This post, and the next few following it, will be centered around presuppositional apologetics. To summarize, presuppositional defends the Biblical Christian faith by starting with the Bible to demonstrate that the Bible is consistent while all other worldviews are illogical. Yes, this is circular reasoning, but it is necessary. A person’s metaphysics (criteria they use to judge something as true) and epistemology (things regarded to be true) are inter-related: you can’t take get one without the other. Therefore, any determination of the truth of a person’s metaphysics and epistemology must be judged on the metaphysics and epistemology itself. The question then is whether this circular reasoning is consistent or not. In practice, presuppositional apologetics is accomplished by showing how Christianity is the only worldview that provides a basis for the preconditions of intelligibility. The preconditions of intelligibility are those assumptions every person must make in order for thinking to occur. For instance, the laws of logic are preconditions of intelligibility: they are assumptions that are made in order to make sense of the world. Other preconditions of intelligibility are reliance on senses (the assumptions that one’s senses actually convey real, consistent information) and the principle of uniformity (the idea that the same laws of logic and nature apply everywhere in the world in time and space). Christianity provides a support for these preconditions of intelligibility in the nature of God and His act of creation. Since God is eternal, omnipresent, and unchanging, we can be assured that His creation will also be consistent. Since God made us to have dominion of His creation, and since God does not lie (is not deceptive), we can trust the senses He gave to us. Since God is eternal, wise, and just, we can rely on the unchanging nature and consistency of the laws of logic. In contrast, all other worldviews are either unable to account for the preconditions of intelligibility (and thus must adhere to these preconditions arbitrarily) or are contradictory to the preconditions of intelligibility, the resulting conclusion being that all other worldviews are inherently illogical.
That is a very brief summary of presuppositional apologetics. Of course, there is a whole lot more that can be said about it. If you are interested in learning more about presuppositional apologetics, I would recommend the book The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate by Dr. Jason Lisle, published in 2009 by Master Book. This is a fairly easy read. A more in depth book is Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, edited by Joel McDurmon, published in 2008 by American Vision Press and Covenant Media Press. Also, there is a CD series, Defending the Christian Worldview Against all Opposition by Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.
As you may notice from some of the titles that were given, presuppositional apologetics is presented as the end-all to all apologetics: presuppositional apologetics is unassailable and capable of defeating all other worldviews. In addition, it appears that presuppositional apologetics is presented as the only apologetics that a Christian should use; that all other apologetic arguments end up defeating Christianity, rather than supporting it. I am unclear as to the extent of this latter statement. For instance, I do not know whether a design argument for the existence of a Creator is seen as a faulty argument that should be rejected or is merely a weak argument that can only be supported by presuppositional apologetics. The unassailability and singular usage of presuppositional apologetics is the topic of the following posts.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Why is this a Land of Plenty?
Last week, President Obama made this statement:
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared this same land.
Obama has been rightly mocked for saying that Mexicans were here before America was, but I am most offended by the implication that this land is naturally plenteous, we just happen to be the ones living here. Americans MADE this land plentiful. The founders of America, starting with the Pilgrims, did not come over here and find a land bursting at its seams with plenty. They found a land of opportunity and they mde the most of that opportunity to make this land prosperous. But will Obama ever credit the prosperity of this land to American ideals? Of course not, because that runs counter to his ideology, which sees America as robbing resources, not creating resources.
Long before America was even an idea, this land of plenty was home to many peoples. The British and French, Dutch and Spanish, to Mexicans, to countless Indian tribes. We all shared this same land.
Obama has been rightly mocked for saying that Mexicans were here before America was, but I am most offended by the implication that this land is naturally plenteous, we just happen to be the ones living here. Americans MADE this land plentiful. The founders of America, starting with the Pilgrims, did not come over here and find a land bursting at its seams with plenty. They found a land of opportunity and they mde the most of that opportunity to make this land prosperous. But will Obama ever credit the prosperity of this land to American ideals? Of course not, because that runs counter to his ideology, which sees America as robbing resources, not creating resources.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Predictions and Consequences
If someone predicts the unexpected and it comes about, he’s a genius.
