The Bible as Record not Cause, The Faith of Reason part 3

Posted on July 3, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

    This is the third article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  Mr. Thysse raised some very potent objections to Christianity in his response to my first article.  This is getting very good!  (and providing me with plenty of blog fodder) I’ll attempt to address his objections below.  Mr. Thysse’s full comment can be read on my first post in the series, The Faith of Reason.  To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes.


To me the great fault of Christianity is that it condemns all those who do not accept Christ – even the new born. This is not reasonable. First your bible condemns you, then it tells you how to be saved. All unnecessary if it did not give a blanket condemnation to begin with.


    This begins to get a little bit confusing so bare with me.  Does the Bible say that we are condemned? Yes it does.  Does the Bible say that we can be reconciled to god (saved) through Jesus Christ?  Yes it does.  The Bible says both of these things but the Bible is not the cause of these things.  These would be true even without the Bible.  The Bible is merely a record of what is already true, not the cause of that truth. 

    I am unaware of any verse that says newborns who die are condemned.  If you have such a verse I would be very interested to see it.  As far as I know, the Bible is vague on what happens to newborns who die.  There are some who believe that they are condemned but this has to be extrapolated.  I believe that the Roman Catholic church has a doctrine that says unbaptized babies are condemned, but again that is not strictly Biblical. 

Posted in Atheism, Bible, Christianity, Culture, culture war, educational, Faith, Philosophy, Religion, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , , |

Condemnation in the Bible, The Faith of Reason part 2

Posted on July 2, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

This is the second article I have written as part of an ongoing debate with Mr. Adrian Thysse on the reasonableness of Christian faith.  Mr. Thysse raised some very potent objections to Christianity in his response to my first article.  This is getting very good (and providing me with plenty of blog fodder)!  I’ll attempt to address his objections below.  Mr. Thysse’s full comment can be read on my first post in the series, The Faith of Reason.  To make it easier to follow, I have cut his comment into sections and placed them in block quotes. 

Thanks for your detailed response. Your initial assumptions are correct. However, my point in choosing that particular verse is not that I believe man is born with the burden of ’sin’. (Our ‘burden’ is perhaps a result of our mental ability to recognize our own evolved imperfections)

Hi, Mr. Thysse,

    If our mental ability evolved along with our imperfections, then how can it be capable of recognizing them?  Wouldn’t our mental ability view our imperfections not as imperfections, but rather simply as what is? 

    To see that we (humans) are imperfect is to presuppose perfection.  If we had no concept of what a straight line looked like then it would be meaningless to say “this is crooked“. 

    The burden that you speak of, is not just the knowledge that we are crooked but also that we should be straight.  Do you think that a wild dog feels ashamed when he gets into the trash?  No, of course not.  It is only a dog who has been domesticated and told many times not to get into the trash, who shows any sign of remorse for doing so (and they do).  Dogs have no burden of crookedness on their own, they get it from their leaders (be it an alpha male or a little girl). 

It was merely to point out the circular reasoning that Christians are prone to. The Bible tells you that you are born a sinner, therefore you need a saviour.

I would be the last person to argue that the modern Christian church is a bastion of logic and rationality.  There are very few such bastions left.  Modern education has done a fine job of seeing to that.  Subjects like rhetoric, logic, argumentation, and critical thinking are rarely taught at all and have even taken on pejorative connotations.  However, the failure of modern man to live up to the standards of rationality (there are those perfect standards again), does not mean Christianity fails those same standards.
 
   I do not need the Bible to tell me that I am a sinner, I have moral codes that I am incapable of living up too.  I fail my own test.  Also you do not need to be in a room of toddlers long to see that selfishness and conceit are present very early in life.  In this regard, the Bible merely confirms what I have already observed.

    I have not doubt that there are many people who examine their lives and find that they have lived up to their own moral code perfectly.  I believe these people are deceiving themselves.  They are not holding themselves to an objective standard.  They create their code of morality to suit their own actions.  In this way, they will necessarily look good when held to the standard of this code.  This is a sham code of morality.  They have a double standard, one for themselves and one for everyone else.  Ask everyone else what they think of this person and they will undoubtedly be able to find some faults.

