the design was created by man. Some might argue that there are physical restraints that have to be met in order for an internal combustion engine to function, therefore man may have simply “discovered” how to build an internal combustion engine rather than actually designing one. While there are physical constraints (such as temperature, forces, available materials, and so forth) that dictate some aspects of the design of an engine, the exact design was created by man. Consider: there is the familiar piston engine and there is the Wankel rotary engine. Both are internal combustion engines, both function under the same physical conditions, but they have different designs, both of which were created by men.

So what can be concluded? There are three things God did not create: Himself, expressions of His nature, and designs made by humans. Therefore, God did not make everything if “everything” means all things, events, and ideas. So how does this relate to the existence of evil? God did not create evil. Man created evil when he rebelled against God in the Garden.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

The Efficiency of Common Sense Profiling

With full body scans and enhanced pat-downs being implemented at airport security checkpoints, the issue of the effectiveness (and intrusiveness) of screening procedures has been brought up again.

Since there is a general outcry over the body scans and pat-downs, some people have suggested that rather than being intrusive and ethically-questionable, airport security should simply use profiling. The arguments for profiling include, 1) it is used to great effect in other countries (such as Israel) and 2) it would be cheaper and quicker. The arguments is that it can be abused, and it is demeaning and contrary to a free society.

As for the argument that profiling can be abused, of course it can. So can full body scans (will scans of attractive women be saved?) and pat-downs (will men doing pat-downs give women extra attention?). For that matter, so can military powers, tax laws, judicial appointments, judicial rulings, bail outs, trade laws, medical laws, and so forth. What aspect of government can not be abused? So there is nothing special about profiling that makes it more abusive than other laws or procedures.

What about the argument that profiling demeaning and contrary to freedom? To answer this critique, a closer look at profiling is in order.

There are some people who hear the word “profiling” and perceive “black men have a predisposition to violence,” or “being of Middle East descent makes one a terrorist.” In other words, these people see profiling as attributing a behavior to a person because of a physical characteristic. This is not what is meant by those who advocate profiling by airport security. They advocate criminal profiling. Criminal profiling involves knowing who a criminal is and using the criminal’s characteristics to find him. For example, a witness at a scene of a robbery describes the suspect as a man, 6 foot 4 inches tall, with blond hair. Therefore, cops will profile all 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men as possibly being the robber, not because 6 foot, 4 inch, blond haired men have a predisposition to robbery, but because a known robber has those characteristics. The same strategy can apply to groups: members of one group (say, terrorists) have common characteristics (young men of Middle Eastern descent). So profiling young, Middle Eastern men at airports is not based on the theory that being a young man born in the Middle East makes a person a terrorist, it is based on the knowledge that other terrorists are young Middle Eastern men.

So, to use criminal profiling is not to say, “Because you have feature X, you are more prone to do Y,” rather it is to say that “Criminal A has feature X. You have feature X, therefore the possibility exists that you are criminal A.” The former statement is condescending, demeaning, and does not look at men as equals. The latter statement is good police work based on common sense. I should also point out that it is not sufficient: while profiling can focus attention on a specific type of person, highlighting who should be watched or scrutinized, it is not sufficient to convict a person. Still, it is more efficient to focusing attention on a selected group of people rather than treating every airplane passenger as a potential terrorist.