If someone predicts the unexpected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the expected and it comes about, he’s doing his job.
If someone predicts the expected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the unexpected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
If someone predicts the expected and it comes about, he’s doing his job.
If someone predicts the expected and it doesn’t come about, he’s an idiot.
Four Political Groups and their Views on God
People can be categorized according to their view of government. As a person’s view of government is affected by their view of God, these categories can be characterized by their view of God. Here are four of them:
To conservatives, God is God.
To liberals, society is god.
To libertarians, the individual is god.
To the ruling class, they are god.
Notice that none of these groups are characterized as seeing government as god. This is because all four ideologies accept a role of government: their god simply defines the limits of that government. Also notice that the last three are all variations on the same thing: liberals, libertarians, and the ruling class all see man as supreme, they only differ as to which man or group of men is supreme.
To conservatives, God is God.
To liberals, society is god.
To libertarians, the individual is god.
To the ruling class, they are god.
Notice that none of these groups are characterized as seeing government as god. This is because all four ideologies accept a role of government: their god simply defines the limits of that government. Also notice that the last three are all variations on the same thing: liberals, libertarians, and the ruling class all see man as supreme, they only differ as to which man or group of men is supreme.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Are Men Socialized for Murder?
There was a report on the front page of the Wichita Eagle on Sunday titled “Far more men kill women than vice versa,” by Hurst Laviana and Tim Potter. The article centered around a statistic which showed that in Kansas, between 1985 and 2006, 63 women ages 12 to 21 were the victims of murders. Of these 63 victims, in 42 cases, men were the suspect, in one case, a woman was the suspect, and in 20 cases, the gender of the suspect was unknown. I thought it interesting that the article pointed out that in the same time period, 157 men age 12 to 21 were murdered, in 120 cases, the suspect was a man, in 6, the suspect was a woman, and in 31, the gender of the suspect was unknown. So maybe a better title for the report would be, “Men kill other men far more than they kill women,” or something, rather than insinuating that there was some sort of sexist bias among murderers.
The report went on and quoted Kathy Williams, the director the Wichita Are Sexual Assault Center, as saying, “Unfortunately, we socialize men to be big and strong and not show emotion.” Basically, it is society’s fault that men kill women, therefore Williams suggested that men need to be womanized (she actually said that “men need to learn to love and care in the broad sense, and they need to learn to respect the dignity of others.”).
There were so many flaws in this article, it is astounding. First of all, society doesn’t make men big, strong, and emotionless, men are big, strong, and emotionless by nature. It is therefore stupid to think that “training” men will help stop the murder of women.
Second, the fact that we men are big, strong, and emotionless is actually an advantage. If men were all womanized, who would defend society by fighting foreign enemies and catching criminals (and I don’t mean determine the identity of the criminal using amazing forensics, I mean, chase, catch, knock down, slap on handcuffs, and throw in a patrol car)?
Some might say, if all men were womanized, there would be no wars to fight or criminals to catch (and if pigs flew, bacon transportation costs would go down). The premise of this idea is ridiculous. What are we going to do, womanize terrorists at the same time we womanize America? And what if a few men slip through the cracks and are not successfully womanized? It isn’t even remotely feasible to train every single man on the planet at the same time.
Aside from protection against foreign and domestic enemies, the strength and aggression of men has other benefits. Roads, tools, furniture, and machines, to name a few things, need physical strength to be built. Aggression benefits men who are exploring the edges of a dangerous frontier. And competition driven by aggression can be beneficial as well. To put it simply, being size, strength, and aggression are not negative qualities, they are qualities that can be beneficial to the individual and the society the individual belongs to.
Third, and most important, blaming the aggression and strength of men for the murder of women is like blaming baseball bat manufacturers for busted kneecaps. While men may be more capable of committing murder, murder never occurs without a motive. That is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter: one is driven by a motive, the other is an accident. Murder happens because men (and occasionally women) break laws (both God’s and man’s) in order to kill someone out of anger, to solve a problem, or for fun. The disregard for laws is a problem all humans face and can only be solved by Jesus Christ. So the strength and lack of emotion in men isn’t even the root problem.