    So, the Bible does not condemn anyone.  We can see that we are already condemned.  If we see that we do evil (as illustrated above) and that God is good (The being than which no greater being can be conceived) then, we are necessarily separated from him(condemned).  The overall message of the Bible is not one of condemnation but of reconciliation for a world already condemned.

    For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
    (Joh 3:17 ESV)

    The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.
    (Joh 10:10 ESV)

    All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of     reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their     trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
    (2Co 5:18-19 ESV)

Comment at will!

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Culture, culture war, educational, Faith, Philosophy, Religion, Theology | Tagged , , , , , , , |

The Faith of Reason

Posted on June 30, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

    A colleague of mine in the blogging world, Adrian Thysse commented on my last article, The Fifty-First Psalm in English Verse.  His comment brought up some interesting and very important questions facing the world today.  These questions are some of the key battlefields in the so called, culture wars.  I started to respond to Mr. Thysse’s comment with another comment but, it soon became too long and too divergent from the original article.  Mr. Thysse’s original comment appears below in full.

Adrian Thysse
June 30, 2008

“Behold, I in iniquity
Was formed the womb within;
My mother conceived me also,
In guiltiness and sin.


It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.Doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith? How do you keep them separate?

The first part is a direct quote from my post.  It is Psalm 51:5, in an English verse translation.  My response to the questions raised by Mr. Thysse is below.  In deciding how to respond, I found that moving in reverse order (of that in which the questions were posed) will work best. 

    How do I keep my faith and my passion for truth separate?  There is an underlying claim in this question and it is that, my faith is not also true.   I fully understand that Mr. Thysse is not a Christian and so, I expect him to believe Christianity to be false.  Also nothing should be taken dogmatically.  The more important an issue is, the more reason there is to test the conclusion.  Certainly world view and metaphysical beliefs are extremely important, and so should be subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny.  See my article, Pseudo-Polite Conversation, for more on my views on this.  

The unstated premises (I hope Mr. Thysse will forgive me for making assumptions) for this question are that,

  • Christian faith is unreasonable and not supported by reason.
  • I am a reasonable person (he says that I have a “passion for truth”) and yet am a Christian.
  • The first and second premises contradict
  • Therefore, I am either making a separation between faith and rationality (as Mr Thysse believes) or I am a walking contradiction.


    Now that I have spent two paragraphs expanding a six word question, I will get to answering it.  First I would like to thank Mr. Thysse for implying that I am a reasonable person.  Thanks.  I try my best to be reasonable and your ackowledgment of the fact means that we can conduct a civilized debate.

    Second, I do not keep them separate.  (Hey, a six word response!)  To do so would constitute a contradiction.  I can not love truth during the week and indulge in what I know to be fantasy on Sundays.  That would be literally and in all other ways, insane. 

    So, it appears that I have backed myself into a corner.  Mr. Thysse presented a dilemma, either I make a separation or I live a contradiction.  I have stated that to make a separation would be a contradiction.  So it appears that, I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.  I have already stated that I do not make a separation between my faith and my passion for truth.  I’ll now address the other option in the dilemma, namely that I am a walking contradiction.

    This, I do not accept.  I do not believe that a contradiction exists between my faith and my pursuit of truth.  (I suppose, I should be thankful to Mr. Thysse for assuming that I made a separation rather than asking “why are you a walking contradiction?”)  I find Christian faith to best explain the universe we live in.  That is to say, I find Christianity to be reasonable and rational. 

    We must dismiss completely, with the idea that metaphysical questions, (such as, what is ultimate reality, is there a god, what is the meaning of life,  and why is there evil?) are questions of science or that science could answer.  They are not.  These are not the sort of questions that scientists ask; nor are they the sort of questions that science answers.  If we found video footage of the last six billion (or 100 billion) years and could see the beginning of life and all the wars and famines in history, it would not tell us why there is evil, if there is a god, if he is active or passive, or if he is knowable or distant. 

    Science ( and mathematics, physics etc.)  is very useful but, it is limited.  Science can answer many questions but not questions of this sort.  I do not know if Mr. Thysse’s belief that Christianity is unreasonable is based on an adherence to science or not but, it is very common to believe that science is somehow at odds with faith, religion, and even philosophy.  It is not.  It cannot be.  Science being opposed to these things is like English muffins being opposed to purple.  If you believe in English muffins then you cannot believe in purple and the other way around.  It makes now sense at all.  You cannot even conceive of what it means for English muffins to oppose purple.  The same is true of science opposing faith.

