Tuesday, December 18, 2012

One Way to Stop School Mass Murders

My friend Matt sends along the link to this CNN news report that explains how one school is protecting its children from the psychopaths among us.

Some people are calling for placing armed guards in every school, but I don't know that that's such a good idea. Why should a school district pay people to sit around in each school in the district doing essentially nothing every day of the school year when administrators with the proper training and ready access to a weapon can provide the same protection as part of their regular duties?

The school in the CNN report allows teachers as well as administrators to carry firearms, and while I'm not sure how I feel about that, given the numerous problems that could result from guns being stolen from teachers and so on, I do feel that armed personnel in the schools will put a speedy end, one way or another, to the horrific carnage that occurs when a maniac looks for helpless, defenseless victims.

The Humanist's Predicament

Philosopher William Lane Craig has a fine op-ed in the Washington Post, of all places, in which he succinctly explains the problem with naturalism, particularly the naturalist who is a humanist.

Indeed, part of his argument parallels almost exactly one of the major themes in my book (see link at upper right of this page). In fact, Craig even uses the same words that I use as my title. Do you think maybe he read In the Absence of God? Anyway, here's part of his column:
  • The theist maintains that objective moral values are grounded in God.
  • The humanist maintains that objective moral values are grounded in human beings.
  • The nihilist maintains that moral values are ungrounded and therefore ultimately subjective and illusory.
The humanist is thus engaged in a struggle on two fronts: on the one side against the theists and on the other side against the nihilists. This is important because it underlines the fact that humanism is not a default position.

That is to say, even if the theist were wrong, that would not mean that the humanist is right. For if God does not exist, maybe it is the nihilist who is right. The humanist needs to defeat both the theist and the nihilist. In particular, he must show that in the absence of God, nihilism would not be true.
In fact, the logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism. It's just that this is either unrecognized by most atheists or is too unpalatable for them to accept. Unwilling to admit that philosopher Richard Rorty was correct when he stated that "For the secular man there's no answer to the question,'Why not be cruel?'" and unwilling to accept the existence of a transcendent moral authority as the necessary ground of all moral obligation, they remain irrationally suspended in moral mid-air.

And then they claim that it's the theist who's not grounded in reason.

The rest of Craig's piece is very much worth reading.