The report went on and quoted Kathy Williams, the director the Wichita Are Sexual Assault Center, as saying, “Unfortunately, we socialize men to be big and strong and not show emotion.” Basically, it is society’s fault that men kill women, therefore Williams suggested that men need to be womanized (she actually said that “men need to learn to love and care in the broad sense, and they need to learn to respect the dignity of others.”).
There were so many flaws in this article, it is astounding. First of all, society doesn’t make men big, strong, and emotionless, men are big, strong, and emotionless by nature. It is therefore stupid to think that “training” men will help stop the murder of women.
Second, the fact that we men are big, strong, and emotionless is actually an advantage. If men were all womanized, who would defend society by fighting foreign enemies and catching criminals (and I don’t mean determine the identity of the criminal using amazing forensics, I mean, chase, catch, knock down, slap on handcuffs, and throw in a patrol car)?
Some might say, if all men were womanized, there would be no wars to fight or criminals to catch (and if pigs flew, bacon transportation costs would go down). The premise of this idea is ridiculous. What are we going to do, womanize terrorists at the same time we womanize America? And what if a few men slip through the cracks and are not successfully womanized? It isn’t even remotely feasible to train every single man on the planet at the same time.
Aside from protection against foreign and domestic enemies, the strength and aggression of men has other benefits. Roads, tools, furniture, and machines, to name a few things, need physical strength to be built. Aggression benefits men who are exploring the edges of a dangerous frontier. And competition driven by aggression can be beneficial as well. To put it simply, being size, strength, and aggression are not negative qualities, they are qualities that can be beneficial to the individual and the society the individual belongs to.
Third, and most important, blaming the aggression and strength of men for the murder of women is like blaming baseball bat manufacturers for busted kneecaps. While men may be more capable of committing murder, murder never occurs without a motive. That is what distinguishes murder from manslaughter: one is driven by a motive, the other is an accident. Murder happens because men (and occasionally women) break laws (both God’s and man’s) in order to kill someone out of anger, to solve a problem, or for fun. The disregard for laws is a problem all humans face and can only be solved by Jesus Christ. So the strength and lack of emotion in men isn’t even the root problem.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Labels are Helpful
There was a letter to the editor in the Wichita Eagle this Sunday (Aug. 29) titled “Vote for Person,” and the letter was a lament that some people were complaining that Raj Goyle, 4th Congressional District candidate in Kansas, is not saying in his ads that he is a Democrat. The author of the letter concluded that it would be nice is all candidates dropped labels so that the people would vote for the person, and not the party.
While I agree that the candidate himself should be as, if not more, important than his party affiliation, I still think party affiliation is important. While a label may not tell you everything, and may even be deceptive, it does provide a starting point by which a candidate’s statements can be analyzed. For instance, the statement, “I want to balance the budget,” can mean, “I want to raise taxes,” if spoken by a tax-and-spender (usually located in the Democratic Party) or “I want to cut spending,” if spoken by a fiscal conservative (usually located in the Republican Party and some third parties).
As for as Raj Goyle goes, it was ironic that right above the previously mentioned letter was another letter to the editor titled “Who is Goyle?” This letter pointed out that not only is Goyle’s party affiliation not mentioned anywhere on his website, neither is the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. See, if Goyle let everyone know that he is a Democrat, we wouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. So labels can be helpful.
While I agree that the candidate himself should be as, if not more, important than his party affiliation, I still think party affiliation is important. While a label may not tell you everything, and may even be deceptive, it does provide a starting point by which a candidate’s statements can be analyzed. For instance, the statement, “I want to balance the budget,” can mean, “I want to raise taxes,” if spoken by a tax-and-spender (usually located in the Democratic Party) or “I want to cut spending,” if spoken by a fiscal conservative (usually located in the Republican Party and some third parties).