    It seems that in the course of answering the question about separation, I have also answered the question, “doesn’t your passion for truth conflict with your faith?”  It does not.  My faith is based on what I believe to be true.  I believe it was Augustine who said that “all truth is God’s truth.”  This is what I believe.  If God exists, and I believe he does, then all honest search for truth whether molecular biology, astronomy, philosophy, or a criminal investigation, is a search for God.  This is true even when the searcher is not conscience of it or does not believe in God. However, when the search is not really about truth but rather about supporting a previously held position, then neither is it a search for God. 

    Now to respond to the first sentence in Mr. Thysse’s comment. 

It is a heavy burden Christian’s bear, but self imposed.

The burden is only self imposed if it is not true, but that is beside the point and not worth arguing about at the moment.  Mr. Thysse has made a very astute observation that most of the secular world does not recognize or at least, does not admit to recognizing.  Mr. Thysse has recognized the heavy burden.  Yes there is a heavy burden, but Christians do not bear it.  That is the essence of Christianity.  We have sinned, we are living outside of our original nature, we are God’s enemies but God in his love has extended his hand to us, so that we may become His children!  He has taken the burden from us!  We do not bear the burden because Jesus bore it on our behalf.  As Paul said,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
Romans 8:1 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

 Or even earlier in that same Psalm,


For your compassion great, blots out
All my iniquity.
Psalm 51:2 

And later,

With perfume do, you sprinkle me,
I shall be cleansed so;
Yes, wash me please, and then I will
Be whiter than new snow!
Psalm 51:7

Or as Jesus Himself said,

“Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.“ 
Mathew 11:28-30 English Standard Version. Underlining mine.

This is Why Christianity is ultimately reasonable and rational.

  • It explains where the universe came from, God created it.  This is a question that you must answer no matter what you believe about old Earth creationism, young Earth creationism, intelligent design, evolution, the big bang, panspermia, or any other theory out there.
  • It accepts the existence of evil as evil. (as does Islam and some other religions)
  • It reconciles men who do evil with God, (Islam does not) who is pure good and has nothing to do with evil. 
  • This is accomplished through Jesus Christ.  This is the lifting of the burden.


Looking back, I’m glad that I made an article out of this instead of a comment.  I hope this is useful to Mr. Thysse and anyone else out there with similar questions.  I gladly accept comments and criticism especially from Mr. Thysse.  Please don’t hesitate to comment, anyone, this is a debate after all. 

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Creationism, Culture, culture war, Current News, educational, Evolution, Faith, Intelligent Design, Islam, Philosophy, psalms, Religion, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , |

The Fifty-first Psalm in English Verse

Posted on June 28, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

Below is my rendition of Psalm 51 in English verse. The Psalms were originally written as poetry. I understand the need for accuracy in translations but I believe we lose so much when the aesthetic aspect of the verse is given such low priority. As always, comments, critiques, and charges of heresy are welcomed.

After your loving-kindness, Lord,
Have mercy upon me!
For your compassion great, blots out
All my iniquity.

Cleanse me from sin, and throughly wash
Off my depravity!
For my transgressions I confess;
My sin I ever see.

‘Gainst you, you alone, have I sinned,
In your sight done this ill;
That when you speak you may be just,
And clear in judging still.

Behold, I in iniquity
Was formed the womb within;
My mother conceived me also,
In guiltiness and sin.

With pure truth, you are delighted.
You see the hidden part.
And wisdom you shall cause me know,
Within my inner heart.

With perfume do, you sprinkle me,
I shall be cleansed so;
Yes, wash me please, and then I will
Be whiter than new snow!

Of merriment and joyfulness
Cause me to hear the voice;
So that these very bones which you
Have broken, might rejoice.

All my iniquities blot out,
Hide your face from my sin.
My Lord, a pure heart create, give
Me a right spirit within!

Cast me not from your sight, nor take
Your Holy Spirit away!
Restore me thy salvation’s joy;
May my spirit willing, stay.

Then will I teach your ways unto
Those that transgressions do;
And those that sinners are, will then
Turn their eyes unto you.