As for as Raj Goyle goes, it was ironic that right above the previously mentioned letter was another letter to the editor titled “Who is Goyle?” This letter pointed out that not only is Goyle’s party affiliation not mentioned anywhere on his website, neither is the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. See, if Goyle let everyone know that he is a Democrat, we wouldn’t be surprised by the fact that he once worked for the ACLU. So labels can be helpful.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Probing the Mind of an Evolutionist
I ran across an interesting passage in a journal article that nicely illustrates how the bias of an evolutionist can blind them to the very thing they are studying. The article is titled “Evidence for Avian Intrathoracic Air Sacs in a New Predatory Dinosaur from Argentina,” written by Sereno et al., published in the journal PLoS ONE, volume 3, issue 9, on September 30, 2008.
To give some background information, one of the important differences between birds and other vertebrates is in the structure of their lungs. Other vertebrates have lungs like we do: bellow-type lungs where the air is drawn into the lungs and then pumped out, mimicking the action of a bellows. Birds, in contrast, have a series of air sacs around their lungs. These air sacs act as the bellows, drawing in and pumping out air. The lung itself does no pumping at all. Rather, it is only acts as a site for gas exchange, and the air sacs pump air through the lungs. The bird type of lung is called a flow-through lung, and it is the most efficient type of lung found in vertebrates.
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is the consensus among evolutionary paleontologists, then there must have been some point when a bellows-type lung evolved into a flow-through lung. The question they are now interested in is when. Did the flow-through lung begin evolving in early theropods (the group of dinosaurs birds are thought to be descended from) or did they appear latter, closer to the origin of birds?
Now look at what the previously cited article has to say. I am going to quote from it rather extensively.
"Two general models have been proposed for lung ventilation in nonavian [including theropod] dinosaurs. The first infers the presence of compliant lungs with crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation, based in part on stained areas in two theropod skeletons purported to represent a diaphragm separating thoracic and abdominal cavities. The stains and their interpretations have been contested, and the evidence for their arguments refuted by several authors. A second model infers avianlike flow-through lung ventilation with a rigid dorsally-attached lung and compliant air sacs. This hypothesis is based mainly on the morphology of the ribcage and on pneumatic sculpting in the axial column attributable to air sacs. Although more plausible, the second hypothesis actually consists of a collection of inferences about (1) pulmonary morphology and function and (2) the mechanics of aspiration respiration in nonavian dinosaurs." (italics for emphasis)
The crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation referred early on is a bellows-type lung. The stained areas in two theropod dinosaurs refer to a couple of small dinosaur skeletons that preserve traces of internal organs. The stains are thought by some to be traces of the liver. I might also add that these two theropod skeletons are the only theropod skeletons that have any significant traces of internal organs.
Here is where the interpretation bias comes shining through. Sereno et al. calls the second hypothesis (the idea that dinosaurs had flow-through lungs) “more plausible,” in spite of the fact that they immediately point out that that interpretation “consists of a collection of inferences”! Matter of fact, earlier in the article, they point out that the presence of pneumatic sculpting in the axial column gives no direct evidence for the existence of either a bellows-type or flow-through lung, and they also say that the morphology of the ribcage also gives no direct evidence for the existence of either bellows-type or flow-through type lungs. So they reject the hypothesis that is based on disputed interpretation of an actual piece of evidence (the stains in two small theropods) in favor of the hypothesis they acknowledge is based entirely on inference! Why then might they consider the flow-through hypothesis more plausible? Quoting from the article again:
"Tracking pneumatic patterns [of theropods] in the fossil record is complicated by the one-sided nature of outgroup comparison, which is restricted to birds among extant vertebrates, and the ambiguous meaning of the absence of a soft structure that only sometimes leaves an osteological imprint." (italics for emphasis)
An outgroup is a species that is known (or presumed) to share a common ancestor with the animals being studied. So what the authors are saying is that all they have are theropods’ closest relatives (birds) and ambiguous, absent, soft structures to determine what kind of lungs theropods have. As already shown, they acknowledge that there is no physical evidence that theropods had flow-through lungs, but there is disputed evidence that they had bellows-type lungs. Yet they go for the hypothesis that is based on no physical evidence because birds are supposed to be related to dinosaurs. This is a beautiful example of a presupposition affecting a person’s interpretation in spite of what evidence actually exists.
To give some background information, one of the important differences between birds and other vertebrates is in the structure of their lungs. Other vertebrates have lungs like we do: bellow-type lungs where the air is drawn into the lungs and then pumped out, mimicking the action of a bellows. Birds, in contrast, have a series of air sacs around their lungs. These air sacs act as the bellows, drawing in and pumping out air. The lung itself does no pumping at all. Rather, it is only acts as a site for gas exchange, and the air sacs pump air through the lungs. The bird type of lung is called a flow-through lung, and it is the most efficient type of lung found in vertebrates.
If birds evolved from dinosaurs, which is the consensus among evolutionary paleontologists, then there must have been some point when a bellows-type lung evolved into a flow-through lung. The question they are now interested in is when. Did the flow-through lung begin evolving in early theropods (the group of dinosaurs birds are thought to be descended from) or did they appear latter, closer to the origin of birds?
Now look at what the previously cited article has to say. I am going to quote from it rather extensively.
"Two general models have been proposed for lung ventilation in nonavian [including theropod] dinosaurs. The first infers the presence of compliant lungs with crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation, based in part on stained areas in two theropod skeletons purported to represent a diaphragm separating thoracic and abdominal cavities. The stains and their interpretations have been contested, and the evidence for their arguments refuted by several authors. A second model infers avianlike flow-through lung ventilation with a rigid dorsally-attached lung and compliant air sacs. This hypothesis is based mainly on the morphology of the ribcage and on pneumatic sculpting in the axial column attributable to air sacs. Although more plausible, the second hypothesis actually consists of a collection of inferences about (1) pulmonary morphology and function and (2) the mechanics of aspiration respiration in nonavian dinosaurs." (italics for emphasis)
The crocodile-like diaphragmatic ventilation referred early on is a bellows-type lung. The stained areas in two theropod dinosaurs refer to a couple of small dinosaur skeletons that preserve traces of internal organs. The stains are thought by some to be traces of the liver. I might also add that these two theropod skeletons are the only theropod skeletons that have any significant traces of internal organs.
Here is where the interpretation bias comes shining through. Sereno et al. calls the second hypothesis (the idea that dinosaurs had flow-through lungs) “more plausible,” in spite of the fact that they immediately point out that that interpretation “consists of a collection of inferences”! Matter of fact, earlier in the article, they point out that the presence of pneumatic sculpting in the axial column gives no direct evidence for the existence of either a bellows-type or flow-through lung, and they also say that the morphology of the ribcage also gives no direct evidence for the existence of either bellows-type or flow-through type lungs. So they reject the hypothesis that is based on disputed interpretation of an actual piece of evidence (the stains in two small theropods) in favor of the hypothesis they acknowledge is based entirely on inference! Why then might they consider the flow-through hypothesis more plausible? Quoting from the article again:
"Tracking pneumatic patterns [of theropods] in the fossil record is complicated by the one-sided nature of outgroup comparison, which is restricted to birds among extant vertebrates, and the ambiguous meaning of the absence of a soft structure that only sometimes leaves an osteological imprint." (italics for emphasis)
An outgroup is a species that is known (or presumed) to share a common ancestor with the animals being studied. So what the authors are saying is that all they have are theropods’ closest relatives (birds) and ambiguous, absent, soft structures to determine what kind of lungs theropods have. As already shown, they acknowledge that there is no physical evidence that theropods had flow-through lungs, but there is disputed evidence that they had bellows-type lungs. Yet they go for the hypothesis that is based on no physical evidence because birds are supposed to be related to dinosaurs. This is a beautiful example of a presupposition affecting a person’s interpretation in spite of what evidence actually exists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