From guilt of shedding blood, free me,
Lord of my redemption!
Loosed at last; loud shall my tongue sing,
God, of your salvation!

My sealed lips, O Lord, by you
Let them be wide opened;
Then shall your praises by my mouth
Be broadly loud proclaimed.

For you desire not sacrifice,
Nor does burnt offering;
Supply you with good pleasure, were
It so, I’d bring these things.
(And bring them with good measure!)

A broken spirit is to God
The pleasing sacrifice:
A broken and repentant heart,
Lord, you will not despise.

Show favor, and do good, O Lord,
To Zion, your delight.
The walls of your Jerusalem
Build up as you see right.

Then, in just offerings you’ll please,
And offerings burnt, they
With whole bulls and young calves
Will on your alter lay.

Posted in Bible, Christianity, Entertainment, Literature, poetry, psalms | Tagged , , , , , , , |

Pseudo-Polite Conversation

Posted on June 20, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

“Never mention politics or religion, in polite conversation.”  It’s a common phrase and you heard it many times.  It is also one of the most destructive ideas of Western civilization.  Think about it for a minute, is there anything more important to discuss than politics and religion?  Religion, is what you believe, is, and politics, is what you believe should be.  Religion in this sense could also be a worldview, it could be a particular theory of metaphysics, or it could be one of the more traditional religions.  In any case, it deals with man’s relationship to God or lack there of and questions of ultimate truth and reality.  Politics deals with man’s relationships with each other.  I can think of nothing that could be more important to discuss, especially in polite conversation. 

The purpose of this proverb, (I’ll be referring to it as the pseudo-polite rule, and you’ll see why in a second) is to maintain a polite atmosphere.  The fear is that, if it’s discovered that two people in a conversation disagree with one another, then the conversation will quickly turn to bickering.  I contend that if the conversation would turn to bickering simply because there’s a disagreement, than it is not a polite conversation to begin with, only pseudo-polite.  The parties to a conversation like that never had any real respect for each other in the first place, they just didn’t have the opportunity to display their disrespect.  It is extremely foolish and immature to take the position that one can only be polite with those one agrees with.  Now, it is true that there are many foolish and immature people out there who can only be polite with those they agree with but these people are bigots, and creating a pseudo-polite environment, only enables them to continue in their bigotry.

Arguments are after all, cooperative, not competitive ventures.  The purpose of an argument is always to come to agreement.  Usually when arguing, you are seeking to convert your opponent to your point of view.  Sometimes you’re seeking compromise, but either way you’re seeking agreement.  Also, when venturing into an argument, you accept the risk that you could be the one converted.  In this way an argument is a cooperative venture.  Those who seek to “win an argument” were never in an argument in the first place, they were in a bickering match.

I don’t know when the pseudo-polite rule was invented, but I do know that through most of history, in most cultures, it was not the norm.  Perhaps it is because rhetoric is no longer taught in most schools and so people have a distorted view of argumentation and can no longer distinguish it from bickering, or perhaps it is this distorted view that led to rhetoric no longer being taught in school.  Whatever the cause, one need only look at the debates between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to see that arguing was not always equated with bickering and enmity.  These two men had extremely divergent views in both politics and religion, yet they had tremendous respect for one another and tremendous friendship. 

When the United States was in its infancy.  There was no Australian ballot.  The Australian ballot is how essentially all voting takes place in the Western world today.  It has become so common that there’s no longer any need to refer to it as the Australian ballot.  It’s simply the way voting is done.  You go into a booth and close the curtain fill out the ballot and place it in a box.  In this way, no one knows, if you voted Republican, Democrat, Whig, Socialist, or Libertarian.  We have become so concerned with the pseudo-polite rule that casting a ballot behind a shower curtain, has become a sacred right in most people’s minds.  When the US was in its infancy, ballots were cast by walking up to a table and picking up a red piece of paper or a blue piece of paper and placing it in the ballot box.  When voting, you may have turned and held up your ballot for everyone to see, you may even have had to do this on stage.  All your friends, family, and neighbors knew who you voted for and you better believe it got discussed.  This discussion is something that we have lost and I hope and pray that we can get it back.

I mentioned before that the pseudo-polite rule is one of the most destructive ideas of Western civilization, the reason for that is this.  The pseudo-polite role attempts to limit or shut down completely, argument and debate (among friends and family, at least).  Progress comes through dissent.  You can have no progress, if you have no disagreement.  If you only agree and you only speak about things you agree on then the status quo is the best you can hope for.  Progress only comes when someone says, “I think there is a better way to do this.”  That, is a disagreement. 

Furthermore, what is the point of conversation at all, if you’re only going to discuss things you agree on?  If you meet a friend for lunch and you both adhere to the pseudo-polite role, then you might as well just sit and smile at each other, because you’re not going to get anything done with conversation!  Conversation among friends like that (and they can’t really be friends if you can’t disagree) is nothing more than a mutual patting each other on the back fest!  A nation or a culture with out argument and debate is like a crab, it can only move sideways or backwards.  The nations with the most vibrant debating culture are sure to be the ones making the quickest and most rapid progress.  Get out of Pleasant Valley and stop being afraid of running into someone you might disagree with!

Posted in Culture, culture war, Education, educational, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Rhetoric, Trends | Tagged , , , , , |

What is the Mission in Iraq? Please Respond…

Posted on June 9, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

What is the mission of coalition troops in Iraq today?  This is a legitimate question that I would like responses to.  I’m not trying to prove a point, I’m just asking.  The removal of Saddam Hussein was a noble act and a just cause for going to war, even without WMD’s, ties to terrorism, or threats to his neighbors.  Hussein was a cruel dictator and the world is better with him gone.  I also understand the rationale behind staying to ensure fair democratic elections.  It is true that the Al Maliki government is not completely stable, but it is doubtful if it will ever be stable as long as coalition troops are there.  There is still violence in Iraq, but there can be no question that much of it is because of the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil.  The Bathists have for the most part been defeated.  Is it within the scope of the mission for the United States and Britain to prevent a civil war and Iraq?  It looks more and more like that is what they are doing.

Posted in Current News, Diplomacy, Iraq, Islam, Politics, War | Tagged , , , , , , |

Burqas for Finland!?

Posted on June 9, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

This is from, Jihad Watch who in turn got it from, Infidel Bloggers Alliance. I never thought of the Fins as the type to back down from a fight. I always had this idea that they were rugged individualists who prided themselves on their independence. Through 700 years of foreign occupation, they were able to maintain their cultural identity and their language. Twice, they refused to back down to the Soviets and once to the Nazis. Yet today, I read that they have bent to the will of the Islamists. I don’t know what kind of rights are recognized by the Finnish government, but I had assumed that they were basic enough to include freedom of speech. I thought that was a given in the Western world. If it was, then it’s not anymore. The Islamists have accomplished what both the Red Army and the SS failed to do.

Finland sentenced blogger, Seppo Lehto to two years and seven months in prison. His crime? Defamation, inciting ethnic hatred, and inciting religious hatred. Lehto posted a video on YouTube in which he draws a pig named Mohamed popping a squat on the Koran. There is little doubt that Lehto is vile and hateful and I am not defending him, but this got him two years and seven months in a country where the maximum sentence for murder is twelve years! It appears clear to me, that Finland is afraid of the Islamists and is slowing surrendering. When will we see burqas and religious police in Helsinki?

Here is a link to the movie, you can watch it if you want to, but it is offensive. However, what he says about Mohamed being a pedophile is true, if you believe having sex with a nine year old is pedophilia. Citation from al-Hadith. I would love to get responses, especially from Fins, most especially from Muslim Fins.

Posted in Culture, culture war, Current News, Diplomacy, educational, Ethics, Faith, Islam, Politics, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , |

Iraq Partitioning, Inevitable?

Posted on June 8, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

Iraq never should have been a country.  Its borders are lines drawn in the sand by colonial powers after World War I.  The various peoples have no historic ties to bind them together in neighborly love nor do they have political, religious, or ideological ties.  Saddam Hussein was able to keep the country nominally unified through extreme brutality.

It should be partitioned into at least three smaller countries.  This would allow the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds to govern themselves as they see fit.  The only reason that the country was not partitioned after the ouster of Hussein was that the United States did not want to be accused of nation making by Britain, France, Russia, China, and others.  Make no mistake, the world powers will for the most part jump at any opportunity to criticize the U.S. but that is still the course of action that should have been taken and is possibly what should still happen.

The difficulty now is that the United States claims to have given sovereignty to Baghdad.  Of course any sovereignty Baghdad has is at the pleasure of the US as the US gave it to them and props them up through blood and treasure but, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of Iraqi sovereignty for diplomatic reasons.

A lot has been made of the division of oil wealth and how that is an obstacle to partition.  Call me old fashioned, but Iraq does not share its oil revenue with its neighbors currently, does it?  Does Japan share the revenue it gets from exporting electronics with Korea?  No, of course not.  Why would it?  I see no reason why Sunni Iraq should be expected to share revenue with Shia Iraq or vice versa.  To me this is a non-issue and those that are making a big deal of it are naïve, communal hippies, or attempting to stop progress.

Certainly partitioning Iraq would be of benefit to the average Iraqi but they can hardly be expected to take kindly to a foreign power chopping up their country.  If the US and Britain (etc.) were to completely pull out of Iraq before completely beating all remnant of the various militant groups, then it is very likely that Iraq would divide along sectarian lines anyway.  It may be inevitable; Iraq does not want to be a country.  In the absence of a strong armed dictator or foreign military powers, Iraq may just dissolve.

Posted in Current News, Diplomacy, Iraq, Islam, Politics, War | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , |

John Locke, The Philosophers of LOST, Part 2

Posted on June 8, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

This is the second article in my series on the philosophers of the ABC hit series, LOST. As promised, it is on John Locke. As most of you already know, John Locke is the name of a character on LOST, who has a very complex past and personality. He has a different times been the ally of and, polar opposite of, both Jack Shepard and Benjamin Linus. In the last episode of the season, Locke became the leader of the Others. The Others, of course where the original enemies of the survivors of oceanic flight 315. At the end of the last episode, we find out that John Locke has made it to Los Angeles, under the name of Jeremy Bentham. (Jeremy Bentham was a philosopher, whom I profiled previously.) And finally we find out that John Locke a.k.a. Jeremy Bentham is dead.

So who was the real John Locke and how does he relate to the character? The real John Locke was an English philosopher who lived from 1632 to 1704. He was from a middle-class Puritan family and was educated at Oxford. He obtained a bachelor of medicine, which allowed him to practice as a medical doctor. While at Oxford, he made the acquaintance of Lord Anthony Cooper. If that name rings any bells it’s because Anthony Cooper is also the name of Locke’s father on LOST. Lord Cooper was a well-connected politician and rival to the king. He was at Oxford to seek treatment for liver problems. Locke and Cooper hit it off and became good friends, and Cooper eventually persuaded Locke to come live with him and be his private physician.

In his capacity as Lord Coopers physician Locke, persuaded him to undergo an operation to remove a cyst from his liver. Any sort of surgical operation was extremely dangerous in the 1600s. However, Lord Cooper survived the operation and credited Locke with saving his life. This is very similar to the way Locke saved Anthony Cooper’s life on LOST, by donating a kidney to him.

Lock did a lot of work in the field of epistemology that is, the study of what can be known and how it can be known. Locke is one of the fathers of the field of thought known as in empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that all knowledge comes from experience. This is in contrast to some who, especially in Locke’s day felt that all people were born with certain innate knowledge. Locke coined the term tabula rasa, or blank slate, for his theory that the mind of a baby was a blank slate with no innate knowledge.

Locke also worked in political philosophy. He opposed the divine right of kings to rule. This was very radical it in his day as essentially all nations were ruled by King’s. Locke said that governments exist in what he called, a social contract with the people. He said that the people had certain rights given to them by God. Government, to lock, was the people giving up a certain amount of their rights in order to be able to prosper in society. Locke believed that when the government failed to protect the rights of the people, then the people had the right and the responsibility to remove the government. If you think some of this sounds familiar. It’s probably because Locke had a great influence on the founding fathers of the United States and especially Thomas Jefferson.

These views did not make Locke very popular with the King. Eventually Locke, along with Lord Cooper, was implicated in a plot to assassinate the king. Locke was never put on trial for this, and little or no evidence was ever brought forth to show that he was part of the plot. But nonetheless, he was forced to flee England. He made his way to the Netherlands, and did not return to England until after the death of the king.

As mentioned earlier, Locke had a profound impact on the founding of the United States. His belief in the social contract, limited government, and private property have greatly influenced libertarian political philosophy, and the Libertarian party. He also had a lot of influence on a later philosopher by the name of David Hume. The producers of LOST named the character Desmond Hume after David Hume. The profile of David Hume is coming up, but next is Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Posted in Culture, educational, Entertainment, LOST, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , |

A New Low for the New York Times

Posted on June 8, 2008 by J. W. Kraft

I read the New York Times every day, and on the whole I find it to be a pretty good source of news.  Though the New York Times leans liberal as with most news agencies in the US, I do not buy into the right wing conspiracy theories that the New York Times exists as a propaganda wing of the DNC or anything like that.  However today there was an editorial that was so false and offensive, that I was compelled to respond.  The first thing that is offensive about it is that it was printed as an editorial, this means no one had to attach their name to it.  If you’re going to express your opinion, especially one so controversial, be vertebrate enough to attach your name to it. I have reprinted the article below in its entirety, it is of course copyright, the New York Times, 2008, and you can go to the original article by clicking on the title.  My responses are in italics.


The New York Times

 

June 7, 2008

Editorial

The Cons of Creationism

When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.

This first paragraph serves no purpose except to set up the enemies of the New York Times editorial board in a bad light by associating them with the name, creationist.  The New York Times has stooped the same level as drunk kids, who call the police, the Gestapo.  They are trying to generate negative sympathy by calling names.

The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.

Not only is this a lie, but it’s not a very good lie.  Any human who is not in a vegetative state, should be able to distinguish between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of one theory from teaching a totally different theory.  The New York Times has effectively said that, “teaching the advantages and disadvantages of freestyle swimming is the same thing as teaching the backstroke.” 

Any theory that is to be taught should be taught in its strengths and its weaknesses, to do otherwise would be to teach dogma, not science.  Education should be about teaching children how to think.  The New York Times seems to believe education is about teaching children to regurgitate facts given them by their betters.  In the pursuit of truth, all facts should be allowed to come to light.  If the New York Times is so confident in the theory of evolution than they certainly have nothing to fear from teaching its weaknesses.

It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.

Because there cannot possibly be weakness in dogma.

The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.

With this first statement, I completely agree.  The Genesis story is a story that must be taken on faith.  However, the New York Times is once again resorted to equating Darwinism’s weaknesses with creationism.  There is no reason whatsoever to reference any divine creator, when speaking of the weaknesses of a scientific theory. 

If evolution has evolved since the time of Darwin, then it must necessarily have had weaknesses.  If it had no weakness then it could not have evolved. 

Students will certainly be handicapped by not having the approved dogma drilled into their skulls.  After all, they are only deltas.  They are not capable of examining evidence without  the guidance of someone superior to themselves.  Instead, they will have a scientific theory that as the New York Times rightly points out is evolving, taught to them in its strengths and weaknesses.  Who knows what this could do to a Delta’s mind?  It is obviously in their own best interest of a shield them from this.

Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.


Ahhh, I get it now.  Evolution is exempt from examination.

If the weaknesses are antiquated and long since solved, then teach that.  It is not too difficult to do, “this is a purported weakness, and this is how it has been purported to be solved.”

This last sentence is the most offensive of the entire article.  The condescension and patronization is blatant and disgusting.  They believe that people of faith are too stupid to see that this is mockery in the clothing of a concession.  The New York Times has spent several paragraphs, demonstrating that they believe creationism to be a fantasy.  Then they have the gall to elaborate on where it should be taught!  No I’m sorry, it is never appropriate to teach fantasies as realities.

The origins debate rarely rises above the level of a playground brawl on either side, and that is a shame.  However, the New York Times has brought it to a new low.  In the past people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have argued that religious faith was nothing more than fantasy, but they had the decency to state the obvious, that fantasy should not be taught anywhere.  They also had the decency to write their names on the front of their books.
                                                                                                                                     J. W. Kraft

Posted in Christianity, Creationism, Culture, culture war, Current News, Education, Ethics, Evolution, Faith, Intelligent Design, Religion, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , |